Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/October 2010

Renown class battlecruisers[edit]

Renown-class battlecruisers

3 articles

HMS Renown

HMS Repulse

This GTC concerns a pair of British battlecruisers built during World War I. Neither saw much combat during the war, but were twice extensively reconstructed before World War II. Both ships were very active during World War II, including participation in the Norwegian Campaign and the search for the Bismarck. Repulse was sunk by the Japanese when they attacked British Malaya, but Renown survived the war while supporting multiple convoys to Russia and Malta, among other duties, and was scrapped in 1948.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -MBK₀₀₄ 05:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Oppose - it is rather pointless to have a topic promoted for just a few weeks before it is merged into a master topic. The British battlecruisers are now all eligible for their master topic like the German battlecruisers (the only obstacle is that the list anchor for the topic is currently at FLC and the Courageous class is pending promotion below us here at FTC/GTC) (See the progress table keeping in mind that the As are already GAs). This same situation occurred with the last class that Parsec completed of the German battlecruisers. He did not get that topic promoted since it would be immediately merged into another within a week or two after promotion. That same situation is now upon us here. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per MBK. Parsecboy (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ordinarily I'd agree with y'all, but as points from this count in the WikiCup I need this promoted separately so I ask that an exception be made.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - But you can't count these articles twice once the topics are merged, can you? Because that wouldn't technically be a "new" FT, it'd be a merged one. Parsecboy (talk) 17:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's an interesting point that I hadn't considered. All of the other GTs in the overall topic were done earlier and points were awarded in those rounds so I'm thinking that this super GT nets me points again for each individual article. But maybe I'm indulging in a bit of wishful thinking. I'll ask a judge to rule on the proper way to score this, because I can see getting points only for the stuff that was completed this round.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, maybe I was being greedy. I can withdraw this nom in favor of the big British BC GTC which would replace this shortly since that's only waiting on the FLC to be complete.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the scenario depicted by Parsecboy: that would be an expansion/merge, not creation of a new topic. Nergaal (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as withdrawn nomination. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tegetthoff class battleships[edit]

Tegetthoff-class battleships

5 articles

The first real dreadnoughts of the Austro Hungarian Navy, the Tegetthoff class served as the main force of the K.u.k. Kriegsmarine during World War I. Two ships were sunk, and the remaining ones were scrapped overseas. User:White Shadows and I have worked on the majority of the articles, with User:Sturmvogel 66 getting Szent Istvan to GA. Buggie111 (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, yes, this is a co-nom between the two of us :)--White Shadows ^{Your guess is as good as mine} 23:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -MBK₀₀₄ 06:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close I'm noming a unified GT now, and seeing what happened with the Moltke class GTC, I'm deciding to clsoe this. Buggie111 (talk) 03:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing, nomination withdrawn Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United States Marine Corps leadership[edit]

United States Marine Corps

4 articles

Commandant of the Marine Corps

Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps

Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps

I am nominating this group of articles for Featured Topic because I believe it represents a gap in our current topics. --Kumioko (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support... naturally enough, though I'm biased here. :P bahamut0013^words _deeds 23:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose... because I believe it has gaps in the current topic. It is like proposing a topic on Microsoft composed of Bill Gates and Paul Allen. That has been proposed and rejected and I don't see enough differences with the proposal here. Nergaal (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think its missing? Maybe I can fill it in.--Kumioko (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There were a lot more concerns with the Microsoft FTC than just that. And yes, what gaps do you see? bahamut0013^words _deeds 11:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umh... pretty much everything that is not directly related to the highest ranks in the corps? How would a topic called "USA" be if it only included the articles on the president and the vice-president, an perhaps the senate? A possibility could be to rename the topic "Highest ranks in..." but that would be like having a topic on the founding of Microsoft but using the main article, not even the history one as a lead. Nergaal (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, not trying to sound stupid here but that's why I called it United States Marine Corps leadership. And I don't really see the narrow scope point you are trying to make. Just because the scope of the topic is related specifically to USMC leadership doesn't mean its invalid. And using the example you gave for USA. If it was for say Leadership of the USA it might be valid, but if it was just USA then likely not. Know as you have brought up the point I have given it some thought and perhaps you might have a point in that I should probably include the Secretary of the Navy, President of the USA and the Vice President of the USA. But they are not exactly in the chain of command. --Kumioko (talk)

I'd say probably not... the scope was defined narrowly, and I don't see what value in expanding it past that would be (not to mention that the POTUS article is not likely to meet the stability criterion (1e) for FA anytime in the near future). I think he may have assumed that the topic was supposed to be for the Marine Corps as a whole because that was the main article. bahamut0013^words _deeds 03:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice the title as the lead uses the simple title. My point is that an article called Leadership of the USMC (or chain of command or something like that) can be created and would do fine as a stand-alone article, especially as this topic is not clearly covered in the main article. With such a lead article this would be a fine topic, but with just the USMC is really not. Nergaal (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. United_States_Marine_Corps#Leadership clearly covers the topic and isn't appropriate for a stand-alone article as I outline below. I believe there is some precedent for lead article being a section within an article of lerger scope. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – At the very least, I would expect most of the articles in {{US Marine Corps navbox}} to be at FA or GA status before this topic could be featured. Alternatively, if Leadership of the United States Marine Corps were created, and the articles under Leadership in the navbox were brought up to the right quality, that would work as well. NW (Talk) 03:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the majority of the articles in the Navbox relate to things beyond Marine Corps leadership, which this topic is not about. This is for Marine Corps leadership. And all four of these are currently featured status. Additionally IMO we don't need to create a redundant article for USMC leadership. We have multiple articles relating to it already. --Kumioko (talk)

Theoretically, we could split United_States_Marine_Corps#Leadership off to its own article, but then it would be completely redundant because there really isn't any room to trim or summarize from that section on the main article. And like Kumioko says, most of the other articles are in a scope well above and beyond this proposed topic, and broadening it would not be especially helpful. I could see the case being made for List of United States Marine Corps four-star generals, however. bahamut0013^words _deeds 13:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the above. The nav box is a good start, as are any basic lists/articles that directly mention the Corps in the name. Where is List of United States Marine Corps individual equipment? List of vehicles of the United States Marine Corps? United States Marine Corps Aviation? List of United States Marine Corps installations? Etc. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so let me say again because apparently it isnt clear...This topic IS NOT a general, all inclusive topic about the Marine Corps. It is for the Marine Corps leadership (CMC, ACMC, SgtMaj of the USMC, Myabe the Secnav and the president and I could even go so far as to say the list of Generals. Now maybe I need to take off the United States Marine Corps article to be more clear but I think it sets a good base as in Heres a link to the United States Marine Corps and here are the leadership lists and all are featured. --Kumioko (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then, yes, oppose because the lead article is 100% incorrect. Even if piped it simply isn't on the command structure of the Marines, it's the general marine article. It'd be like making a New York Yankees manager featured topic using New York Yankees as the lead article and not List of New York Yankees managers. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your point is taken, but as I said before, I don't think that an article like Leadership of the United States Marine Corps would be feasible because it would literally be a word-for-word copy of United_States_Marine_Corps#Leadership, which in turn could not comfortably be summarized further on the main article. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the subsection isn't notable/broad enough for a stand-alone list then there may just not be a subtopic here. We could have a Jewish MoH winners topic because that has a lead article, but Jewish... I dunno Jewish second basemen we couldn't because there is no such article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't say anything about notability. bahamut0013^words _deeds 20:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever word you want to use. If a proper title article doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. You can't force-create one by piping an article from the same general topic area. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as written. I'd probably support if List of United States Marine Corps four-star generals and United States Secretary of the Navy were included, as I see the topic's defined scope as valid, but the 4-stars and SECNAV are fairly important parts of the leadership. Courcelles 17:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that gets us part of the way but then that leaves off the Sergeants major because they arent generals but they are animportant part of the leadership chain. Hence I am left with the original title...United States Marine Corps leadership. I am already working on the Pres of the USA list and will start working on the other 2 in the near future. --Kumioko (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? The Sgt. Majors are already included, as well they should. I'm afraid I didn't quite get your comment. Courcelles 18:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misunderstood you comment but it looked as though you were saying to change it to be only generals and higher. --Kumioko (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's all. I wouldn't remove anything, just think more needs adding. Courcelles 19:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thank you for being clear! :) BTW, the word "sergeant major" in plural is written "sergeants major". It's a fairly obscure grammatical rule, to be sure. bahamut0013^words _deeds 19:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like Surgeons and Attorneys general. :) Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close with no consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington & Jefferson College[edit]

Washington & Jefferson College

8 articles

List of Washington & Jefferson College alumni

List of presidents of Washington & Jefferson College

City of Washington–Washington & Jefferson College relations

List of Washington & Jefferson College buildings

Technology Center (Washington & Jefferson College)

Washington & Jefferson Presidents football

List of Washington & Jefferson Presidents head football coaches

I'm nominating this for good topic criteria because I think that these articles offer a nice cross-section of information on the college, to include material on alumni, college presidents, athletics, the buildings, and town-gown relations.--GrapedApe (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I"m counting four FL's and four GA's. Shouldn't this be an FTC? Courcelles 15:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is a huge gap without History of Washington & Jefferson College, and I am not very sure this topic is ok without an article on the campus of the college. The least Literary societies at Washington & Jefferson College should also be included. Of course Washington & Jefferson Presidents is also an issue. Check Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria/Overview topics for more information. Nergaal (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted for lack of consenus.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]