Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/January 2009

Texas A&M University

This topic has a significant quantity of FAs and, together should be considered as a Featured Topic. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Texas A&M University

6 articles

History of Texas A&M University

Fightin' Texas Aggie Band

Aggie Bonfire

Lawrence Sullivan Ross

Traditions of Texas A&M University

Major contributors: BQZip01, Oldag07, Karanacs, & BlueAg09.

Support Clearly meets the criteria and has comprehensively addressed topics I never imagined could be more than an orphaned stub. Consistently exemplary work all around. If only we could bribe these editors away to work on other UNI articles! Madcoverboy (talk) 05:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll be happy to help should anyone request it...as long as it isn't that overglorified junior college in Austin :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

• What about Elephant Walk (Texas A&M)? –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - there seems to be some serious cherrypicking here. What about Campus of Texas A&M University, Texas A&M University at Galveston and Texas A&M University at Qatar? Texas A&M Aggies heads up sport, but is not included, unlike bizarrely Fightin' Texas Aggie Band. What about List of Texas Aggie terms, List of Texas A&M University people and List of Texas A&M University presidents? I think you should also include all the articles in the academics and student life sections of {{Texas A&M University}} (athletics, traditions and campus articles can be subtopics) - rst20xx (talk) 17:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• What about all of the other articles under the Texas A&M navibox? I think it's great that the Aggies have so many FAs under their topics, but you can't just say ... oOo we're just picking these five... don't worry no one will click the rest... right? Let me know if I'm wrong... - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 17:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Resp to the two above: No one is cherrypicking, but there are literally hundreds of articles under which you could discuss Texas A&M-related material. To include them all at an in-depth level would be a disservice to the University as most are "nice to know" information, but not essential to understanding the University as a whole. I could go into many other FTs and say that there are other articles under which those topics should be addressed (As an example, the 1998 Pacific Hurricane Season seems to be missing articles on the vast majority of its hurricanes while hurricane, an FA, is absent too. I would assume that is because they are already covered in the main article. The rest are expansions on the information in the main article...much like Texas A&M). To address each point individually:

• Campus of Texas A&M University - Discussed in the main section already.
• Texas A&M University at Galveston/Texas A&M University at Qatar? - Relatively minor campuses already discussed in the main article with less than 2000 additional students (realize A&M has near 50,000).
• Texas A&M Aggies - Already discussed in the main article
• List of Texas Aggie terms - Peripheral list that is interesting, but not essential to understanding the University (an FAL candidate)
• List of Texas A&M University people - The high points are already covered in the main article
• List of Texas A&M University presidents - already covered in depth within the history of the school
• Elephant Walk (Texas A&M) is a single tradition amongst hundreds or even thousands at Texas A&M. While it is a fun event, it doesn't define the university. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok... once again I understand where you're coming from, but this isn't an FA process, but FT - a string of topics. Yes the main Texas A&M article talks about the campus, but in two paragraphs. I've read some of the other FTs before and they had a lot more to offer when it comes to the list of topics covered. Now, I'm not arguing that that you're wrong, just that it's still lacking supporting "sister-articles" to make it a decent FT. I'm going to hold by !vote so that it's fair and someone can explain this a little better. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 19:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

So, is the campus the primary sticking point with you? There are hundreds of nondescript buildings on campus. The work done inside them is notable. Most that aren't mentioned aren't particularly notable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 19:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you've misunderstood how very comprehensive existing topics are. Take your example of the hurricane season topics. No, they don't include articles on every single hurricane in the season, and they don't include Hurricane. But they DO include articles on every single hurricane in the season that is considered NOTABLE ENOUGH to have an article exist on it at all. And as for their not including Hurricane - topics don't include articles on things more notable than their main article, so for example, notice that I didn't call for you to include the article University, or even Texas A&M University System, the direct parent article to Texas A&M University.

The way topics are built is to start with a main article, and then add its subarticles, until a certain level of coverage deemed appropriate is met. I do not feel that the topic you have nominated above comes close to meeting this level of coverage. Many of the articles I mentioned, you said shouldn't be included because they are discussed in the main article, but this logic is backwards - their mentioning in the main article simply points to the importance of those articles to the topic, and the resultant fact that they are more important to include than articles that AREN'T mentioned!

How do you think that Texas A&M Aggies is not notable enough to be included, but Fightin' Texas Aggie Band is?!? That seems to me to be a classic example of cherrypicking, and I'm sorry to say that I feel it is one of many examples of cherrypicking to be found throughout this topic.

I am not suggesting by any means that you needed to include every single article to do with Texas A&M to get this topic promoted, but I think you should include the ones I named above, as they seem to me to be the direct subarticles to the main article. And this was a large number of articles, but this is a very large topic you are trying to take on. It is a fact that some topics are harder to get featured than others, and this may not seem fair, but if you think about it, the same is true for articles - some are harder to get featured than others there, too. If you try to take on a very large topic such as this, it will be very hard to get featured, but if you manage it, the results will be infinitely more impressive - rst20xx (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess we disagree. My point is that "...they DO include articles on every [subject] that is considered NOTABLE ENOUGH to have an article exist on it at all." is not a criteria. I'm sure that every hurricane could at least have a stub article but no one has bothered to create them. Merely existing as an article doesn't mean it is essential to the topic. I'll concede the point that the athletics could be added, but again, I don't feel it is essential to the topic (an educational entity).

I added Fightin' Texas Aggie Band and Aggie Bonfire because they both fall under the umbrella. We could always remove them from the topic, but that doesn't really serve a decent purpose. If some random subtopic of one of the FTs gets FA, should we de-list the Topic because not all the other potential subtopics aren't FA or GA?

While I and others have gone into great length to have places to put such information, I don't feel those articles are necessarily within the realm of NEEDING to be included in the topic. If you want to get down to it, I'm sure we could mention many other articles that COULD be included within other FTs.

As I said before, the campus article isn't necessary and most of the information is already contained in the main article and the history. Galveston and Qatar are relatively minor sub-entities of the University. Athletics is already discussed in the main article to the extent necessary for a University. The remaining lists are already covered in the main article or other FAs and are merely different formats of the same information.

In short, I guess we agree to disagree. Best of luck to you in the future and a Happy New Year! — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. I'm sorry, but this topic fails criterion 1(d) which clearly says "There is no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together." You don't even have the school's main athletics article Texas A&M Aggies included in the topic. If you don't see that as a huge gap in the topic then none of the other examples I could give will do any good. And saying that "it's covered in the main article so we don't need to include the article in the topic" isn't a valid argument. We've never allowed that to be a valid argument in any topic nomination (that I am aware of). Rreagan007 (talk) 03:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - Look, I didn't try to just stare at the request, looked a little bit and then !vote+abandon topic. I gave some honest time looking at what the defense has to comment, and I'm sorry but I'm still not convinced. Until the issues addressed very above are fixed, I cannot support a FT candidate that very blatantly cherry-picked topics to nominate for FT with obvious coverage gaps. Send me a message on my talk page when this fact changes. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 09:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per cherry picking. Sorry, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:31, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose This is a hard one for me to have to oppose, but being a FT regular I see no other option. My opinion on the suggested added articles are as follows:
• Campus of Texas A&M University - Is needed for the topic to really be complete.
• Texas A&M University at Galveston/Texas A&M University at Qatar? - These are not important to main idea of the university.
• Texas A&M Aggies - I could argue that this is unimportant in a place of education or is covered in traditions, but that would be lying. This needs to be in the topic.
• List of Texas Aggie terms - this list is not important to the topic sub-of traditions.
• List of Texas A&M University people - What does this have to do with the university? It is a grouping of notable people, not a subarticle of the university.
• List of Texas A&M University presidents - Sub of history, not needed.
• Elephant Walk (Texas A&M) sub of traditions.

Zginder 2009-01-05T15:29Z (UTC)

• Oppose on comprehensiveness grounds. An appropriate grouping would include, at minimum, Texas A&M University, History of Texas A&M University, Campus of Texas A&M University, Traditions of Texas A&M University, andTexas A&M Aggies. Only three of the five are at FA/GA status. I think that Traditions could then be a topic on its own, including Aggie Bonfire, Fightin' Texas Aggie Band, and some others. I think this needs to be brought back to the wikiproject and another improvement drive started :) Karanacs (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Since i am a major editor of this topic, I guess i have waited to make this comment on this page in respect for my fellow editors. But since Karanacs spoke, i guess now is a good time for me to speak. I tried to lead a WP:TAMU effort over a year ago. This was the plan was detailed on this pageWikipedia talk:WikiProject Texas A&M/FTopic. That being said, it was good to get feedback from all of y'all. This will be good motivation for all of us WP:TAMU in the future. That being said, I am still bogged down in the "real world" and on the Texas article, with is getting inching along painfully, to get much done elsewhere. Thanks for all your help. Gig em Oldag07 (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - per missing pages that could be included in this topic: incomplete topic.--Truco 23:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies history

Philadelphia Phillies history, Lists about

3 articles

Seasons

Managers

Team records

I am nominating this for featured topic because I have worked hard to get several of these lists up to featured status, and I believe that the most important lists for the topic have been completed. There are several lists of lesser importance (i.e., List of Philadelphia Phillies broadcasters, Philadelphia Baseball Wall of Fame, etc.) that will be in my focus as this topic grows. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no lead article. History of the Philadelphia Phillies is probably your best bet, but it's at Start-class right now. Gary King (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose per Gary. I think the grouping of these three articles under the scope "history" is slightly arbitrary, too - rst20xx (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. No lead article or well-defined scope. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Per the concerns above, I am withdrawing this nomination until I can locate and improve a better lead article. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nomination withdrawn - rst20xx (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Metallica

Metallica

4 articles

Discography

Awards and nominations

Members

Major contributors: M3tal H3ad, Anger22, Burningclean, Gary king, and me.

"The Unforgiven(s)". Nergaal (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

• Minor Support - it's valid but... last time a similar FTC appeared, it failed. (I know at least two articles will be considered gaps by people ahead). igordebraga ≠ 00:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• I also Marginally Support because of those two articles, however, IMO they can be merged into the above articles in the FTC.--SRX 03:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - while I supported the aforementioned Nine Inch Nails FTC, I do not support this one, as I feel it is missing two articles I would like to see in an overview topic on this subject - the two that igordebraga mentioned! I think that:

1. The demos detailed in Metallica demos should be either covered in Metallica discography with some kind of "Demos" section (so then it'd be a subarticle of that one), or Metallica demos should be included in the topic. The first option would be very easy, and probably the better course of action too
2. List of Metallica concert tours should be included

I would not support any article merging for this FTC, as I think the two articles cover substantial enough topics to merit standing on their own - rst20xx (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Why are demos relevant enough to be included in the topic??? The demos were such a small part that they did not EVEN get a place in the extended discography article! Nergaal (talk) 03:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The demos article is one within the scope of the topic that is not currently covered adequately by this main topic or any potential subtopic. If it's not going to be included in this topic, it should be included in the discography subtopic, and that's reflected in what I said - rst20xx (talk) 14:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose as too selective per rst20xx. –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
• Close with no consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Washington Park, Chicago

Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood)

3 articles

Washington Park (Chicago park)

Washington Park Race Track

The debate about things that might be considered a part of this topic probably starts at Washington Park, Chicago. It may also include DuSable Museum and White City Amusement Park. Other possible debate would consider whether Washington Park Subdivision should be included with a check designating a failed GA that was failed for lack of breadth of topic. I don't think the amusement park or the museum belong in the topic because then we would have to consider each important structure such as Chicago Landmarks or National Register of Historic Places properties in a region to get a promoted topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Sorry, but that isn't why Washington Park Subdivision failed at GA. It failed because it was badly sourced and would fail for the same reasons today. I see nothing in the nomination or the article that suggests the article cannot make GA and without it I don't think this GA nomination is complete.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply In order for me to understand what is necessary to take this topic to GA, is that the only article that needs to be raised to GA. Does Washington Park Court District is just north of Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood) and is basically just as close to the community area as Washington Park Race Track and Washington Park Subdivision are to the south. What is necessary to get a GTC?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
  • P.S. I am not so sure badly source is an accurate summary of the review which said "The article has only a few sources and needs further expansion to reach GA." There are not that many sources for this article. I will see what we can find.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose - I addition to the above, the topic needs a lead article (criterion 2). Zginder 2008-12-31T23:40Z (UTC)
  • Does Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood) fail the lead article criterion?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• FYI I just nominated Washington Park Subdivision at GAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• FYI I just added a paragraph to the lead article that includes the potentially related neighborhoods.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I am unsure Tony as to what exactly you want this topic to be on. Do you want it to be on the Washington Park community area? This seems to be the most fitting circumstance, if Washington Park, Chicago (neighborhood) is to be the lead article, and if this is the case, I would say that you would certainly need to include in the topic all the articles on things in the community area (so Washington Park (Chicago park), DuSable Museum of African American History, and any other things in the area with articles), and then could optionally add articles on the things not in the area, but next to it, and with the same name for historic reasons (so that'd be Washington Park Race Track, Washington Park Court District and Washington Park Subdivision) - but if you include any of these three, you need to include all of them. White City Amusement Park is getting a little more tenuous, as it is in Washington Park Subdivision, but not the community area, but it can certainly be included I think if you get it up to scratch. Anyway, I think that DuSable Museum of African American History most certainly needs adding, and if the Race Course remains, then the Court District and Subdivision need adding too. And yes, I think you do need to include Chicago Landmarks and National Register of Historic Places properties in a region to get a promoted topic on that region, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 17:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Reply I am not so sure I think I need to include all things nearby. It seems to me that the race track and subsdivision are immediately adjacent to the boundary of the neighborhood, but the landmark court district is a block away. If I include anything not adjacent to the Park how close is close. 1 block, 2 blocks, 1 km, 1 mile? Maybe I just include adjacent things.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I do not think we should set a precedent that all NRHP propreties should be required for a neighborhood FT or GT. See List_of_Registered_Historic_Places_in_Chicago. Although Washington Park only has two properties on the NRHP (the park and Schulze Baking Company Plant), Near South Side would include 19 NRHPs plus any Chicago Landmarks not included on the NRHP. A few community areas have even more properties.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

      OK, well, firstly, with regards to the adjacent stuff... I think that including one thing outside the neighbourhood, but not another thing that is one block further outside, is somewhat arbitrary. Think about it: the reason you're thinking of including the race track and subdivision is not because they're bordering the neighbourhood, but because, historically, they're tied to the neighbourhood, as reflected in the name. And this also holds true with the court district.

      But you could just get round this extra-work dilemma and exclude all three articles.

      Secondly, with regards to the NHRPs/CLs - will they all be notable enough to merit their own articles? I am sorry, but I think they should be included, because it is these places/landmarks that really make the neighbourhoods what they are. I appreciate that if it is decided that you do have to include them, it would significantly slow down the rate at which you could create new topics, but on the other hand, the topics that result would be of a much higher quality. Also, in a sense, they provide a nice guideline for what articles you need to get into the topics, and will solve many possible problems with what would constitute cherrypicking - rst20xx (talk) 00:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

      O.K. if we say we have to include NRHPs and CLs, why do I have to include DuSable Museum of African American History, which is neither?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

      I don't know, it seems pretty notable to me in itself. Also in this particular case, it is one of only two (potentially to become three?) articles about things actually in the neighbourhood. You have to admit though, to try to comprehensively cover neighbourhoods isn't an easy thing to do - rst20xx (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

      In terms of the neighborhood, there are not many things in it of note. The park, the DuSable Museum and the NRHP Schulze Baking Company Plant would be fairly comprehensive. However, analogous GTCs would be very extensive if they had to create articles for all notable buildings.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

      Yes, I realise that, but to reiterate, these are fairly large topics you are thinking about taking on. As I said, covering a whole neighbourhood comprehensively is not necessarily an easy thing to do - rst20xx (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

• FYI I have nominated Washington Park Court District at WP:GAC. I do not believe there is enough encyclopedic content for this topic to achieve GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
  • It has been quickfailed without explanation. Can I add it as a checked item with insufficient potential encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
    • I don't think so. Firstly, I think it can probably be expanded, and if it can't, then it should be merged. Secondly, there are actually currently no permanently audited articles, and I don't see this becoming the first - see here for the latest on this. Also, the reason for the quickfail can be seen in the talk page history ;) rst20xx (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
      • We do not merge Chicago Landmark articles. I will talk with User:IvoShandor who is the local historic architecture expert that I know best. User:Doncram mostly does NRHPs and I don't think he is from Chicago. I will mention it to him as well though.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry that you were misled into thinking that audited articles are a possibility. WP:FT? currently implies they are allowed, but de facto they are not. I think this needs clarification. I shall propose a vote on it - rst20xx (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
          • IvoShandor came up with sufficient new sources to give this a shot at GAC. I have renominated it.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• FYI I have just nominated Schulze Baking Company Plant for GAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  That was fast! Impressive ;) rst20xx (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Upon reflection, I suppose DuSable Museum of African American History could be relegated to a prospective Washington Park (Chicago park) subtopic, which would also include Fountain of Time, meaning IMO you don't have to write it for this topic - rst20xx (talk) 02:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
• Close with no consensus - given that (a) there are now 4 GANs holding up this GTC, (b) that GAN can take quite a while at the moment, and (c) this nomination is getting to be a bit cluttered, I think it would be a good idea to close this nomination for now under the last (quickfail) recommendation at WP:FT?. The topic can be renominated once the GANs are complete. By the way Tony, you might want to check out WT:FTQ in the future, as a good place to get feedback on prospective topics without having to go through a GTC/FTC - rst20xx (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Music

This is a good topic nomination, they are all good articles. They are all related to the same game series and are music.--What!?Why?Who? (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Music of the Final Fantasy series

13 articles

Discography of Final Fantasy I and II

Discography of Final Fantasy III

Discography of Final Fantasy IV

Discography of Final Fantasy V

Discography of Final Fantasy VI

Discography of Final Fantasy VII

Discography of Final Fantasy VIII

Discography of Final Fantasy IX

Discography of Final Fantasy X

Discography of Final Fantasy X-2

Discography of Final Fantasy XI

Discography of Final Fantasy XII

As I can see, you haven't made any significant contributions to any of these articles. Only nominate featured topic candidates if you have greatly contributed to the topic yourself. I consider this a Speedy withdrawal. -- _{signed by} SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 _{(spell my name backwards) at} 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Being a significant contributor is not a requirement to nominate a topic. There is also no process for a speedy withdrawal. The nominator should attempt to notify major contributors. Though I will say that the topic seems to lack the likely lead article Music of the Final Fantasy series which is not a GA and so the topic probably fails anyway. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This. There's nothing wrong with nominating someone else's work; there's nothing in the criteria and contributors don't own articles. However, as said, the topic fails anyway. Fargo of Diarmuid (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking as the guy who got every single article up there to GA except for FF8, I'm Opposing this nom. I mean, look at it- Music of Final Fantasy is B-class (and not close to GA, either), and you didn't even come up with a rational scope: you're including FFX-2, a spinoff/sequel of the main series, but not FFTactics (GA) or the other spinoff music articles that are in the template (mostly start-class). --PresN 18:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• Speedily Withdrawn - Issues surrounding the appropriateness of nominating someone else's work aside, I would say that nominating a topic without a main article is grounds for a quick fail, per WP:COMMON and WP:IGNORE - rst20xx (talk) 19:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)