Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/2002 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1

2002 Atlantic hurricane season
All the storms in the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  17:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Why isn't List of storms in the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season included in the topic? --Admrboltz (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Because it is redundant to the main season article. There is currently a discussion about it at WT:WPTC, so it is not feasible to merge the list at this time. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  18:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to Weak Support per arguments by --Admrboltz (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  - while List of storms in the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season exists, it should be included. If it ends up merged, then that's fine, but that hasn't come to pass, so I oppose for now - rst20xx (talk) 21:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC) See below for reasoning - rst20xx (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be better if the topic is changed to "Storms in the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season"? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No. That's an attempt at cherrypicking by scope reduction and I don't think it even succeeds in reducing the scope as desired anyway - rst20xx (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well there's nothing I can do about the list. I can't merge it, nor can I FLC it. Do you have any suggestions? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. You withdraw this nom, wait until WP:WPTC decides what to do with this type of list, and at that point, if the list is to be merged, you merge it, and if it is not, you get it to FL. And THEN you rebring the nom - rst20xx (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC) See below - rst20xx (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. This topic should not be withdrawn by any means (in case anyone was thinking that). Worst comes to worst, we could merge the list article, and then unmerge it once the article is promoted, then get the three month waiting period once the article is de-merged. The topic is pretty much "Storms in the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season", whether explicit or implied, since the linking feature for all of the articles is the button bar; the list article is not included in the button bar. ♬♩ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 23:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well could it be that the list item maybe should be on the button bar? And as for your "possible merge" idea: if you were to go down that route, you'd need to actually do the merge before the topic could pass, not afterwards, and what is more, to do that would be deleting an article so a topic can pass, which is not on in the first place - rst20xx (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. It does seem to me that it would be ashame to kill this topic just because of the list issues. The topic looks like a great topic except that there is this list hanging out there in limbo at the moment. I guess we could go ahead and approve the topic, see how the list issue gets resolved in the future, and then take appropriate action at that time. I'm not sure I really like that solution, but I'd hate to punish all the hard work that has been done to get this topic in shape just because there is debate about whether or not a list should exist. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How would it be punishing the hard work? Just because the topic fails now, that doesn't mean it can't pass in the future, once WP:WPTC has resolved the list issues! (Which really shouldn't take that long) What you're basically proposing we do is pass a topic that doesn't meet the criteria just because it has had an impressive amount of work put into it. And there's no guarantee that anything will ever get resolved if we pass it now - rst20xx (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok I've had another thought. The list failed FLC because of instability, so then it should qualify under 3.c to be audited. If it passes the quality audit then it should still qualify under the topic criteria. So we can just put this nomination on hold until the audit is performed. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ...yes. That makes sense. Thank you. In this case, I oppose until the list goes through PR - rst20xx (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - so what's happening here Julian? rst20xx (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response. I forgot to check in here recently. I still believe that the list is not needed to complete the topic, as it is redundant to the main article. But, as of right now I'm waiting for WPTC to come to an agreement regarding what to do with such articles. I don't know if it's possible to suspend this nomination, but in any event, it seems unlikely that the topic will pass at this point. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  20:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you want to withdraw it, or put it on hold? rst20xx (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't want to withdraw it, so putting the nom on-hold seems like the only choice. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  21:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment this topic has 13 articles and only 4 are featured => good topic? Nergaal (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 4/13=30% Rreagan007 (talk) 03:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 On hold , pending the conclusion of the discussion at WT:WPTC about "List of storms in seasons" articles - rst20xx (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Oppose Although the rest of the articles are GA-class or better (with Edouard, Gustav, Kyle, and the topic's main article being featured), the list of storms in the 2002 Atlantic hurricane season is only Start-class; that should quick-fail this topic because not all of the articles are at least GA-class. --Dylan620 (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - as far as I can tell, no-one has said anything in the discussion in 7 days now. What was the conclusion, if anything? rst20xx (talk) 22:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I think the list should either be required to begin the audit process immediately or the nomination should be dropped. Who knows when the storm list debate will be resolved. It could be months, and the nomination process is not meant to have a nomination open indefinitely. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Audit process started. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  15:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Response to Rreagan007 - if it's going to be months, that suggests to me that the conversation is effectively going to be forgotten about for most of that time. I think it would be fair to say that if the conversation isn't resolved in one month (and there is no active discussion), then it's likely forgotten about. So can we agree to place this topic into 3-month retention either as soon as the conversation is resolved, or one month from when this topic passes (if there is no active discussion in a month)? (Basically I'm looking for some kind of setup to dictate that the topic will not indefinitely have an audited article) rst20xx (talk) 10:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I think you make a good point. If the discussion is inactive for a month then I would say it has been effectively dropped. At that point the list should be able to make it through FLC, so I would support putting it into retention at that time. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Juliancolton, does this sound reasonable to you? rst20xx (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure. It seems as if the discussion at WT:WPTC is on-and-off, and no real decision has come from it as of yet. A month might be enough time to hash out an article format and get the list to FLC. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  01:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This page was edited by ĈĠ 01:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support The PR is complete. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Support now the list of storms is included. This is going to be a complicated retention period to carry out, but hopefully a fair one - rst20xx (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose the list of storms should be a FL before this can become a FT. Nergaal (talk) 19:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the auditing process? –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  19:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced the list cannot become a FL. In the past, articles that did not seem to be GA-able were still listed for GAN to prove that they would fail. Unless it is proven by a failed FLC that this is not featurable, then a PR does not suffice IMO. Nergaal (talk) 19:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The list was already nominated at FLC, at which time several users agreed that, because of potential instability associated with a WikiProject discussion regarding it and similar article, it could not be featured until the project comes to a decision over how to format such lists. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  19:44, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The first attempt at FLC was a failure. Therefore, the audit process is more than appropriate in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that this is featurable, but because of a project where almost nobody votes it is too unstable? In principle even TFA's are unstable, yet they do appear on the mainpage. IF something is EVER decided, then the presumably-FL would be FLRed, or reviewed. The FLC was not a failure, but a withdrawing. As such, in order to prevent future mayhem, this topic should be featured or at least clearly shown that is unfeaturable for now by a comprehensive FLC. Nergaal (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but once the list discussion is settled (or has gone dormant for a period of time) the topic will be put into retention and the list will have to go through FLC. I think that's a reasonable approach in this case. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about promoting this to GT but NOT FT until the issue is solved? I think it would be a fair outcome. Nergaal (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's really an option. As you know, the only difference between a FT and a GT is the percentage of featured articles, and this topic still has 28% featured even with the audited article. It's either a FT or it's not. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ←I jsut think that adding the label "featured" when the containing articles are not featured due to wiki beaurocracy is a slippery slope. Nergaal (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nergaal, if you want to change the rules, please don't propose the change in the topic nom - rst20xx (talk) 22:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you understand the FT process; the article was audited for quality, as it cannot at this time become featured. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  16:51, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dylan620, from your comment it does not appear you have read the above discussion about this topic. Please read the above discussion first and then make your comment in the context of what has already been discussed. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Note &mdash; Tropical Storm Hanna (2002) just passed FAC. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  23:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Closed as no-consensus after more than a month I have been following this discussion from the beginning, but I have not commented. After more than a month of discussion, it is obvious a few regular and not so regular contributors to featured topics have a problem with this set up. I suggest that you go back and get the main disagreement with the list worked out with the wikiproject and then renominate. It would only be detrimental to the encyclopedia if FT discussions decide to delete or merge articles in order to create an acceptable FT. While there a lot of support, consensus is like the snowball clause, if someone is likely to objects to a declaration of consensus there is no consensus. Zginder 2008-10-26T00:11Z (UTC)