Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/2014 log

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept[edit]

Period 1 elements[edit]

edit | discuss
Period 1 elements
3 articles
Hydrogen
Helium

I am nominating this topic as it fails 1.a in the criteria. This is due to the lead topic being redirected to Period (periodic table). GamerPro64 18:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I second this delisting, mainly because the earlier page (having content) was not that a GA. Its quality was discussed at WP:ELEMENTS here (search for 'period 1 element' sub-threads). The removal of content (for redirect) was generally accepted by the involved editors. -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seconded, though I'd personally say that there was no content there in the first place that was relevant to period 1 and not H and He. The periods are not chemically similar and, I would argue, are not too suited to FTs – the groups would make great FTs (e.g. the FT Noble gas). The only places where horizontal similarities really become more important than vertical similarities are in the lanthanides and actinides. Double sharp (talk) 01:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to oppose delisting, because there is no longer a consensus to merge the period articles. Double sharp (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, if there was the same about of energy put into improving articles from such states instead of debating what is worth an article and/or topic or not, then such articles/topics could easily exist. Good luck with this attrition attitude within WP:ELEM. Nergaal (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you cut out all the sections in those articles about the elements instead of the periods, you'll be left with very little that can very easily be merged into period (periodic table). This would include only the first three short sections and lede of your period 1 old revision. And I have been working on alkali metal and neptunium, among other things, both of which began in bad states. Double sharp (talk) 12:31, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, at this rate ([1] vs [2]) you will finish all the element articles in several lifetimes! And you won't even need any help from fellow contributors (unlike [3] vs [4]). Nergaal (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, it's a slow pace. So why not help by working on articles that can be improved? If you want more GTs/FTs, sodium beckons, as do some transition metal groups. My own current goal is to simply have period 7 all green and blue by next year, as I'm not overly motivated by GT/FT as much as important articles like thorium, but you can work in any way that motivates you! But I don't see how you can write about periods. If you think you can, why not post a section outline somewhere, or some links to references? That would convince me. Double sharp (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, Nergaal, you propose to first skip the fact that there is nothing to say about a topic, and then improve that nothingness into an FA. You not only propose that, you also give an in-text demonstration of what you that means. -DePiep (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: I concur. Let us bring the individual period articles back, shall we? Certainly if there are serious and lengthy academic treatises about group 10 elements, there certainly are references for period 1 elements. Do you have any sources for the latter? Parcly Taxel 23:09, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked. There aren't, and I suspect that's for the same reason I said earlier: the groups are far more homologous than the periods. Most texts I looked at subdivide the elements into chapters by groups and not periods, except for the lanthanides, actinides, and transactinides. Double sharp (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Oh, and the other ones (mostly popular books) went element by element in alphabetical or atomic-number order. Double sharp (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Now let me add this. "period 1 element" does not even suggest there is a period! It should have been named "List of period 1 elements", of course, to make clear that the Nergaal's want to describe individual elements, not their periodic relationship. Strange though that Nergaal never ever thought of this. Now if one ever wants to write an article about period 1, that would be a truly interesting new page (and an new page name). -DePiep (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do that. Parcly Taxel 05:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so much energy spent on personal attacks and destroying whatever work has been done before. It's almost like I missed this constructive attitude when I bothered with the project. Nergaal (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I missed this constructive attitude - indeed: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. -DePiep (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You know how to read? Or that is too much for you? Nergaal (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nergaal, you show a lot of chutspa (which not only means 'bravoure' but also 'lack of reason to do so'). You yourself did not contribute to the link you gave. Also that link left wproject Elements with contradicting and problematic outcome, as I predicted there in the process. But alas, we worked on it -- the better base being the earlier, then open talk section #Options of course. And let me point to this significant aspect. The page Other metal was proposed, prepared & made high grade by fellow ELEM editor Sandbh. After (1) preparing a publishable page themselves, (2) initiating and concluding a search for consensus, and then (3) implementing it. That's how wp works. (btw, click that link and see who contributed - and what. Hint: look for a nonpinged editor). Then months later (about June 1st) you come in creating havoc for days without articulating your point. And keep listening: today that same editor is working to get the article better & renamed (but not into 'poor'), a change against their own proposed and well concluded consensus. That's what I call loyalty to the wiki project, and to its discussion process. (Of course this issue I would not have raised, had you not these days shown that you still have this attitude. A bad day can happen, even 7 in a row doesn't beat my PB/PW. But ten weeks now?). To me, it also raises questions that you rely on & communicate with other editors off-page to state. All in all, I still don't get why you didn't/don't just go to a talkpage. Really, what is happening?, I ask. -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you used a 1/2 kb prose to justify your own pow. You still choose to fill books of texts on talkpages instead of accepting clear cases of consensus that are 100% agains your own pow. Take your tag-team and continue jerking off together on other talkpages you choose so and stop bothering proving that your own view is opposite to mine. Nergaal (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other metal was just moved to Post-transition metal. Double sharp (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is what I said, Double sharp. Another triumph of wiki talkpage talk & consensus. And no Nergaal talk involved (btw, do you know what a 'pow' is? I even seem to own one). -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to think that this nomination has only lead to bickering and not actually trying to keep this topic afloat. I'm questioning whether or not to just close it instead of waiting for the 10 day period to end. GamerPro64 02:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry too much. has only lead to bickering is not that correct, imo the two !votes were substantial for starters. If one skips reading the (perceived) bickering posts, there still is a substantial reasoning wrt your OP and the content removal. -DePiep (talk) 10:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We were not even ignoring it. We were just waiting for Sandbh to get his replacement article in his sandbox ready – last I checked, his section for At was missing some references. Then we will move it. Surely you understand that it takes a lot of time to update every single PT on WP at once – I daresay I've had to do that several times before. And I would rather have a reasonably good article shell there. Double sharp (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Nergaal: stop for a moment. What exactly do you want? I will be supporting you all the way through this, but I want your reasons for keeping the period articles. Parcly Taxel 06:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And look at this consensus completely being ignored by people who just know they are right in doing attrition wars. Nergaal (talk) 06:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shortcut: just start by improving Period_(periodic_table)#Period_1, sources and electron filling and periodicity, and all that's relevant. When substantiated (not just listing), it could fly out and make a stand-alone article. This times seven. -DePiep (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not so much electron filling (that's more for electron configuration), but on periodicity I agree. Double sharp (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest undoing period 1 element (and other element articles) blanking and after that, keeping the topic. In fact, I'm not doing that only because the original editor who did that is here.
Again, that article (even it) had its potential. For other periods, it is obvious. For this one, we can talk why only two elements (discuss the Aufbau principle). It even was a GA (so there were some people investing time in building the article, someone else recognized it being eligible for displaying a plus), it was not worthless, and suddenly was blanked. I don't think that was a right move.--R8R (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you and understand. Am wondering whether this would work better as sections in the main period article or as standalone articles. Could I have a day or two to think about it?
(I would have sent the article as it stood to GAR anyway, but maybe it is possible to GA this properly. I'll have to think a little more.) Double sharp (talk) 16:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to re-GA it (I am not sure about GARing it in first place: what criterion does it fail? Even if there is a criterion it fails, why not try to make it a proper GA instead of delisting and losing a FT other people invested time in? You as a WP:ELEM member should also be interested in having an element FT (and even more FTs)). It's possible to even FA it, again, there's no criterion this article couldn't pass.
Have a day or two if you must, but please no longer.--R8R (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I restored the articles on periods 1–7. Haven't done so for 8–10 because how you partition those depends on source (Fricke, Pyykkö).
Did you want the elements past E120 too? Double sharp (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is a completely different topic. Those are presumed elements, while the periods actually exist. Nergaal (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
need to go, can you do 5 to 7? Double sharp (talk) 03:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is this? Again Nergaal can disrupt the process? R8R, what do you mean by "Again"? (And understand that the 120+ elements are not discussed on this page). -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DePiep: After all this talk you are still missing my point. Can you imagine how the P1 element article would have looked now if all the energy spent on this page was put into the article itself? Nergaal (talk) 11:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know E121 and up shouldn't be discussed here: I just wanted to know what R8R's view on them was, before opening (or not) a thread at WT:ELEM. Double sharp (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, the article is back which makes the two votes for delisting redundant. But seeing that this conflict isn't going to end anytime soon, I may have to keep this nomination up a bit longer. Though I'm not exactly comfortable with the politics shown. GamerPro64 13:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither happy with the process. OTOH, this FT discussion is still valid: does the article (now wth content) have FA quality? I read both !votes saying No (and you might check your OP for this too). When things are stable, I'll have the article questioned for being FA anyway. -DePiep (talk) 15:01, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the main article being of FA quality or not has anything to do with the discussion at hand. To be a Featured Article, at least 50% needs to be of Featured Content. Since the two elements in this period are Featured Articles, its a Featured Topic. The main article can be a GA unless there are plans to make this a Full Featured Topic. The main reasoning for keeping this nomination up is for stability purposes since the Period 1 page just came back. One can't be too certain. Speaking of, the two people that have voted this to be delisted may need to reevaluate their votes. GamerPro64 17:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my vote (see above). Double sharp (talk) 12:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Double sharp, this is nonsense. And circular. You change your vote to follow an outcome? -sure. Well, @GamerPro64:, I suggest you close this thread as you think good. -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote on my talk page on 1 August: "It's purely procedural: I can't really vote for the topic to be delisted, since the lead article is back and its GA status has not (yet) been revoked. If and when that happens, I will vote for delisting. On that page we are voting about removing the topic's FT status, not whether the period 1 element article is worthy of its GA status." Double sharp (talk) 12:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate Comment - Well on one hand, there is both Opposition and Support for removing this topic's Featured status. On the other, The article is back into place. I think this may require some more consensus before we can get a verdict. GamerPro64 21:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(don't know what a delegate comment is). I'd say, you can close this page as undecided (null, no effect), and previous situation stays. Later on and in other pages discussion can continue. btw I thank you for you sincere contributions. -DePiep (talk)

Very well. I will close this nomination as Keep per undecided outcome. Good luck on the other discussions. GamerPro64 22:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pearl Jam studio albums[edit]

edit | discuss
Pearl Jam studio albums
10 articles
Ten
Vs.
Vitalogy
No Code
Yield
Binaural
Riot Act
Pearl Jam
Backspacer

I am placing this topic up for GTRC for failing to meet criterion 3.b of the Featured Topic criteria due to Lightning Bolt (Pearl Jam album) not being at least at Good Article status before its grace period ended. GamerPro64 19:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. Looks like it wouldn't be too hard as there are a good deal of sources already there in the article. But at present the article is rated Start-class and would need some work put into it indeed. — Cirt (talk) 05:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hang on: User:Igordebraga is doing some good work to bring the article up to snuff.—indopug (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, procrastination is getting in my way, but I'm trying to get that to GA as soon as possible. igordebraga ≠ 22:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay. Since there's effort being made to get Lightning Bolt to GA status, this review won't get closed anytime soon. GamerPro64 22:41, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sent Lightning Bolt to the GAN, awaiting a review. igordebraga ≠ 14:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It passed! And since Lightning Bolt is already in the topic box, don't think it even needs a supplementary nom. Can this only get closed? igordebraga ≠ 21:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closed to have Pearl Jam studio albums retain its Good Topic status. - GamerPro64 03:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Demoted[edit]

Gliese 876[edit]

edit | discuss
Gliese 876
4 articles
Gliese 876 b
Gliese 876 c
Gliese 876 d

This topic is nominated for GTR due to its failure of criteria 3.b. Just like the other GTRCs involving Astronomy, this time Gliese 876 e is seen to not be up to date for the topic. GamerPro64 22:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cocker Spaniel[edit]

edit | discuss
Cocker Spaniel
3 articles
American Cocker Spaniel
English Cocker Spaniel

English Cocker Spaniel hasn't been at GA standard for over two years - NickGibson3900 Talk 01:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replying as the original nominator for both the GT and the editor who took the ECS article to GA too. Yep, I agree with the removal of the GT. The ECS was my first GA and I wasn't fully up to speed on Wiki processes. I reached a point where I felt that it was setting a bad example for GAs and so I had it removed. I'm afraid I haven't really got any interest in working on it again to take it back to GA as it needs a total overhaul in order to be cited with reliable sources. Miyagawa (talk) 08:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HD 40307[edit]

edit | discuss
HD 40307
4 articles
HD 40307 b
HD 40307 c
HD 40307 d

I am nominating this for GTRC for the same reasons as 47 Ursae Majoris. This time around HD 40307 e, HD 40307 f, and HD 40307 g are not up to at least GA standards, which makes the topic incomplete. GamerPro64 18:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

47 Ursae Majoris[edit]

edit | discuss
47 Ursae Majoris
3 articles
47 Ursae Majoris b
47 Ursae Majoris c

This topic is nominated for GTR due to its failure of criteria 3.b. The article 47 Ursae Majoris d was created on March 7th, 2010, over a year after the topic was created. Yet it did not reach GA status since, making the topic incomplete. GamerPro64 00:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team[edit]

edit | discuss
2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team
4 articles
John Beilein
Manny Harris
DeShawn Sims

Per request of the nominator of the topic here, the topic currently fails due to being incomplete as articles Zack Novak, Stu Douglass, Jevohn Shepherd, and one for an assistant coach according to the nominator but can't find are not part of the topic. And since they are not up to at least GA status makes the topic more ailing. GamerPro64 01:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant coach: Jerry Dunn.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead and remove it. Nergaal (talk) 11:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed with consensus to have the topic Delisted. - GamerPro64 19:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Sword[edit]

edit | discuss
Broken Sword
8 articles
The Shadow of the Templars
The Smoking Mirror
The Sleeping Dragon
The Angel of Death
The Shadow of the Templars – Director's Cut
The Serpent's Curse
The Goat Puzzle

I am nominating this up at GTRC due to its failure to meet criterion 3.b of the criteria with Broken Sword 5: The Serpent's Curse not reaching at least GA status on March 4th. GamerPro64 03:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove per... well, all there really is. Broken Sword 5 isn't a GA. Tezero (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I glimpsed at The Serpent's Curse to see if I could save this topic but the article needs a big bunch of work before being GA ready. → Call me Hahc21 05:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed with consensus to have the topic Delisted. - GamerPro64 01:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_removal_candidates/2014_log&oldid=1000267455"