Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/September 2007

Confederate government of Kentucky

Main page	Articles
Confederate government of Kentucky	George W. Johnson (Civil War) - Richard Hawes

The topic is the Confederate government of Kentucky, a shadow government set up by Confederate sympathizers in the state. George W. Johnson and Richard Hawes were the two governors in the shadow government, which operated from 1861 to 1865. The main article is featured, as is the article on Hawes. Johnson is a GA and is probably unlikely to ever be FA because he spent most of his life as a farmer and died at age 50, so comprehensiveness would be a problem. This topic is the result of a collaboration between myself and HiB2Bornot2B. We hope you will find it worthy of your support. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 23:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Cherry picking. Should at least include all the "members" of the government as given in Confederate government of Kentucky, two of which currently are article-less. I'm not even sure the topic can be subdivided clearly enough. Circeus 00:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see how it's any more cherry picking than not having characters like Zell Dincht or Quistis Trepe in the Final Fantasy VIII topic or not having Final Fantasy Tactics in the Final Fantasy titles topic. (I'm just using those because it's something I know about.) In all my research on the Confederate government, I've never seen anything said about the other officers beyond mentioning who they were. Apparently, none of them made any appreciable contribution to its operation (although records on the subject are rather sparse.) The point is, the governors are far and away the most important people related to this topic. Even if the other officers' articles were to be created and promoted, they would still shed very little additional light on the topic at hand. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
    • It's missing obvious members of that "government". That's criterion 1(d) "There is no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic." Circeus 15:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Hearkening back to my example of Final Fantasy VIII, playable characters like Zell and Quistis are just as "obvious" a gap as not having articles on the other officials in Kentucky's Confederate government. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - I believe the topic is worthy of FT. The articles included in the nomination are all well written, and comprehensive. The "other officials" in the government are simply not notable enough to warrant their own articles, as per the notability guidelines on Wikipedia, as it does not have "significant coverage in reliable sources." Additionally, according to Wikipedia's policy on the notability of people, "just being an elected local official does not guarantee notability", and therefore even official government officials may not be necessarily notable. The topics included for FT consideration have established notability according to guidelines, and these include the majority of information available on the actual topic itself. Therefore, the topic should be considered worthy of FT status. -- Steven Williamson (HiB2Bornot2B) - talk ▓▒░ Go Big Blue! ░▒▓ 16:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - If those are really the only notable members of the confederate government, and all other minor figures are included in the main article, this is a complete topic, is it not? How would a lack of comprehensiveness be proven? Judgesurreal777 20:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • This is one of the inherent problems with the comprehensiveness requirement. It is tough to prove that what you've said is all there is to say about something. FWIW, I'm in Kentucky where the most information on the topic should reside, and I have yet to find any information on the Confederate Secretary of State, Robert McKee, except for the fact that he was the Confederate Secretary of State and a passing reference to him as a member of the state guard. This leads me to believe that, as HiB2Bornot2B pointed out above, even if I were to start an article on him, it would be speedied for non-notability. I do believe you have arrived at the correct conclusion, that this is a complete topic. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to support it, and the Final Fantasy example is a very valid one, so I want to have it debated one way or another. Judgesurreal777 12:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding self-serving, I would encourage you to add your support "vote". There is strong precedent for changing your "vote" to "neutral" or "oppose" if the debate changes your mind. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 12:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Judgesurreal777 18:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - I'm on the fence with this one. The articles you have are good and meet the criteria with each other, but I have a hard time accepting that a government (even a shadow one) can be covered in just one article (plus two about people in the government). Could the elections held for the government each have their own articles? Could the structure of the government's legislature have its own article? I have a feeling that there are some big gaps in the coverage, but I don't know enough about the topic to be able to say exactly what they are. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As the lead says, the government was self-constituted. There were no elections to the sovereignty convention, and members of the state government were chosen by the delegates to that convention. I have provided what few details are available regarding the elections that were held for Kentucky's representatives to the Confederate Congress, but as the article states, the military vote outnumbered the citizen vote, and people were allowed to vote in whichever county that happened to be in on election day. That makes any meaningful analysis of the elections themselves impossible.

I have also provided all the information I have regarding the structure of the government. There was no judicial branch, the executive branch consisted of four (or five, if you believe that Simrall indeed served as lieutenant governor), and there was a legislative council of ten whose only apparent office was president. Per Harrison, the government kept meager records after 1862, which makes any elaboration on their day-to-day operations difficult.

Let me assure you, I've looked in all the resources available to me for more information about the government. (It's of particular interest to me because I live about an hour from Russellville and went to college in Bowling Green.) Please be aware that we're talking about a government that existed for less than five years, was exiled from its constituency for the greater majority of that time, kept very sparse records, and had very little influence on most of the population of the Commonwealth. Dr. Harrison seems to be the only scholar who has even attempted to document their activity in any detail. I hope you will reconsider and support the nomination. I understand your concerns, and if you aren't able to support the nomination, I'll understand that too. Thanks for your comments. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 22:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've withdrawn my objection; this seems like enough information for a FT, though if more articles were written later they would be welcome additions to it. I'll see if this has any more comments over the next day or two and then I'll close the nomination. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• This has been here for long enough. The two support votes seem to have delt with the consern of the one object vote. I'm going to assume the nominator supports it and I'll add my support to make it four. Pass --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Song Dynasty

Main page	Articles
Song Dynasty	Architecture - Culture - Economy - History - Society - Technology

I haven't made any edits to any of these articles, but as per Template:Song Dynasty topics, it looks like this could be a featured topic, and one of the most important ones, should it pass. Apologies if I have messed something up. Much congratulations to PericlesofAthens for all of his work on this topic. HansHermans 22:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I put a lot of effort and time into all seven articles.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support The only article one could argue for inclusion is List of Song Emperors, but I don't think it is absolutely necessary for the topic to pass. Circeus 00:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - A well-rounded topic. --PresN 04:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support. GAH! You beat me to it! --Hemlock Martinis 17:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Would be a great FT. DSachan 03:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for all the support! It is a very intriguing era of Chinese history.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support Two FAs and the rest GAs. Clearly defined topic with no obvious gaps. I would like to see List of Song Emperors brought to FL and added to the topic, though. Jay32183 23:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to bring that up to featured list, but really, there's not much I can do to spice it up besides adding pictures of the emperors' portrait paintings from the Song era. Do you have any suggestions besides that? If so, I'd love to improve it, but I'm not sure how to go about doing that besides adding their painted portraits.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources would be a big help. It doesn't have to be fancy, it can be simple and still be featured. Jay32183 18:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Only one problem, though. The books I own on Chinese history, even a couple specifically about the Song Dynasty, unfortunately do not cover the naming conventions of Song rulers. I'd need to find a credible scholarly source to back the information up first, and I don't know how long something like that will take. I will look at journal articles found at JSTOR for the moment, but I have a feeling they are not going to be of much help, since I believe I've looked at most available JSTOR journal articles that focus on Song Dynasty topics.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no rush. It doesn't fall into the "obvious gap" problem so it won't hurt FT status. FLs take time. Jay32183 04:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support - Pericles of Athens has worked so hard on these articles. They fulfill all of the FT criteria.--Danaman5 20:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment [Tumbleweed rolls by, old shutters flap in the wind, silence, ghost town] Thanks Danaman, but it's been pretty darn quiet over yonder in the featured topics candidate page. What in high hootin tarnation is going on here? Lol. :P No responses in the last five days. Unacceptable! Hah--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Question for nominator - I agree with Circeus; the List of Song Emperors should be a part of this. Would the nominator be willing to get that list to FL status and add it to the topic before we promote this? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:48, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to, I just don't have any sources, nor can I locate any sources that cover the full naming conventions of Song rulers. I've looked through JSTOR and other databases, and I cannot find them. My university library isn't helpful either, in terms of covering biographies of Song rulers or even listing all of their naming conventions (many authors covering the Song period probably thought that was too tedious). There's a lot of stuff on that list that needs citations and sources, and I'm afraid I can't do anything about it. Maybe someone else can. I created the article, but I did not create any of the material in it; it was once part of the main Song Dynasty article, located previously at the bottom of the page before I took it out and gave the list its own separate article. Maybe I can track down the wiki member who first created the material and ask him how he found those naming conventions.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have located the wiki member who created the list in the first place, User:Ktsquare, and I have left a message on his talk page asking for help with the list article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(de-indent) Pericles, would the information located here be of any use?--Danaman5 22:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Danaman. This site is good in order to distinguish what some posthumous and other titles mean, translated into English. Unfortunately, it does not help us in determining or verifying which specific names belonged to each Song ruler, because it does not provide any sort of list for Song rulers and their exact naming conventions.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have not heard from Ktsquare in the past 4 days since I left a message on his talk page. Looking at his contributions, he comes onto wikipedia sporadically, and I don't know how much help he will be, despite the fact that he is the original creator of all the information in the List of Song Emperors article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Still no word from Ktsquare.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Promote - I don't think that the absence of the list of emperors will change many support votes, so I'll promote this and put a notice about the future inclusion of the list on the topic's talk page. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Cross

Main page	Articles
Victoria Cross	Victoria Cross for Australia - Victoria Cross (Canada) - Victoria Cross for New Zealand

• Victoria Cross
• Victoria Cross for New Zealand
• Victoria Cross for Australia
• Victoria Cross (Canada)

Two articles are FA. 2 are Good Articles. As they are short and at the moment some images cannot be free use due to no medals existing, I think it is ready to become a Featured Topic. Woodym555 16:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)(amended Woodym555 11:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC))

Comment Are there any specific reasons that the Australia and New Zealand articles are called Victoria Cross FOR XX while the Canada article is called Victoria Cross (CANADA)? It seems a bit odd. --Peter Andersen 21:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally found it odd and a discussion was held on Xdamr's talk page about proper naming conventions. Sources seem to differ. Unless the official warrant can be found or someone wins the award then the name will not become clear. At the moment his book is the best source that we have although the NZ press release would seem to contradict it. Woodym555 23:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. There should be at least two FAs per "several articles are of featured class" in WP:FT?.--Pharos 05:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Question "Items that cannot achieve a high rating due to their limited subject matter have passed an individual audit for quality." Does GA qualify or should these be put up for A class review with the Milhist project. If so i will withdraw the nomination until these are complete. Woodym555 12:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The idea behind "items that cannot achieve a high rating due to their limited subject matter" is generally a pretty strict one. So far the only one we've agreed to is List of Nunavut general elections, which is limited on a very fundamental level because there have only been two elections since that territory was created. The articles you're talking about don't seem to be comparable.

But that's a totally different issue. That's only for articles that can't achieve GA or FA, and your non-FA articles are already all GA, so you're good on that point. But you really should have at least two FAs in total (see above), so I would suggest toward improving your most developed GA article further, possibly with the help of your WikiProject.--Pharos 02:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

can i Withdraw this or put it on hold until i go through the FA process with a couple of the articles, thanks. Woodym555 12:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Debate ON HOLD pending FA debates. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - After a month and a half, it passed! Hurray! Judgesurreal777 22:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I know i am the original nominator, and i have been waiting quite a long time, but you might want to hold on until the Good article review of Victoria Cross (Canada) has been closed. That should be anytime now as no-one objects but still. I want everything to go through properly!! Woodym555 23:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Nom is back on. The GA review has just been closed and Victoria Cross (canada) is now a GA.

Support, all requirements now met. --PresN 16:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

• All major objections soom to have been addressed. As far as I can tell it meets requirements, and has been here more than long enough, so I will give it its fourth support and promote it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Victoria Cross/addition1

Lists of current World Wrestling Entertainment champions

Main page	Articles
List of current champions in WWE	List of WWE Champions - List of WWE Intercontinental Champions - List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions - List of WWE Women's Champions - List of WWE Tag Team Champions - List of WWE United States Champions - List of World Heavyweight Champions (WWE) - List of World Tag Team Champions (WWE) - List of ECW Champions

All are featured lists, heavily sourced and including pictures. This topic is a great way to combine many excellent lists covering all active WWE Championships. Anthony Hit me up... 16:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hidden discussion about lack of a main article

Unfortunately, you need a lead article, not category, to have a featured article. The only featured topic with a category instead of lead article, star wars, has until January to get their lead article to GA status or it will be defeatured, so that is the new standard. Judgesurreal777 02:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

An idea might be a "list of current WWE champions", since all of those are technically WWE titles. Circeus 16:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

YDone - Created page using information from featured lists; granted it's another page that will have to be updated daily, but if that's what it takes to make this featured topic, so be it. On a side note, I saw the ECW Championship list is the only list of a singles title without nation flags... why? Just curious. Anthony Hit me up... 17:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice, once that gets to be a featured list, you'll have yourself a featured topic! Just let us know when it is, and I'll support it. Judgesurreal777 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In that case, is it possible for this nomination to be placed on hold until List of current champions in WWE is featured? I would hate to have to go through all this trouble only to have it fail while another list is pending, and re-nominate once it reaches featured status. Otherwise I wouldn't have gone forward with the nom. Please advise. Anthony Hit me up... 19:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it seems most people are as of yet unfamiliar with all of the featured topic criteria, as was I, and there is no rush... Judgesurreal777 04:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Update/reindent: I have submitted List of current champions in WWE as a featured list candidate. Please look at it and vote on it; its survival as a candidate will determine whether this topic goes up in smoke. Anthony Hit me up... 19:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment – The topic title suggests a broader scope than the articles included. Is there a topic title that makes it clear that the topic is limited to these lists? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion for the title was "Active WWE championship histories" -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• OK, so it looks as though List of current champions in WWE will make FL status (as of right now, where it has sufficient support & no major objections). Operating under that assumption, what is the consensus for a title of the topic? I put World Wrestling Entertainment Championships because I wasn't sure of a more suitable alternative. "Active WWE championship histories", although accurate, doesn't seem right, and I can't seem to think of something better. Does anyone have a suggestion? Anthony Hit me up... 17:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Lists of WWE champions", duh? Circeus 01:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
    • That wouldn't work, because only active title histories are used, and there are several other title history pages for inactive titles. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
      • Is there anything wrong with "Lists of current WWE champions"? Since you named the lead article specifically to cover the topic, it makes sense to me that the topic itself could have the same name. --PresN 06:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
        • That sounds like a good idea; it's accurate and explains what the topic is about. I'm not sure whether to move the page to "Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Lists of current World Wrestling Entertainment champions", though, because I don't know if it will interfere with the process. Can someone with a little more featured topic experience help me out here? Anthony Hit me up... 16:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
          • I went ahead and renamed it, I don't think that you need to move the subpage as long as the FT gets put at the right page whenever it gets passed. --PresN 04:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Update List of current champions in WWE, the main article, is now an FL. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support -Great to see a featured list created out of the need for a topic article. Nice job! Judgesurreal777 05:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support if a good topic title can be found. Circeus 16:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support nom and "Lists of current World Wrestling Entertainment champions". --MarcK 21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support as "Lists of current World Wrestling Entertainment champions". --PresN 04:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support and I like the name "List of current World Wrestling Entertainment champions" MPJ-DK 06:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support, enthusiastically. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 11:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Lists of World Wrestling Entertainment champions/addition1