Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/January 2011

1950 Atlantic hurricane season

6 articles

Contributor(s): Hurricanehink

First hurricane nomination in a while! Over the past year I've been working to get this to good topic, so here it is. The sub-articles are based on the individual storms with enough info to have an article, and none of those without articles have enough info to make an article. I hope you enjoy it - this is the first season where storms are named! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - worthwhile/notable season and the content seems unified enough to justify promotion to GT, as long as the necessary updates are made once HURDAT comes around. Juliancolton (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't worry, I will, but I have a feeling it'll be a while, given they're only at 1925 (and the preliminary analysis of 1944-1953 was just a student's paper, albeit a highly-researched one). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Z gin der 2011-01-06T22:38Z (UTC)
Any reason why this topic does not include a timeline article? Nergaal (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think hurricane timelines are useless and redundant, that's the main reason ;) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What did the wikiproject decide about this? I remember more than a year ago that there was a debate about having or not such lists. If the consensus is to have such lists, FT shouldn't override it; if not, then the existing timelines should be AfDed/merged into the season ones and then the topics nominated for article removals. Nergaal (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no firm agreement whether timelines should exist or not, that's sort of the issue. For example, the 1994 PHS doesn't have a timeline, and that's a GT. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Have you tried FLRCing the existing timeline FLs?
        No, but in the past, I have done an FARC for an article that I did not believe should have existed, and they said how that wasn't the right venue, that AFD was the right place. Suffice it to say, I'd rather not propose the deletion of several lists (not yet and not without some sort of project consensus, which doesn't exist yet). I'd also like to point out this discussion, fwiw. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support but I wold strongly suggest FLRCing any list timelines that is repetitious since more recently people have become more stringent about wp:CFORK. Nergaal (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Worthwhile article, with all good articles, and even a featured article. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Governors of Kentucky

Governor of Kentucky

60 articles

The result of over six years of work (on and off), this topic can now be considered a good topic. It includes Governor of Kentucky as a main article, List of Governors of Kentucky as a featured list, and every governor's article – including the two Confederate governors – as either a good or featured article. I hope you will find this topic complete and interesting and will support its nomination for GT. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 13:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The count should be 62 as it includes the confederate article. Nergaal (talk) 15:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I went ahead and fixed it. Nergaal (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That article wasn't intended to be part of the topic, only an explanatory link for the navbox. However, it is an FA, and if consensus dictates that it should be included, that's no problem. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Btw, ~~full support~~ for a topic that will seemingly become the largest we have. Very impressive! Also, the Confederate government seems to be within the scope of the topic. Nergaal (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support this topic and the removal of Confederate government of Kentucky because it is entirely in this topics' scope. Z gin der 2010-12-20T15:20Z (UTC)

Not sure I'd favor removing the Confederate government topic. Some folks who would be interested in that topic by itself, like Civil War buffs, might miss it if it's buried in here. Still, I'll defer to consensus. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 15:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support the topic - very impressive! I'm neutral on the inclusion of Confederate government of Kentucky, since that is relevant but goes beyond the scope of this topic (encompassing not just the Confederate governors, but the government as a whole). But, wow! that's impressive. cmadler (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Brilliant work from the most dedicated of editors. Reywas92^Talk 17:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the topic - good job, but also support removal of the Confederate government article because a government is more than a governor (though I realize it would make the sorting here easier), the two Confederate governors can stay. Hekerui (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: that's some impressive work. I agree with Hekerui, though there might be other reasonable ways to handle the issue with the Confederate government. Ucucha 21:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support CrowzRSA 18:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Why is Gabriel Slaughter there twice? Shouldn't Joseph Desha be included? Could the confederate government be a subtopic? Adabow (talk · contribs) 20:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Hekerui (talk) 18:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Very nice work. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would remove the Confederate governors entirely since they operated a separate government. Those governors could form their own GT. The two topics look like different scopes to me. But I see that others disagree. —Designate (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, the Confederate Gov't already has a subtopic that went through here a while back, so that's already been done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you remove the two indented articles and just have "Confederate government ^(subtopic)" ? (with links, obviously) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]}

That works. I've modified the topic as such. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support wow. Just wow. This is amazing. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Racepacket (talk) 02:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: would the topic template look better if we include the years of Governorship for each of the 40+ entries? Nergaal (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in the current form if the topic is on "Governors of Kentucky" and not on "List of Governors" then it should also include Lieutenant Governor of Kentucky and an yet nonexistant article Kentucky gubernatorial elections. If the lead article is dropped entirely (and the confederate one) and replaced with the List, then the topic is fine. After that, this list topic would be a subtopic on one including the articles on the Confederate one, the Lieutenant one, and the elections one. Nergaal (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I follow or agree with your logic that a topic about the governors of Kentucky must necessarily include the lieutenant governor or one about gubernatorial elections. In fact, doing some quick spot checks, I didn't find any states that have general "gubernatorial elections" articles, although there are many articles about specific notable elections. The governor and lieutenant governor weren't even elected on the same ticket until 1992. I really don't see how those articles should be required for this topic. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parks and Recreation (season 2)

Parks and Recreation (season 2)

25 articles

"Pawnee Zoo"

"The Stakeout"

"Beauty Pageant"

"Practice Date"

"Sister City"

"Kaboom"

"The Camel"

"The Set Up"

"Sweetums"

"The Possum"

"Park Safety"

"Summer Catalog"

"94 Meetings"

"Telethon"

"The Master Plan"

"Freddy Spaghetti"

Parks and Recreation (season 1) is already a GT. I've been working on these second season articles for quite a while and now I believe the topic is ready, just in time for season three to start! :D — Hun ter Ka hn 16:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - All articles GT or FT?: Check. At least 2 sub articles and a parent article?: Check. All articles related by topic?: Check. Seems to meet criteria for to me. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Z gin der 2010-12-29T00:57Z (UTC)
Support - Excellent work. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:18, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support keep 'em coming. Nergaal (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Season 3 should be easier with fewer episodes :( --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

30 Rock (season 4)

30 Rock (season 4)

23 articles

"Season 4"

"Into the Crevasse"

"Stone Mountain"

"Audition Day"

"The Problem Solvers"

"Sun Tea"

"Dealbreakers Talk Show"

"Secret Santa"

"Klaus and Greta"

"Black Light Attack!"

"Winter Madness"

"Verna"

"Anna Howard Shaw Day"

"Future Husband"

"Don Geiss, America and Hope"

"Floyd"

"Lee Marvin vs. Derek Jeter"

"Khonani"

"Argus"

"The Moms"

"Emanuelle Goes to Dinosaur Land"

"I Do Do"

I'm nominating this for good topic status, because... well, I'm not exactly sure why. ThinkBlue ought to be doing this. Main article passed FLC, and all the episode articles are GA's, though my involvement in the topic was limited to the main article and doing a couple of the GA reviews. Staxringold also had a good deal to do with this finally being able to be here, and I'm sure I'm forgetting someone. Courcelles 21:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support But could you move "Floyd" to the third column for balance? Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Courcelles 21:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support I was wondering why wasn't this nominated earlier. Nergaal (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to see this FLC pass, both to support this new GT, and to keep the FT which was up for delisting. --Admrboltz (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Z gin der 2010-12-17T19:08Z (UTC)
Hmm, Parks and 30 Rock season FT's at the same time? Where is the Office and Community! ~~Oppose without them!~~ Support! ;) --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Animal

Animal

6 articles

"Tik Tok"

"Your Love Is My Drug"

"Blah Blah Blah"

"Take It Off"

"Dirty Picture"

Why am i nominating this? Well, i have worked my butt off on these articles and have personally written each one. All the articles are good articles and i watch and monitor them daily to maintain their original passing standards. So with the support of my fellow editors, I would like to promote this topic to a good topic. Please leave your comments below and thank you :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support though I wonder if Dirty Picture should be included? Courcelles 21:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually never thought of that. Im leaning towards 'no because the version from Kesha's album, is a different version that was released as a single. Although it is a GA as well im gunna oppose the addition. If others disagree i will gladly add it. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work from CK over the months. I italicised Animal, though, per the MoS. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to you, the image has nothing to do with the album, so why it is here? Tbh®tch^Talk ^© Happy Holidays 22:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used it because its the highest quality picture of her that shows her face. If you would like to suggest another image please do. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this or this. I suggest the current for a topic related to her (like her discography). Tbh®tch^Talk ^© Happy Holidays 22:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She looks beyond drunk in both lol. Ive changed the image, will this suffice? :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

support - lol, actually in all. OK with that. I support it, well done CK. Tbh®tch^Talk ^© Happy Holidays 22:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ this should contain both Dirty Picture (which should have a separate section on this cover/version) and also Cannibal (EP). Furthermore, the image in use now can be cropped to better depict the singer (only). Nergaal (talk) 23:22, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibal is its own album and will have its own good topic. Cropping the image will disrupt articles that the image is used in. Dirty picture is not from her album, its a song on a specific deluxe edition and differs from the single released. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 23:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what the Cannibal intro says: The EP is a follow up companion to her previous record, Animal. Originally the record was set to only be released as a deluxe edition of Animal, but was instead sold and released as both an EP and a deluxe edition of Animal. As for the extra song,Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Like a Virgin/archive1 has a somewhat similar discussion. Nergaal (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ive added the song but im still opposing this for now. I may just do "Animal + Cannibal" and merge the two once i can nominate Cannibal, it wasnt included due to WP:RECENTISM. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note that Cannibal can be added now (it would have until Feb 19 to get to GA) and I don't think having a separate Cannibal topic would make sense since A & C seem so well linked together. Nergaal (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should easily be able to GA it by then. As well as We R Who We R and what ever other singles she releases. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 02:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I oppose the addition of Cannibal. They are two completely different in terms of era, and is better suited as a separate GT. CK, don't add it. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet, now I know you will antithesize any opinion I have. Anyways, if you read through wp:FP? you will see among the recommendations: Conversely, a topic should not be excessively sub-divided; an all-encompassing topic of five articles is better than two topics of three each. These recommendations were created a long time before music topics were first nominated, and they were made by the people who created this whole process (and presumably have/had a better idea of what topics should be like). Nergaal (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be absurd Nergaal. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Crop the image and upload it to the Commons under a separate title, not over the existing one. That will solve that problem. Just remember to attribute it as a modification of the current image. Courcelles 23:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you,

Done - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nice work. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good job! Candy o32 - Merry CHRISTmas :) 18:39, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just realised something, the nomination name needs to be changed. A common topic like Animal will be more prevalent, hence I believe this should be renamed to Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Animal (album)/archive1 or Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Animal (Kesha album)/archive1. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 15:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done and i dont think it requires any clean up after the redirect. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It needed some cleanup- for housekeeping reasons we don't generally leave featured content candidate redirects around, so I updated everything (talk pages of the articles, FTC page, and incoming links) to point here directly and deleted the redirect. Courcelles 17:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that, thank you very much :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support A great effort from Lakeshade. Good job! Novice7 | Talk 06:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Cannibal could be included but does not have to be. All songs on the main album version that have articles need to be GA. Deluxe versions can, but are not required to, be included. Z gin der 2010-12-19T21:39Z (UTC)
Support, and I don't think Cannibal should be included at all. The fact that it's sold along Animal doesn't change the fact that it's a new separate body of work. Xwomanizerx (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:48, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]