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

Snyder, New York

Snyder, New York

3 articles

Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive

Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard

I believe this is a complete topic. All notable aspects of the town have been included.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• What articles are included? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
  • You posted while I was in the middle of constructing the page. You can see the articles above. There are two other things in town with articles that I know of: Amherst Central High School, which is the public high school for the Town of Amherst and not just Snyder and Daemen College. The high school serves Eggertsville and part of Williamsville as well as Snyder and may or may not belong in a topic about the town of Amherst, but probably not the hamlet, IMO. Daemen is not really important to people from Snyder, as a longtime resident. I don't really see most municipalities having to include any college as part of their topic. I probably should have hashed this out on the topics question page before submitting, but just thought of this now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'm sorry, what's here is nice work, but I am of the opinion that geographic place topics should contain all the articles for things within that place (where possible - obviously Overview topics are different here). Hence I think this topic should contain the Amherst Central High School and Daemen College articles. I can see that if there was an Amherst, New York topic, then it would include Snyder, New York as a subarticle, and the argument with some (not saying you) would then go that the school and college don't need including in the Amherst topic because they should be part of a Snyder topic. Well to remove any ambiguity here I think the place in question should always be in the lower-scope topic of the two. To give a comparable example, take the DuSable Museum of African American History. People come from all over the place to visit that, but it is situated in Washington Park, Chicago, and hence it deserves to be in the Washington Park, Chicago topic - which it is. Also I'm sure Daemen College is pretty important to the people that attend Daemen College - rst20xx (talk) 21:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  I moved to Snyder in the summer before 5th grade and graduated from Amherst High School. I have never met anyone who attended Daemen College from Amherst. I almost don't consider it a part of the hamlet for this reason. Washington Park has seven schools and we never determined if any of them have articles. It just did not seem to be a relevant consideration. I think most geographical topics will probably exclude local high schools and colleges. Think about an article about a major city with a dozens of architectural structures that have articles. I don't think including every single educational institution is good policy. Right now the only geographic places are very micro level places. This topic almost approaches a level of a municipality. I just think that a municipality should topic should be focussed on the general article about the municipality and its landmarks. Adding every single architectural structure that has an article seems beyond the proper scope.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

  Well with a big city there will be recursive subtopics to smaller areas of the city until the subtopics reach a manageable size. Anyway, the first half of your post seems to touch on the question of whether schools are notable enough to merit articles (and hence GAs). Undoubtedly this varies from school to school. If any of the Washington Park schools merit articles then to be honest I think the topic should be demoted. If Amherst Central High School doesn't merit an article then that article should be deleted - rst20xx (talk) 23:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• A topic with just the name of a city sounds like a supertopic that would have subtopics within it. Maybe you could narrow your focus and turn these articles into a more specialized topic for now. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:05, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • For a larger municipality it might have subtopics. For a hamlet like this, most wikipedia articles are of marginal notability and subtopics are not really feasible.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose unless the 3 high schools and the college is included (you could merge all 4 into one article, which would definatly be GAable). Nergaal (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, you might create an Education in Snyder, New York article. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Although they are proud of their schools, I would sooner work on the two schools that have articles. I don't think it is encyclopedic for a municipality of that size to have such an article, which is not to say that I could not create a well-sourced article that would pass WP:N.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• Close with no consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Medal of Honor

Medal of Honor

8 articles

Battle of Iwo Jima

Korean War

Naval Academy

MIlitary Academy

Smedley Butler

Humbert Roque Versace

Kenneth Walker

I just wanted to add some comments related to this topic

1. In general there are around 3000 articles related to the Medal of Honor but of those only 300 – 400 have a reasonable chance of making it to good article status or better.
2. I already know that at some point in the future this topic could/would need to be split into multiple topics (1 for Featured lists, 1 for Featured articles, 1 for good articles, etc). Write now though there just aren't enough good or featured articles out there to give them their own topic in my opinion.
3. There are several lists that are close to FL status including Philippine-American War, Vera Cruz, Vietnam, Jewish recipients and a couple of others.
4. There are several articles that I am working on getting upgraded to at least good articles including Charles Lindberg, Douglas MacArthur, James Stockdale, Theodore Roosevelt, Buffalo Bill about the last ten recipients from Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia. There are also several others that have a lot of content already that just need to be refined. A list of the ones I have currently identified and am actively working on are at My Workshop.
5. There are other lists that could potentially be created such as recipents buried at arlington or other cemeteries with large numbers of Medal of Honor recipients, by battles similar to the Iwo Jima article (this is especially true of the Civil War), Foreign born recipients, etc. Not to say we need to do that but its a possibility.--Kumioko (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry, this topic clearly fails criterion 1.(d), "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." Including some conflicts and not others, or some recipients and not others, constitutes cherry picking. You can't just include the articles in the topic that are already up to scratch. I can see you protesting that it's impossible to get all the MoH articles to GA, but this isn't what you'd need to do; I suggest you look at WP:Overview topics. To give you some advice, I would expect a topic called "Medal of Honor" to include List of Medal of Honor recipients, possibly Medal of Honor Memorial (the only top level article I can find) and (as we only have 3 articles so far) the 14 conflict-based lists that can be found in List of Medal of Honor recipients. I suppose you could also include individuals involved in the establishment of the medal. Alternatively you could do a topic with List of Medal of Honor recipients as the main article and then those 14 other lists as the contents. And possibly the alumni and ethnic groups too. If you want to actually get down to the nitty gritty of including individuals, I think you need to include all the individuals who were awarded the medal in a particular conflict, or all the individuals listed in one of the articles - rst20xx (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  Well your right I didn't interpret it that way and I don't agree with it but, ok, so to make sure I am understanding this correctly, I could change this to Lists of Medal of Honor recipients. Take off the Articles themselves (Including the Medal of Honor article itself) and use this topic soley for recipient lists, (Korea, Iwo Jima, Military Academy and Naval academy alumni, and the 2 in FLC currently for Veracruz and the Philippine-American War once they are featured) is that correct? Also, after reviewing the criteria I have another problem and that is that I typically have between 2 and 5 Medal of Honor related articles in review at any given time (could be featured lists, good article or featured article) so unfortunately, it appears that it will be nearly impossible to have a featured topic relating to the Medal of Honor anytime in the near future based on the existing criteria.--Kumioko (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  No that's not quite right, what I'm saying is that you'd have to get all the conflict lists up to featured status before you can nominate the "recipients" topic. Including some of them and not others constitutes cherrypicking. Yes, this probably means you won't get the topic featured for a fair while, but that's the nature of taking on such a big topic, and FT stars aren't meant to be easy things to get - rst20xx (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  Difficult is one thing unachievable is another. Not trying to be argumentative here but I still don't agree with the cherrypicking thing, just because a topic is good or featured doesn't mean it has to be all inclusive. It should mean that it contains the best articles of that topic. When we make a list featured we don't require that all articles within the list are good or featured and when we make an article good or featured we don't require all the articles that links to it to be good or featured and I see no difference here. Thanks for the info anyway its good to know. Sorry I wasted so much of your time with this submission.--Kumioko (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

  Hmmm, that analogy is a bit flawed. Featured lists don't require that all of the articles linked to it are GA+, but they do require that you include all of the items in the list. If I had a "list of all the letters in the alphabet", and I didn't include m, q, and y because I couldn't find the sources to make them look as good as the other letters, it would get shot down at FLC. Similarly, if you had a topic here that was all the letters of the alphabet, we're going to ask you to include all of the letters' articles- and if you can't find the sources to get m, q, and y to GA+, well, then that's just not going to fly, no matter how hard or unfair it is. Good luck on getting the other medal of honor articles improved. --PresN 14:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

  I think you would do better to start working on the different break downs of those multiple FT/GT's that you mentioned above. To draw a comparison to my area of interest---Poker. I know that the WSOP will never be a FT, there simply isn't enough to make the earlier tournaments FA/GA's. Similarly, there is no way that I could get "WSOP Main Event Champions" as an FT because again, there isn't enough recorded on some of the earlier players. Now, if I was so inclined, I might be able to create a FT "WSOP Main Event Champions of the 1990s" or "Non-American WSOP Champions." But I couldn't create a topic "WSOP Main Event Champions" and only write 10 FA/GA articles and call it an FT. A Feature topic that jumped out at me when looking at your article, might be "Multiple Medal of Honor recipients" or even "Multiple Medal of Honor recipients of WWII".---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  • Maybe I wil resubmit as lists of Medal of Honor recipients once I get more lists to FL status.--Kumioko (talk)
• Oppose - obvious cherrypicking per Rst20xx and PresN —Chris! _ct 23:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - sorry, but in no way is this a complete topic as required in criteria 1.(d), but is cherry picked, as Rst20xx demonstrates. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Close with no consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 15:49, 28 June 2009 (UTC)