Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/June 2011

Major League Baseball first-round picks in the June Rule 4 draft[edit]

Contributor(s): At least Courcelles, Wizardman, Staxringold, KV5. Others, feel free to add yourself.

It's been a long road, but here we are. The first-round of the Major League Baseball draft. It's been a lot of work, but also a lot of fun. Every articles involved has passed a featured list candidacy. --Courcelles 21:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nominator support Woot, Courcelles did all the nom-work. Great job by everybody, our biggest project yet! Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Co-nom support - Glad that I started a trend with this one! — KV5 • Talk • 23:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but shouldn't the topic title include a mention of "first round", since that's what they all seem to be based on.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Congratulations.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Per Zginder below. I saw all those FLs and missed the finepoints.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Continued Oppose I am checking back in as requested. It appears you piped the wrong article to a passable name in hopes of getting the topic through. What is needed is a new article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - This topic was worked on for more than a year and repeatedly discussed at FTC's talk page. This sure would've been nice to hear ages ago. Regardless, what better summary article could exist? This is a topic about high MLB draft picks, and this is the ideal summary of that. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - What you are pointing to as the main article is not the overview article for the rest of the topics the proper overview article would be an article that properly presents the overall subject of Major League Baseball first-round picks in the June Rule 4 draft to the reader without undue weight on first overall selections.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Making an article with that kind of title just to get a topic through seems to be a waste of time though. I'm tempted to just move the title back to what it was originally, since I never saw it as all that wrong. But yeah, as Stax said above, having people suddenly complain about titles well over a year after this began is rather disheartening. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It is a massive and commendable project. However, the main article does not cover the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That assertion is untrue. The lead article focuses on a subset of the full topic. All first overall picks are covered and discussed in the leads of the individual draft pick articles, and all of the articles are (I believe) necessary to ensure that all of the first overall picks are covered. I concur with Stax and Wizardman that if this was already discussed at FTQ, there should not be a problem with it now. — KV5 • Talk • 11:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The lead list is the first overall picks and the others are first-round picks. Also there was more than one draft in the early years of the draft, but only one per year is mentioned. Zginder 2011-05-06T21:37Z (UTC)
- Would a rename of the topic to "First round picks in Major League Baseball's Rule 4 draft" work? Courcelles 22:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- He makes a good point about the other drafts. In the olden days, there was more than one amateur draft per year. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  I fixed the above name, though the problem is I'm not sure how to note it being a first-round pick topic while having the title show the first overall picks. Not really a way to do that. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Maybe the title "First-round picks in Major League Baseball's Rule 4 Draft" will strike the opposers better. This clarifies that it is only the June Rule 4 draft, and I still think that the lead article is fine, because it's a summary of the top picks combining elements from all of the related articles. — KV5 • Talk • 00:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - - The rule 4 draft was held multiple times a year until 1986. The rule 4 distinction does not denote the time of the draft, but to distinguish it from Rule 5 draft which is completely different. Z gin der 2011-05-13T05:10Z (UTC)
        I could change it to first-round picks in the June Rule 4 draft, which is wordy but as accurate as we're going to get. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:47, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        That would work, since this is all June drafts anyway; the August and January drafts are not part of this topic and never have been. "First-round picks in Major League Baseball's June draft"? — KV5 • Talk • 00:20, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with no consensus to promote as featured topic. - Excluding the supports from the contributors, there are more opposes than there are more supports for the topic. GamerPro64 20:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Body Talk Pt. 2[edit]

Body Talk Pt. 2

3 articles

"Hang with Me"

"Indestructible"

Contributor(s): PancakeMistake

I'm nominating this for a good topic because I believe it meets the criteria. All the releases are good articles. --Pancake (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work. Adabow (talk · contribs) 08:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job on the articles. Novice7 (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
support Z gin der 2011-04-25T20:17Z (UTC)

Oppose – Although the work is good, I think a good topic for the whole series would be better to have, including all the singles from the Body Talk series, as well as the album's itself. And the tour too. 3 articles isn't really much for a good topic. ℥^nding·start 02:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would the lead article be? And what tour are you referring too. Opposing a topic because of the number of articles is odd – three is the minimum per WP:FT?. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:26, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, it would be much easier and efficient to have one for the whole series. Maybe excluding the tour, because it probably isn't ever going to become a GA. Tell me this isn't better than just having one of them being a good topic, and the other parts probably becoming one as well. I know not all of these are GAs yet, but since technically, really, they are all part of a series, it seems to be the best fit.

Example

Body Talk series

9 articles

Body Talk Pt. 1

"Fembot"

Body Talk Pt. 2

"Call Your Girlfriend"

And I did not oppose of it because of the articles, I opposed of it because (I'm assuming) that more will be made when the other articles become to GA, so why not just merge them all? And also, just supporting a good topic just because it is "nice work" isn't a reason, either. ℥^nding·start 15:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that these articles need some work; Body Talk (Robyn album) seems to me like a compilation album, not studio. Body Talk Pt. 3 would need to be included. Another approach would be to have the Body Talk series (compilation as lead, including Pts 1, 2 and 3) with the three parts as subtopics. If that were to happen, this would be fine. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:37, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Body Talk should be renamed a compilation album, and Body Talk Pt. 3 a studio album? Pancake (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should be not. Robyn called the album herself a studio album, and it was promoted as such. As for the alternate approach Adabow, I completely agree, but they should really all be put into one. And if there' a problem with Body Talk Pt. 3, I think it can easily be merged back into Body Talk. I'm planning on working on it.℥^nding·start 22:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, what? BT III is still an EP, but seeing as BT contains only songs from BT parts 1, 2 and 3 (no new songs), it is a compilation. The article has not been "promoted" at all. And E-S, how can you "completely agree", but think that "they should really all be put into one". I'll draw up an example below to make myself crystal clear (this is assuming all relevant articles are brought up to GA):

Overhead topic

Body Talk series

9 articles

Body Talk Pt. 1^(subtopic)

Body Talk Pt. 2^(subtopic)

Body Talk Pt. 3^(subtopic)

Parts 1, 2 and 3 will each be eligible for their own subtopic, and thus what Pancake originally proposed is fine. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If subtopics are allowed, I think that is a great idea. And Body Talk Pt. 3 was only released in select places. Body Talk is both a studio album and a compilation album. I can see if Body Talk Pt. 3 was released the same as the others, it would be, but it wasn't. ℥^nding·start 10:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, thinking about it, this is kind of silly. "Indestructible" was a single from Body Talk, not Body Talk Pt. 2. I think my idea before is better, as I'm pretty sure you can't include two articles in the same good topic. ℥^nding·start 02:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you mean by "you can't include two articles in the same good topic". Indestructible was included on both Pts 2 and 3 - just because it is a different version it does not lessen the fact that it is on both albums. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it was a SINGLE from Body Talk, and I'm pretty sure you can't include two different articles in the same good topic. ℥^nding·start 10:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-S, don't you mean "the same article in two different topics"? Pancake (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I mean. ℥^nding·start 23:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E-S, I think you need to read WP:FT? and look through some already-promoted topics. There is absolutely no reason why an article cannot be in more than one topic or subtopics not be created. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still gonna have to oppose of this. Again, it seems quite silly for an article to an acoustic version of a song to be included in a featured topic, when the version is barely mentioned in the actual article at all, and was released as a single from a different album. I still stand at having them all under one, and having Body Talk as the main header. I would support the use of subtopics, but for the reason of one single being released under each, it just seems pointless, and they can easily be put into one topic. ℥^nding·start 14:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's just Pt. 2 that is this small. Pt. 1 had one single, four promotional singles and a tour. Pancake (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter to what extent a song is included on an album – it's still part of that album. At the In the Zone GT, I've Just Begun (Having My Fun) is included, even though it is only a bonus track on selected copies. Being an acoustic version does not at all lessen the fact that the song was included on Pt 2. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't think "Indestructible" should be included, since the "Indestructible" article is almost entirely about the song on the album Body Talk, not the acoustic version on Body Talk Pt. 2 (which, as far as I can see, isn't notable on its own). With that article removed, the topic has only two articles left, too few for a GT. Ucucha 09:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The song is just as much a part of BTP2 as Hang With Me is. Another similar situation: Love Don't Live Here Anymore is part of the Like a Virgin GT. It does not matter what portion of the article is dedicated to the version on BTP2, but the article is still relevant. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But that article has about as much text on the Madonna cover as on the original. The song that is part of BTP2 is the acoustic version that is barely mentioned, not the vocal version that is on another album. Ucucha 06:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the Madonna version was not released as a single from Like a Prayer, but a remix was released from Something to Remember. It is no different from here. Also (might not matter, but...) I think you are confusing "acoustic" with "instrumental". The acoustic version still contains vocals (I think), but the electro- or synth- production is replaced with acoustic instrumentation. Adabow (talk · contribs) 07:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with no consensus to promote as good topic. - With three Supports and two Opposes, there isn't enough consensus to make this a topic. GamerPro64 19:25, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]