Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Founding of Microsoft/archive1

Founding of Microsoft

Main page	Articles
History of Microsoft	Microsoft · Bill Gates · Paul Allen

I think that this topic is complete, as it includes the history of the company, the company, and the two primary founders. Gary King (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• Temporary oppose - per the X-Men nom - rst20xx (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

  I brought History of Microsoft and Paul Allen to GA; tried to get Bill Gates to FAC but failed. The primary contributor to Microsoft has not been on Wikipedia in over half a year. Gary King (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  OK, that's good enough for me. Thanks - rst20xx (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Question should Microsoft litigation be a part of the topic? Nergaal (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  The topic is Founding, not History. Gary King (talk) 04:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Then the connection between the main article and the name of the topic is a bit loose. Nergaal (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but there isn't a more suitable main article. You can take a look at previous FTCs which changed their scope to make the articles in the topic acceptable. Gary King (talk) 05:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous FTC? That is usually linked in the new nomination. Nergaal (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Previous FTCs – plural – meaning any in WP:FAL. Gary King (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

oppose: Ah ok. Then my opinion still remains that the connection between the main article and the actual top. Nergaal (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral - hmm, I'm on the fence about whether this is a well defined enough scope. Also, I'm not sure whether the Microsoft article should be included - it's like including the band article in the discography topic. Though on the plus side, I can't spot any gaps in the scope - rst20xx (talk) 15:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  Good point, since History of Microsoft already covers Microsoft. I guess I'll wait and see what consensus says. Gary King (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

• Support - Scope is well defined in my opinion, covers the history of the company, the company itself, and the founders. It also meets the rest of the criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. I've had to give this one a lot of thought. This topic concerns me for a couple of reasons. First, the topic is "Founding of Microsoft" yet the lead article is "History of Microsoft." Now it's not required that the topic and main article are the same, but I think it's a good convention that has come about for very good reasons--mainly that it helps to focus the topic. This leads me to my second problem, that the topic seems very unfocused. The 2 main founders articles are present, but the article about the company and the history of the company just seem to be thrown together to try to create a topic when one doesn't really feel like it exists. I think this is a case where the whole is not equal to the sum of the parts. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per Rreagan007. Zginder 2008-09-19T19:44Z (UTC)

  Would changing the scope or articles in some way alleviate these concerns? Gary King (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

  Care to make some suggestions? rst20xx (talk) 00:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  What if Microsoft was removed? Gary King (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  Does someone who opposed want to comment? (I went neutral, but I suspect such a change wouldn't help) - rst20xx (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  I feel that at least Microsoft litigation needs to be included. Zginder 2008-09-21T19:32Z (UTC)

  It doesn't really have any mention of the founding of the company, nor should it. Gary King (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• The first criterion of a topic is that "It is a set of similar, interrelated articles that cover a specific topic." If you drop the microsoft article, which definitely does not belong in the topic, then you would be left with 3 articles, none of which really focus at all on the topic of the "founding of microsoft." The history of microsoft article, which is the main article, has 2 paragraphs about it, and the Paul Allen article has only 1 paragraph about it. The articles just don't cover the topic comprehensively. I'm sorry but it's still an oppose from me. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  You don't need to make a point by opposing twice. I have unbolded your second oppose statement. Gary King (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  Gary King you have the second most successful FTCs and you do not now how this works? If you define the topic as "The Founding of Microsoft" then you need to pick artilces that mostly talk about this. None of these do, nor does Microsoft litigation, true. If you wanted to have the topic the "History of Microsoft" then Microsoft should not be in the topic and Microsoft litigation and probably more should be. Zginder 2008-09-22T04:51Z (UTC)

  You're pretty much talking down to me now. My other FTCs were video game series and such, so they were perfectly structured; I was working on these articles and was eventually curious to know if it could be a possible topic. I guess not. Gary King (talk) 04:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  I wasn't trying to make a point by opposing twice. rst20xx asked if someone who opposed earlier would comment again about dropping microsoft from the topic, so I commented. I'm sorry if you felt I was trying to be flip about it, but I wasn't. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

  I also did not intend to talk down to you, I was just shocked that a long time contributor was still confused. Maybe we need to clarify things a bit more? Also, I was trying to help you out. Zginder 2008-09-22T14:13Z (UTC)

• Close with no consensus to promote - I'm sorry, but I really don't think this is going to pass now. If you are unsure on whether a topic is unified enough to pass, then I suggest you use Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions - rst20xx (talk) 14:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)