Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Addition log/September 2009
The Legend of Zelda titles (1st supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/The Legend of Zelda titles for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
Note that this also removes previous article in the topic The Legend of Zelda
14 articles
Renominating this per this discussion. Gary King (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Always nice to see another one of your productions, Gary. That said, I'm curious as to where the Zelda books fit into this ... IIRC, there were some graphic novels and even some plain novels written in the storyline and sanctioned by the games' producers. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment/Support - per the discussion, I assume you meant this to be a supplementary nomination? After all, the existing topic hasn't been demoted or anything! Anyway, to explain what this nom is about... the current lead article from this topic, The Legend of Zelda, has been demoted from GA, but Gary and I think that the recently FLed List of The Legend of Zelda media would be a better lead, because this is similar to how band topics use discography articles as the lead for albums topics, etc, etc. The topic will not cover the Zelda books and so on, as it didn't before, but the scope-narrowing to focus on just titles is precedented, again with the discography analogy. Also unrelatedly this topic should be expanded to add the PRed The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks, a game not yet released - rst20xx (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support igordebraga ≠ 18:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support The list is a better lead article for this type of topic, and scope reduction to just titles is fine.YobMod 15:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support - Though at some point, it should be fleshed out in the guidelines if both such articles, like the main Zelda article and the list of zelda titles must be included. I think we should probably soon move to require both to be present. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Millennium Park (1st supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Millennium Park for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
14 articles
This is a Good topic in need of an expansion discussion. Currently, all permanent features of the park are included. Below is a major temporary feature and a neighboring feature.
- Pavilion projects- I would like a formal ruling on a temporary structure housed at Millennium Park. All permanent structures are part of the topic. I feel that this article may need to be a part of the topic. It was created on 2009-06-25. It is anticipated that the projects will be completed on 2009-08-01. However, it may be inappropriate to include temporary exhibits given that Boeing Galleries and other locations in the park have regular exhibitions and this project is not much different in some senses. In fact, Boeing Galleries hosts temporary exhibits lasting 1.5 years which may be longer than these structures are exhibited in the park. I am willing to do the legwork to improve this to WP:GA. I need to know what the expectations are. My main concern is WP:WIAGT 1b. since I believe the topical scope may be permanent features of Millennium Park.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Nichols Bridgeway- I feel that it would be inappropriate to include this in the topic although it physically extends into the park from across the street. This bridge construction began on September 20, 2007 and it officially opened on May 16, 2009. The article has existed since 07:17, 15 May 2008, which is before this topic was first promoted on 10:43, 9 October 2008. The bridgeway is not officially recognized by the city as one of the features of the park. Furthermore, it is officially considered part of Art Institute of Chicago according to their website. Again my concern is WP:WIAGT 1b. since I believe the topical scope may be permanent features of Millennium Park and this is not a feature of the park.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Below is a more expansive template about the park
| Features and attractions |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Surrounding streets | ||
| Influences | ||
| Related | ||
- Comment - hmmm generally people start supplementary nominations to say they want to add something or take something away :P but I can see that this will be a useful way to receive detailed feedback. My opinion is that I think you should probably include the Pavilion projects article as, while only for a while, it is certainly an attraction of the park, though I do not feel strongly about it and if it is not included that would be fine. Equally if you decide to add Nichols Bridgeway I would be happy because it makes the topic more comprehensive but I do agree with your arguments that in essence this structure is just something that juts into the park but is otherwise uninvolved with it - rst20xx (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes this is unusual, but I don't want to suddenly be told I have two weeks to gets something to GA or something like that and the FT questions' original response seemed to think that these may fall in the topic. Thus, I am just asking for a formal ruling. I interpret your response as officially neutral unless you say otherwise. I just want to clarify the scope of the topic. I feel the scope is permanent features and attractions. There is talk that after their temporary run, they may be permanently located in the park. I feel that until that happens they are not properly part of the topic no more than any exhibition at Boeing Galleries is part of the topic. I look forward to feedback from others.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- OK, erm, to be clear, I don't have any "official" opinion around here on what does and does not need including in what topic. I promote the topics (and maybe take a harder line than most on my !votes) but my opinion is just like any other. I do maintain the retention period list but firstly the majority of that is essentially routine uncontroversial stuff such as new videogames in the Guitar Hero topic or some GA gets delisted or something, and secondly I try and notify people ASAP about retentions just so everyone's on the same page, and so the two week scenario is unrealistic because that would obviously be unfair (though equally as you are doing it would be a good idea to announce round here somewhere that this new article has been created just to avoid any potential confusion). Anyway, with regards to topic scope I would think that a topic called Millennium Park should aim to comprehensively cover the park but I do accept that temporary structures are less notable to the park than permanent ones and so that is why I, personally, vote "neutral", yes -rst20xx (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes this is unusual, but I don't want to suddenly be told I have two weeks to gets something to GA or something like that and the FT questions' original response seemed to think that these may fall in the topic. Thus, I am just asking for a formal ruling. I interpret your response as officially neutral unless you say otherwise. I just want to clarify the scope of the topic. I feel the scope is permanent features and attractions. There is talk that after their temporary run, they may be permanently located in the park. I feel that until that happens they are not properly part of the topic no more than any exhibition at Boeing Galleries is part of the topic. I look forward to feedback from others.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - I imagine that Tony wanted more feedback than just mine! rst20xx (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Opinion - I don't think you need to include either the bridge or the temporary structures. --PresN 14:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
- Opinion — I'd agree with PresN here. If I were voting on a topic, I wouldn't ding you for not having those two items. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- comment I agree with the above persons about the bridge, it is no more needed than the roads that get people into the park. But i think if the sculptures are notable enough to warrant an article, then they are notable enough to the park to be in the topic. If we are saying theirtransient and local notability makes them not notable to the park, then how do they meet the higher standard of being notable in general? So i would say include the park (or merge somewhere).YobMod 07:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
- Comment - Tony I see that you've now nominated Pavilion projects for GA. Would it be worth hiding this FT nomination and then bringing it back out once the article has passed? rst20xx (talk) 14:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think whether the article passes is really relevant. The issue is about whether temporary structures that will be disassembled and/or sent to other cities belong in the topic. The issue is not whether a quality article can be written about the subject. I am more than capable of bringing the Bridgeway to GA-class, but I do not believe potential for the articles is the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Oh right, so in that case, questions about whether the article "needs" to be included are a bit irrelevant, and you more want to know whether people think that, if it were a GA, it would be good to include it or not. Well I think the consensus here is saying yes. Yobmod said yes. I say yes, nowhere in the topic's name "Millennium Park" does it mention anything about permanent structures only - rst20xx (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Consensus yes???? I see JKBrooks85, PresN, and TonyTheTiger against, while Yobmod and Rst20xx are for. In other words, I see 3 against and 2 for. Where is consensus?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, what? You initially seemed to be asking whether people thought you need to include temporary structures, not whether they'd prefer you to include them or not. Myself, PresN and JKBrooks85 all came back saying we didn't think you need to include them. Only Yobmod said you need to include the Pavilion projects article. In terms of preference, which is what I'm talking about now, it seems to me that consensus is that it is included (and I can't see why it wouldn't be, certainly it is related to the topic so adding it will mean the topic is more comprehensively covered). However to ultimately clear this up, I'll ask PresN and JKBrooks85 to give a bit more feedback - rst20xx (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify my opinion- the Pavilion projects article doesn't need to be included, but it certainly can be if you want. It would be nice to see it in there, if it's a GA, and I certainly wouldn't oppose its addition. The bridgeway I don't think should be in the topic, as it's not 'part of' the park in my opinion, but I don't feel strongly enough to oppose if you attempted to add it. --PresN 19:14, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't have any problems including the temporary structures one. The bridgeway one might be another matter ... when I think of a park, I don't typically think of roads. I could be convinced otherwise, though. JKBrooks85 (talk) 19:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think whether the article passes is really relevant. The issue is about whether temporary structures that will be disassembled and/or sent to other cities belong in the topic. The issue is not whether a quality article can be written about the subject. I am more than capable of bringing the Bridgeway to GA-class, but I do not believe potential for the articles is the issue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
- Pavilion projects has passed at WP:GA, but I am not convinced a temporary exhibit should be a part of the WP:GT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to add Pavilion projects - my reading on this is that myself, Yobmod and PresN would prefer to see the Pavilion projects article included in the topic, JKBrooks85 seems somewhat neutral whilst TonyTheTiger is opposed. If this was a regular nomination, that would be sufficient consensus to promote, and I don't see why this should be treated any differently. Sorry Tony. And sorry it took so long - rst20xx (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)