User talk:rst20xx/Archive 6

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

1
2
3
4
Archive 5
6

Any comments made by me are in bold - rst20xx.

Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates#bumping up from 25% anytime soon?

...Now passed. I'll leave it up to you to notify anyone else involved in the topics. You have three months - go! ;) rst20xx (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Should the topics be added to Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria/Retention for everyone to keep track of them? Makes it easier. Gary King (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Alright, good idea, doing now! rst20xx (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice job bringing Wikipedia:Featured topics/Good log/January 2009 to FTC, per this :P Gary King (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

lol! What the?!? That has NEVER happened before! :S Though you have to be amused by how it's made a list of the GTs, but says it can't find the FTC... because they're GTs! rst20xx (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

about the war on tennis (TE spamming Key Biscayne)

Hi, I don't know if u remember what happened with tennisexpert changing all to key biscayne, but he did it again and his admins friends blocked the Rafael Nadal with the key biscayne spam inside. Please clean it, i'm not able to. 62.57.239.89 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, while I agree with you that it should be Miami, I'm not getting involved, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

But it's me or tennisexpert can actually do whatever he wants and admins just ban the ones trying to restablish the things? Because the article was fine, suddently he comes in, changes it and admins just bans me and keeps reverting until they semiprotect the page (With his edits inside, of course). What do you think about this? 62.57.239.89 (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's not right, because it should be Miami. But I'm sorry, I'm not getting involved - rst20xx (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well ok, thank you anyway :(, I see this is a MAFIA, I'm not even making an account again, seeing how groups of peoples (admins included) manipulates everything. 62.57.239.89 (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Which lead article to use for topic?

I've been working on building a topic on Template:NFL head coaches by team. All of the articles are ready, but they need a lead. I'm thinking it should be one of the following: List of National Football League head coaches, List of current National Football League head coaches, or History of National Football League head coaches. Thoughts on which one I should use, unless you've got suggestions? Gary King (talk) 04:43, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

First looks best, as it's basically a combination/summary of the others. Second suffers from recentism, though could potentially be added to the topic as a regular article (up to you, but I see it's an FLC already so may as well!?)

I guess none of the teams in Defunct National Football League franchises merit lists? Should the coaches from there be worked into List of National Football League head coaches, or maybe some amalgamated list for all the defunct franchises? I guess that depends on which of the two lists you just linked me you use for the head article, there's some precedence for using a "current" article for the main and then not worrying about defunct things, namely the WWE Champions topic. I'd prefer it of course if you went the whole hog and got the lot included but I think I would support either way. Just so long as you're consistent!

Both the lists you just linked me seem to be in no categories, that needs fixing! rst20xx (talk) 08:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem feasible to make the list of all the coaches into a featured list. It's a huge list, it will get updated constantly; it's essentially a host for statistics, for when people want to quickly check up on them. So, after looking at the WWE Champions list, I suppose the list of current coaches can be used for the lead, which I will do. Gary King (talk) 15:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, fair dos! rst20xx (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way Gary, result of the poll is that audited articles due to inherent shortness are now banned. Full stop. So in the case of the "Slipknot Two" (heh heh, one day people will write political intrigue stories about this policy-making lore), you need to merge, delete, or GA them. Makes things slightly simpler, in that 4 options are now 3. Merge? rst20xx (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like a merge, but there is opposition. Perhaps you'd like to step in and voice your own opinion on the matter? Gary King (talk) 18:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Opposition that I can see is Blackngold29, who seems to think the articles can improve further. Forgive me if you've done this already, but it might be worth going over that with him and Rezter and anyone else first of all, until either you agree, or you agree to disagree.

You'd merge them both into Slipknot (album)? Anyway, I'd support a merge, if absolutely no information is lost. So for example, when Slipknot Demo was done before, I think track length and production info was lost - I'd rather keep all that stuff. Maybe you should make a mockup of the end result somewhere, then talk it over with Blackngold29/Rezter/etc, then (depending on how that goes) start a merge discussion, and when you do, notify WT:FTC (which has de facto just voted overwhelmingly for a merge I think, so this should convert to support over at the actual merge discussion...) rst20xx (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The most recent discussion that I can think of is at Talk:Slipknot_Demo#WP:N. Consensus is split down the middle; I'm sure everything that has been brought up, like the FTC, etc. has already been done. Gary King (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Key image

Yes, I've already discussed the issue with a fellow editor, and we're formulating possible replacements. Please participate in the discussion if you have any ideas.--十八 02:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh right OK, sorry I missed that! rst20xx (talk) 10:12, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Topic criteria idea

I had an idea and thought I'd get your opinion on it first. I think linking to overview topics in the topic criteria works pretty well and I was thinking that it might be a good idea to create a topic criteria subpage on cherry picking and linking to that in the criteria instead of the current cherry picking link that doesn't really define of give examples of what cherry picking is in terms of featured topics. It just seems like a lot of people who nominate topics for the first time are confused about what exactly we mean by no cherry picking, and I think a page that explains it would be helpful. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea! Nice thinking! It would be quite tied in to the overview topics page though, the two rules have a lot of overlap in terms of their implications - rst20xx (talk) 12:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia featured topics 55 Cancri featured content‎

In your edit summary, you implied that there is a "rule" making FT categories exempt from deletion. I've looked through Wikipedia:Category deletion policy and I haven't figured out what you're referring to. Please elaborate and provide a URL. -- Stepheng3 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:CSD#Categories - rst20xx (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I notice that this "rule" is one you invented yourself, back in December. Since there apparently wasn't any public discussion, I think I'll start one. -- Stepheng3 (talk) 01:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

There was a public discussion, see User talk:Rst20xx#Recreation of "featured topic" categories - rst20xx (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay. While your talk page is technically "public", I think the appropriate venue would be here. I invite you to participate in the discussion I've initiated there. - Stepheng3 (talk) 01:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Status of two featured topics below the 33% FA minimum

For Wikipedia:Featured topics/The Legend of Zelda titles, I'll be bringing Phantom Hourglass to FAC soon, once my other FAC is closed. So, assuming that the FAC passes, then that topic is done. For Wikipedia:Featured topics/Star Wars episodes, I just began working on the topic—I'll be working on bringing Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones to FAC. It will be trickier than the Zelda topic, as I've never actually done a film FAC before. Hopefully I will be done before April 1st, although the article might not arrive at FAC by then even though it will be ready, depending on how long the Phantom Hourglass FAC takes. So, just letting you know on how things are so far, since I'm of course hoping that neither topic is demoted.

It looks like Wikipedia:Featured topics/Wilco albums will be the last one that needs work, which unfortunately it doesn't look like it's getting anything done. Gary King (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

OK that's good to hear. Good to see two out of three topics keeping their featured status (or at the very least, regaining it after not very long, if they do end up losing it). Well, I notified the guy who built the Wilco topic of the change at the time it passed, so he should be aware of what's happening. But to be honest I find the Wilco topic a little iffy anyway - it doesn't even include all the studio albums! The two joint ones with Billy Bragg are (okay, written by Woody Guthrie, but still) missing - rst20xx (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of helping the Wilco topic but my favorite album, Yankee Hotel Foxtrot, doesn't even have a Themes section or anything. I was hoping that little work would be needed, but the article looks like it will need a major overhaul so I will work on it if I have time. About my own nominations, if April 1st passes and Star Wars is at FAC, then will the topic still be sent to FTRC? Gary King (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No! It still meets the Good Topic criteria :P so it'll just get automatically demoted to a good topic. And similarly, if you then subsequently get Ep 2 to FA, it'll get automatically repromoted to a featured topic! ;) rst20xx (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to let you know if and when that happens, since it needs to be removed from WP:FT and moved to WP:GT, and the Article Histories probably need to be updated as well. Gary King (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Those two things will be done automatically too! The only things that will need updating will be Wikipedia:Featured topics/count, Wikipedia:Good topics/count, Portal:Featured content/Topics and Wikipedia:Featured topics promoted in 2008. Also I'll know when to update, because any movement of topics move from good to featured (or vice versa) will show up in Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Featured topics articles by quality log :) - rst20xx (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I suppose I deserved your response. I had missed where you stated you should have sought wider attention, and as such I came down on you when it was unnecessary. Mea culpa. Reso lute 02:39, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Alright, and I appologise again that I didn't bring this to WT:HOCKEY. As Scorpion was the project leader on this topic I mistakenly assumed that his knowing about this issue was enough. As to the future, the FLC will pass, and we'll all be happy. Put this behind us? rst20xx (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, agreed. Reso lute 02:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Halo topics

OK, I merged them. Could you possibly do me a favour and use your admin-like powers to delete the now-redundant Category:Wikipedia featured topics Halo trilogy featured content, Category:Wikipedia featured topics Halo trilogy good content and Category:Wikipedia featured topics Halo trilogy? Thanks... rst20xx (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Der Wohltempierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! rst20xx (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Consultation

Not sure, it sounds easy enough anyways since the Media articles aren't that difficult to bring up to standard, and considering there will only be one for each topic maximum, then that's not that bad. For the Zelda topic though, I've already got at least one article ready for FAC and another on its way, so it will reach its minimum FAs soon. I'll work on the Zelda media list if I have time, as it's almost ready for FLC already apparently. Gary King (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Keeping you up to speed

I'm not sure if you have any particular interest in the content, but I thought you might be interested to know that this is going on, and the outcome might affect a currently featured topic. Rambo's Revenge (How am I doing?) 23:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

OK thanks, I'll keep an eye on it - rst20xx (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

All five of six lists in this topic have now been delisted. Also it is currently a Good Topic (!?!) despite only ever having contatined featured lists. I wasn't sure how to proceed so thought I'd bring it to your attention. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (ER) 23:01, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

It's listed as a good topic because it only has 1 featured article, and it needs 2 to be a featured topic! :P Right, I shall bring to topic to FTRC - rst20xx (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes but until very recently it had 4 FLs. So, unless there is some clever automatic process I'm unaware of, shouldn't it have been an FT previously. Anyway regardless, thanks for your prompt action. Rambo's Revenge (ER) 23:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

There IS such a process! It works off the number of articles in the categories Category:Wikipedia featured topics Lists of universities in Canada, Category:Wikipedia featured topics Lists of universities in Canada featured content and Category:Wikipedia featured topics Lists of universities in Canada good content. And also, SRE.K.A.L.24 beat me to it in the end! :P rst20xx (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Washington Park, Chicago GT

The way the last discussion was closed was not recognized by the User:ArticleAlertbot at WP:CHIAA. Have you closed it properly?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, upon checking I realise I accidentally left {{GTCmain}} on Talk:Washington Park (Chicago park). I wonder if that is why the bot does not consider the nom closed. Anyway, if so then I've fixed it. Sorry about that - rst20xx (talk) 01:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

We'll know tomorrow when it runs again. Thanks for checking out your end. I think if it does not get it tomorrow, it will be a programming issue for recognizing GTC expansions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Vis a vis "It's a list !"

There is no FL status within that wikiproject. Please desist from altering this. GARDEN 21:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Why? As it's not a project rating but a process rating I don't see how doing this is misrating the articles. These are clearly featured lists! I don't see any negative impact to rating them as such, and see a number of positives (e.g. the "Display an assessment of an article's quality as part of the page header for each article" gadget works properly, also it's generally clearer). I searched for a discussion where it was decided that the project shouldn't have such a rating but couldn't find one, maybe I missed it? Or maybe it never happened. If I were to change some but not others across there would certainly be problems, but as it happens I've now changed the whole lot across and see no reason they shouldn't stay there - rst20xx (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

PS how on earth did those rocks get there?!? :P rst20xx (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've done it before and got a rapping for it, I cannot remember where off the top of my head. It would appear however that I was wrong as the project seems to have since instated such a categorisation system. Sorry for making an arse of myself here. GARDEN 21:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

lol no worries. I'll re-change back the one you undid and see if that's the end of it - rst20xx (talk) 21:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

New FL criteria discussion: Final phase

Hello, I think we've hammered out a good revised Featured List criteria here. If this passes, there will be quite a few FLs that could soon be delisted just because of 3b. With that in mind, I'd like to get comments and opinions from all FLC regulars and everyone else who has participated in the discussion before it's implemented. Thanks, Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 17:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Legend of Zelda titles FTC under retention

Okay done Gary King (talk) 04:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Fast! rst20xx (talk) 10:50, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Where did you go?

Hey, sorry about disappearing for so long and making you handle FT. Real life got hectic for a while and Wikipedia fell off my radar, but I'd be glad to work on promotions again. Thanks a lot for keeping Ft afloat. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I just want to thank you a second time for keeping FT active while I was unexpectedly away. :) I would have been very disappointed if the process fell apart. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

FTC length

How long does an item stay at FTC? My USNA alum topic has unanimous solid support. I'm just curious, it's my first FT. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Usually 10 days. Arctic gnome should promote it when it's ready - rst20xx (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

My barnstar

Wow, thank you very much for noticing my efforts. My wife would describe my work here in rather different terms than you, alas... but I'm very grateful for your appreciation. Regards, Bencherlite ^Talk 16:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Guitar Hero FTC

Yes, I was planning on adding the two GH On Tour games at the same time as adding the Metallica songlist when it done at FTC to simplify the process (hence the timing). --MASEM (t) 16:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

NHL history FTC

I have reverted your close of this FTC; please seek a neutral party to close it as you were the lone opposer. (with me, Res, and Zginder opining otherwise), or better--solicit more comments, as it has been sadly somewhat ignored. --butterfly (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Related nomination can be found here - rst20xx (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Maxim (butterfly?), I have no intention to get into an edit war about this, but I undid you. Yourself and Resolute were co-nominators, so your opinions on whether the topic should be promoted don't count. So this leaves things at 1 support and 1 oppose - not that consensus works off majority of votes anyway. I know that there are possible conflict-of-interest issues when closing a nomination on a topic you have voted on, but I do not think this impeded my judgment - see for example here and here where I have promoted topics when consensus has emerged against my vote, or here where I failed a topic despite having voted for it, and despite it having 5 supports and 3 opposes. In the case of your topic, I am sorry to say that consensus for promotion did not emerge. With one support and one oppose, I do not know how you expected me to close otherwise - I guess what you were hoping for was wider input, and you are hoping now that reopening will lead to more votes. Well, with regards to that, I am sorry that there was not wider input on the nomination, but it had already been open for 3 days longer than usual. There was ongoing discussion for most of this time. So I think my decision to close at this time was okay. I am pointing Arctic gnome towards this section, and will leave it up to him to decide whether he agrees with my close, or thinks the nomination should be reopened - rst20xx (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I think it is a bad idea for you to fail FTCs that you oppose (especially when you are the only opposing user), for this exact reason. You probably should have left it open until either more comments came in, or until another user (Arctic.gnome?) closed it. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I had hoped Arctic gnome would close it (I recently asked him to take over the FT closing duties again), but instead he passed it over and closed the more recent USNA alumini topic - that was 2 days ago. As I said before, this nomination was already in overtime - rst20xx (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

He probably passed over it because he felt it needed more time. I don't see why it couldn't have stayed open a little longer (in the good ol' days, we had successful FLCs that were open for 40 days), after all, there is no deadline. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did say above that there had been active discussion, but in reality it had just been back and forth between myself and Resolute, no real new developments. FTC isn't always as lively as FLC. Anyway, let's neither of us second guess the man and see what he says when he gets here - rst20xx (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

You agree that Artic.gnome should close it... but then you revert me? That's just silly. butterfly (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I thought that I was right to close it, but I've asked him to come here and give his opinion in the knowledge that, whatever he decides, it will bring some finality to the dispute - rst20xx (talk) 23:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess the thing is that, yes, this nomination was disappointing in that there were only 2 votes, but when there was no work being done by the nominators on the stuff that everyone had agreed needed doing (namely, {{Evolution of the NHL}}, Category:Pre-National Hockey League and Original Six), I didn't feel that any effort was being made to even pass the topic FL-style, by working on it during the nom, no matter about FT-style (resolving whether extra articles needed adding). These were issues everyone agreed needed addressing and they were all pointed out quite a long time before the nomination was closed (two of them on day one!) But they weren't being addressed! And so this made me less inclined to leave the nomination open any longer - what was the point, when the nominators weren't even working on what had been agreed to need fixing?

And that is why I closed the nomination - because I felt no effort was being made on the part of the nominators to get the topic up to snuff. If you see an FLC with valid opposes and no effort being made to make improvements, you'd close it too, right? What's the point in getting more input to resolve the article disputes if the relatively trivial stuff isn't being worked on? Oh, the irony that the topic is being fought for now that we are here - rst20xx (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have had honestly no time--combined both accounts, it's still under 50 edits for the last four to five weeks. I don't what's up at Resolute's end tho... :/ butterfly (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

....argh.... Well, okay, you guys are clearly fighting hard for it now, which suggests to me that if the nomination is restarted, you'd actually fix these issues. So if you make some effort towards doing this, I wouldn't disagree with you reopening. Having said that, I think it would probably be best at this stage to bring it as a brand new nomination, because the previous one got a little muddled (which probably is conducive to getting more people to input) and I still think that, based on the levels of effort seen at the time, my close was valid. When you rebring though, I will of course oppose it again :P

And I'm really sorry that this occurred, jeez, I seem to have real problems with the hockey lads don't I? :S :D rst20xx (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

When did we agree to include pre-NHL and the Original Six? The topic is exactly as it presents itself: a history of the NHL, and I don't think background articles are really necessary. As for the Original Six, that era is covered extremely well in the 1942-67 article, so why should it be included? If you're going to include that, why not other important similar articles like the 2004-05 lockout? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that's not what was agreed to - pre-NHL was what the ongoing dispute was about! Look over the nom again, or to be clear, what was agreed to was that:

There should be a merger discussion about Original Six into History of the National Hockey League (1942–1967) (much as you say!)
{{Evolution of the NHL}} is synthesis, implying that all these leagues are tied up into NHL history when they are not, so should be clarified. Resolute said it should be deleted.
Ditto Category:Pre-National Hockey League, which he said was redundant to Category:Defunct ice hockey leagues

- rst20xx (talk) 00:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I really disagree with that. The definition is the history of the NHL articles and that's where the line should be drawn. One could also make a strong case for including ice hockey and the WHA, but there is really no point in that. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so you disagree that pre-NHL stuff should be covered... but in terms of those 3 fix-ups I just listed, which no-one had worked on, despite their standing open for several days, with apparently everyone agreeing that they need doing...? rst20xx (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If you bothered to look, you would see that I have been working on them. I CfDed the cat, and have been in discussions with a couple other editors with an interest in the early history on how to redo the template. The existence of the Original Six article is not relevant to the completeness of this topic, in my not so humble opinion. I also loved the late addition of the WHA to your "OMG! This has a tangental relationship, therefore it must be included!!!!" argument at the end there. If you are going to keep moving the goalposts, then there isnt a whole hell of a lot I can do, and frankly, attmepting to address the concerns of one editor then becomes pointless. Reso lute 00:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh bugger you did cfd the cat. Okay, I raise my hands up, I missed all of that, and have completely messed up as a result. (Although, as far as I can tell things have still been generally stalled for 5 days now.) The fact that the cat didn't get deleted, which I somewhat expected, and the template was still intact, led me to conclude that nothing had been done. I should have looked closer, I'm sorry. Right, I shall reopen the nomination myself. My deepest apologies - rst20xx (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second here, you're opposing because slightly related templates and categories are not up to current standards? Where does the FT criteria say that categories and templates should be judged as well? -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 00:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Criteria 3 states that "Each article is of high quality, including the referencing." The template/category are in the articles. I don't see that opposing because of them is invalid. In the early days, topics would come to FTC and sometimes it would be like "err, this FA is just waiting for an FAR." Looking at the quality of the articles in an FTC isn't out of the question - rst20xx (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I found your oppose ridiculous because you want things not a part of the NHL's history to be added, but that is your right. The only issue I could find was your silly logic, and it seemed that no matter how I tried to argue against it, you felt the need to stick with it. That is fine. I was prepared to live with your oppose. Now, if it was time to close the nom as no consensus, that's fine, but it should have been obvious to you that you should have had nothing at all to do with its closure. You were an involved party, and quite frankly, it appears that you closed it because you didn't get what you want. You were in a conflict of interest, and instead of closing it yourself, should have had another FTC regular who had not participated make a decision. Reso lute 00:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay guys, I have reopened the nomination and invited input from everyone who took place in the csd and the relevant discussion at WT:HOCKEY.

I just want to say... there seems to be a bit of a recurring theme here between some of us. I'm really sorry I closed this nomination early - due to what was retrospectively a spectacularly bad effort on my part, I missed that any action had occurred on improving the nomination, and felt that therefore I was right to close. I generally try and act in good faith and high rationality, and think I usually do quite a good job - in probably about a hundred closes at WP:FTC, this is the first one that has had any issues. All I can say is that I will try better in the future :/ and let's hope we get that wider input. So, err, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the willingness to reconsider. And if ArcticGnome says it should be closed at this point as no consensus, that is fine. Whether or not they are judged to be important to this topic, some of these older or defunct leagues are on the radar for improvement. Notably, the WHA, which I was already independently starting on before your last comment in the FTC nom page. :) Reso lute 01:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all. I don't hold grudges, and I don't believe in bad blood. We all do what we think is best, sometimes that creates short term conflicts, but they always resolve one way or another. I probably could have been a little more... calm ... in my responses as well. Cheers, Reso lute 02:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy now?!

Cheeky! But I hope you agree that it makes more sense now... Bencherlite ^Talk 01:44, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely. Truth be told it pleases me also :D rst20xx (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: WCWM; Muhammad II of Aghlabids; HBO channels; Hul Jharkhand Party; Solid-state chemistry; Qartam of Iberia; Kerem Avraham; Roz Weston; Bellemoor School; Hamdanid dynasty; List of Korean ceramic artists and sculptors; Kaos of Iberia; Hisham III; Solid-state laser; Urecco; List of Nigeriens; Sijilmasa; List of state leaders in 312; List of colonial governors in 1737

Cleanup: Algiers; Mantis (Marvel Comics); War Machine
Merge: World citizen; Steady state (macroeconomics); Firestar
Add Sources: Al-Amir; Mansur ibn Nasir; Kalbids
Wikify: Chen Yun; Inver Hills Community College; Gallia Aquitania
Expand: Al-Hakam II; State-dependent learning; Caesar's civil war

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Featured list candidate

Well, you wanted to see it featured, so here it is: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty/archive1. Regards.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly fast work! Good luck with the FLC - rst20xx (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Feel free to be the first one to review it, if you have time.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

So...how bout that List article? Is there anything else I can do to earn your support?--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I made a response; well, more of a question, really.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Another response and new addition to the article.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Supported. Thanks for addressing my concerns - rst20xx (talk) 21:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Thanks for reviewing the article. Hopefully the List article will pass soon, so that the Featured Topic Candidate can proceed with its review process.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Jesus College, Oxford/addition2

Any reason why this is still open? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but I don't have time to close it because I'm in the middle of finals. Arctic gnome should in theory be doing it but I'm not sure where he's gone - rst20xx (talk) 10:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Han Dynasty topic

List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty is now added to Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Han Dynasty as a featured list. Please, have a look.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

closing FT & GTs

As i'm sure you will notice, i closed a few topics as promoted. 40 minutes would seem the opsimistic estimate for the time it takes! :). If you notice anything wrong, please let me know - all those transclusions were like a maze!.

I doubt i will close many in the future, but thought it useful to learn how, as i have holiday at the moment so have extra time. Good luck with your exams!YobMod 18:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Apart from putting the FT/FTA in the wrong logs (see my contributions. The FT log vs GT log distinction appears pointless seeing as how the latter transcludes the former, but it's for the bot that does WP:FT2009), you got it all right, which is impressive! Extremely helpful.

Now, imagine how long it takes to promote a 25-article topic, fetching the oldids for each of those articles as you go... rst20xx (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, i wanted to close the current guitar hero nom, as it is pretty old, but wanted your opinion. AFAIK, the peer review retention period has passed for the Smash hits article too. Would you think it best to promote the metalica/On Tour addition now, only to put the whole thing for removal per 3c - or just close with no changes and give a few weeks grace before either adding all 3 or delisting? (I asked Masem's oppinion too)YobMod 19:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest we get Masem to run the Smash Hits peer review immediately, and then do the promotion with that article included once the peer review has completed. Peer reviews only take 10 days so we may as well keep things nice and clean and let it happen like that - rst20xx (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the different FT/GT logs, but only after i did the last topic (the first FT i've done). Even once i noticed, it was confusing as the transclusions made them look identical, so i assumed it didn't really matter which i pasted into. I'll leave the GH topic for a whle then - thanks!YobMod 19:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

33.333333%

The criteria that was voted on was "at least 33%". If you change it to "at least 1/3" then that would make a difference for a topic with 100 articles. A 100 article topic would have to have 33 featured articles under the 33% criteria, but would have to have 34 featured articles under the 1/3 criteria. We don't have any topics that big right now, but it's possible there could be at some point in the future, especially if 33% is the last time the percentage is increased. I just think changing it from 33% to 1/3 should at least be discussed on the criteria talk page, as it is an actual increase, even though it's an increase that does not affect any of the current topics. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I'll be damned, the final vote was on 1/3. I guess I was confused because the discussion starts out as 33%. Ok well then if that's what was voted on then I guess it's fine. But I disagree that there could never be a 100 article topic. For example, I would certainly support a featured topic that covered all the chemical elements, and there are over 100 of those little guys. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

1 week warning - Essex Roads Topic

As promised, I have the third topic involving New York State Route 28N, the Essex County portion, soon to be ready for FTC. I just nominated List of highways in Essex County, New York (which is in Warren style) to FLC and hope you'll approve when it comes to FAC. Again its a warning since it'll be the first time an article will be in 3 topics.Mitch/HC32 20:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but it's alright, I redid the code to handle articles being in up to 4 topics when we first discussed this waaaaaay back in time. Glad to see you're fulfilling the plans though! :) rst20xx (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well, when the 9 counties that New York State Route 22 resides in are at FT - you'll need a code that holds 9 :P. NY 22 will be in Essex, along with nearby Washington & Clinton Counties, and the other 6: Rennselaer, Bronx, Westchester, Putnam, Dutchess, and Columbia. So, that'll be fun :P - Anyway - right now I am trying to decide if Clinton, Franklin or Washington County will be next FT. Mitch/HC32 11:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh bloody hell. I don't think the system can take any more. Well it could but the code would just be horrifically long and also beyond 4 I think there will be a bit of a debate as to whether this is right or not. I think we need to work together to work out a solution to this - rst20xx (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, because to make it worse, New York State Route 5 has fourteen counties along its length :S - Mitch/HC32 11:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria#Maximum number of articles a topic can be in - rst20xx (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well 17 days later, and it today's FLC promotions ever occur, Essex should be promoted, so be on the ready for an FTC nom.Mitch/HC32 23:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Halo media

Yep, that looks fine, no worries (although I really wish video games had a CRYSTAL-type guideline like films do to stamp out pointless articles about games just announced with a trailer, but whatever...) by hook or by crook they'll all be GA or better :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 15:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association#NBA head coaches articles

Chrishomingtang and I have been trying to make the NBA head coaches topic featured since Summer of last year, and since the recent 3b criteria came up on WP:WIAFL, I was thinking of merging some of the head coaches articles into their respective team articles. I was just wondering if having some of the head coaches articles merged into their respective team articles would be a problem if the topic was nominated for FTC. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for review

Hi there! I'm drawing close to the end of a two-year project to create what will end up being the second-largest featured topic. The last featured item I need to have approved is 2009 Orange Bowl, and I was wondering if you might have a bit of time to review the article. Any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

State highways in Marquette County, Michigan

There are 1,059 roads under the jurisdiction of the Marquette County Road Commission. I can provide scans of the index from the atlas that arrived at my library today if desired. This should resolve that issue from the FLRC and allow the FTC to continue unimpeded. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

SPoTy topic merge?

Please see this merger discussion about merging the article you suggested I needed for the topic. This has the possibility of merging and effectively giving the other page featured status. I don't want to be seen as cheating and wanted you to be the first to know. I'm completely willing to go through the process or just review if necessary. I'd also appreciate you view on the possible merge. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)