Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/March 2009

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history

Triple Gold Club

Triple Gold Club

7 articles

Stanley Cup

List of Stanley Cup champions

Ice hockey at the Olympic Games

List of Olympic medalists in ice hockey

Ice Hockey World Championships

List of IIHF World Championship medalists

Co-nominators: Scorpion⁰⁴²² and Maxim

In the immortal words of Groundskeeper Willie: "I told ya I'd be bahck!" A lot sooner than I thought too. The topic now includes both the articles on the championships and the lists of winners. I suppose that if anyone wanted, it could be limited to just the championships, but I think including the winners makes it more complete. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support - Great job! I've also fixed up the numbering; you seem to have missed that. Nice work. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 01:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - wow, that was quick! Much better now - rst20xx (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support —Chris! _ct 04:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support. Having both articles and lists is far superior.YobMod 09:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support – Nice work! TheLeftorium 12:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Looks excellent! iMatthew // talk // 18:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support -- better than the previous nom.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 16:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The members of the topic should not be the awards and the winning teams, but the people that are in the Club [[Triple_Gold_Club#Members|]]. Zginder 2009-03-17T05:27Z (UTC)
  • I disagree, this is about the actual club, not its members. Under your logic, a lot of current featured topics would need to include every winner. For example: the Gaylactic Spectrum Awards, Nobel laureates, Victoria Cross, National Basketball Association awards, National Hockey League awards and Lists of World Wrestling Entertainment champions topics. (and that's just FTs) -- ScorpionO'422 15:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I think either way would make a topic. "Triple Gold Club Awards" and "Triple Gold club members". Renaming this as a preemtive disambiguation might be useful, but not essential as long as it is the only one, imo.YobMod 16:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This topic is about a club, when reading the lead article, it does not go into the three awards and who won them, rather it focuses on who is a member of the club. With the other topics named, the lead is a summary and the other artilces are sublists. In this one the lead is a sublist of parts (individuals of a team) of the non-lead articles. This is upside down. Zginder 2009-03-18T16:33Z (UTC)

Hmm, you do have a point. What if I added a brief summary of all three awards to the Triple Gold Club page? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Like this? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The article is now better, but I still think that the topic is not appropriate. Zginder 2009-03-24T18:28Z (UTC)

Then what do you want to see done? How about giving me some actual suggestions? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I opposed because This topic should be about who got in the club not how to get in. The improvements to the lead are good, ut they do not address my problem with the topic. Zginder 2009-03-24T19:38Z (UTC)

I don't know how I can make it any less about the members, short of removing every mention of them. This is simply a topic with a limited definition. Per your logic, the Carnivàle FT should contain every actor and the creators because the lead of Carnivàle goes into detail about them. But that topic works with just the core articles and so does this one. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote - in spite of Zginder's concerns, I still feel this has sufficient consensus to merit promotion - rst20xx (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Gaylactic Spectrum Awards

Gaylactic Spectrum Awards

Featured topic

4 articles

Winners and nominees
for best novel

Winners and nominees
for best short fiction

Winners and nominees
for best other work

4 featured lists that together cover all the nominations for this award in each category. The main article describes the award and lists the winners, and 3 sub-lists give the nominations of the 3 currently active categories. The lists all have the same formatting, and are interlinked by the navboxes. So i think this covers the topic comprehensively, and meets "what is a featured topic".YobMod 07:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comments by rst20xx:

• Could you list the winners/nominees for the now defunct awards somewhere? That's comics and People's Choice, right?
• At the moment you have winners in light grey and finalists in white. On my monitor, these two don't look very different at all.
• Seems a bit redundant to have the winners listed a second time in the lead. I think the lead should probably be an article and not a list, but having said that, I think that if you take the tables out of the main then what would be left would have no problems becoming a GA so I guess this is a bit of a non-actionable comment.

• rst20xx (talk) 13:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The defunct awards & nominees are listed: People's choice winners are noted by superscript letters (as they only went to winners of other categories for 3 years and had no nominees, so no separate table needed), and comics was only split out for one year from other works, so the nominees are in the other works article with a note (see 2003) (i made redirects to both as appropriate).

I'll make the gray darker (although it is purely cosmetic - FL insist on colours always being redundant to other indications, in this case the result column). But you are right, that if there it should be visible :-).

I asked multiple places (GAN, FLC and WP:Awards) about whether the main article was more an article or a list, and there was no strong feeling either way and precedent for both - i went with list as i think most readers will be interested in the winners, and not so much in the award process or nominees. It's only redundant if readers clicked on the subarticles and sorted the tables, which is 8 clicks i think will rarely happen! The main article lists are also the only place that Hall of Fame inductees are all on the same page.YobMod 15:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support :) rst20xx (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support -- meets WP:WIAFT.--TRUCO 02:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support looks good, seems to meet the FT criteria.—Chris! _ct 07:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support: A consistent, comprehensive, universally FA/FL-class set of articles and lists that therefore meets the [Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria|FT criteria]]. Gonzonoir (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 14:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Second Persian invasion of Greece

Second Persian invasion of Greece

6 articles

Battle of Thermopylae

Battle of Artemisium

Battle of Salamis

Battle of Plataea

Battle of Mycale

I am nominating this as a good topic. The invasion was a very significant event in world history, and the five major battles (including some quite famous ones) are all covered here; minor engagements are covered in the lead article. Five of the GA reviews are recent, four of them in the last two months, so I believe everything to be up-to-speed. MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support I have decided that this covers all of the topics, the only thing else I could think of is some of the people involved. Zginder 2009-03-10T19:09Z (UTC)
• Support Seems to be comprehensive, well done—Chris! _ct 01:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Excellent work. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:34, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support, but I recommend covering the biographies of important participants with GA as part of the topic. In my opinion, these are Themistocles, Eurybiades, Pausanias, Leonidas, Mardonius and Xerxes. Most of them have a fairly short biographies, limited to the conflict, so it should be little work bringing these articles to GA. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I think that this is not a bad idea, and Zginder also suggests it. I intended this topic as a purely military collection of articles, and think it qualifies as a Good Topic on that basis alone. However, that doesn't mean that other articles can't be added. I'd certainly give Themistocles, Leonidas, Xerxes and Mardonius a go; I'm not really sure there's enough material to write GA biographies of Eurybiades or Pausanias.MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 13:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support - and I guess Battle of Thermopylae in popular culture is a possible addition, but is a subarticle of the Battle of Thermopylae, so can potentially form part of a future subtopic surrounding just that one battle, and hence isn't needed now - rst20xx (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support -- Excellent topic.--Best, ₮RUCӨ 16:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

U-43 class submarines

U-43 class submarines (Austria-Hungary)

3 articles

SM U-43

SM U-47

Major contributors: Bellhalla

The penultimate Good Topic nomination for one of the Austro-Hungarian submarine classes. I believe that all of the requirements are fulfilled. Note: both of the individual submarines had more notable careers as German submarines than as Austro-Hungarian submarines, which is why both are redirects. — Bellhalla (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

• Minor inconsequential comment - I think it would be better to be honest with the piping and not have it redirect - rst20xx (talk) 00:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • I also agree that they should be pipe links instead.--TRUCO 02:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
    • That's why the note; I wasn't sure how to handle. I've now changed to piped links (rather than the redirects). — Bellhalla (talk) 05:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support - 2 more! rst20xx (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support -- Meets WP:WIAFT.--TRUCO 22:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support Nergaal (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - should this topic, the U-1 topic and the (currently being promoted) U-27 topic in fact have "(Austria-Hungary)" in their names, to disambiguate themselves from German classes? rst20xx (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

  Bellhalla? rst20xx (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry, I didn't see your question before. I could go either way, really. All of the German sub classes are named in WP as "German Type U nn submarine", so you could argue that there's not really a need for a disambiguation. On the other hand, many sources refer to German class as "U-nn class" mirroring the style in use for the A-H subs. The other factor for these topics, is that there's a big flag proclaiming the nationality of the subject. (Also, as an aside, the German U-1 was a unique submarine and not really a class, per se.) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  Those are good points, but I noticed that you'd disambiguated some of the pages, eg U-43 class submarine, U-27 class submarine... to me that just about suggests the topics should be disambiguated too - rst20xx (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

  As I said, I could go either way. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote - I will disambiguate, where appropriate - rst20xx (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)