Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Halo media

Halo media
Ok, this should all be in order. Content from The Cole Protocol added as addendum to the List of Halo media (and the plot details to be added to the series topic). This would replace Featured_topics/Halo_trilogy, but I figured since it's a new name and larger scope it would be best to simply delist and redirect if this passes. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think it should be nominated for removal properly. As for me, I'll hold off on supporting til you're done with The Cole Protocol - rst20xx (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then if this one passes I would be happy to do so (I'm not familiar with FTC, so that's why I didn't think about it.) As for The Cole Protocol, I've added notes into List of Halo media and Halo (series). -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually upon reflection I've changed my mind, I think it would work better if this is considered a supplementary nomination of the existing topic (albeit a very big one). Then the other one would not need to be removed, and the history of the two topics can be combined. Would this be alright by you? rst20xx (talk) 12:19, 10 ~ 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine by me as well. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, done - rst20xx (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't think Halo 3 marketing really belongs in this topic, and I think it would be better for Halo (series) to be the lead article and List of Halo media to be a non-lead article in the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Halo 3 marketing contains information about various Halo media that isn't found elsewhere, i.e., the Iris ARG, and promotional trailers that I believe fall into the "media" scope. That said, changing the media lead article to the series article changes the scope from simply media to halo in general. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 20:19, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The scope of a topic is not dictated by the lead article. The scope is defined by the collection of articles that are in the topic. The lead article does need to be appropriate for the topic, but it does not have to bind the topic together perfectly. If you really want the list to be the lead I won't oppose on that, I just think it would make the topic have a better structure. It's more a matter of personal preference anyway. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it up to others to decide. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 21:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  Comment  I tend to agree with Rreagan here, I feel that the series article would make a better central page than a list. To me, its an easier introduction to the topic for the general reader than the list, especially with the more comprehensive coverage of things like the cancelled projects, film and cultural impact—elements that aren't that well covered in the list. The series article, after all, is written as a complete and intentional summary of the franchise. I don't see it as changing the scope of the topic at all, a series is the media that comprises it. Having the media list as a standard part of the topic would still be reasonable. I don't agree Rreagan with removing the Halo 3 marketing article though; as already said by David, I think it provides some insight into other more specific parts of media. -- Sabre (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, I've swapped the articles then. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, it all looks good to me now. -- Sabre (talk) 10:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. I think that works much better now. I still don't think the marketing article really belongs, but it's a minor issue. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - meets WP:WIAFT.-- TRU  CO   18:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Question shouldn't the characters article be included too? Nergaal (talk) 05:51, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They've already got their own topic, no need for the overlap here. -- Sabre (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And we're also planning on replacing that one with a larger topic, too. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 13:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  - I preferred the old lead. Contrary to Rreagan, I do not think the scope of the topic fits closely enough with the scope of the lead, whereas before I think it was a pretty good fit - very easily equatable to a discography topic for a band. The topic is after all called "Halo media" and not "Halo", so contrary to what Sabre says, the lead shouldn't serve as an introduction to Halo as a whole, but to its related media! rst20xx (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Argh!!! -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with rst20xx. Gary King  ( talk ) 16:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I agree with your original argument that many bits of media are in the marketing article though, hence it should be included. Also I would argue that marketing is a form of media, just less physically tangible than other forms - rst20xx (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and also, Rreagan did say "If you really want the list to be the lead I won't oppose on that"! rst20xx (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The series article covers the video games, music, books, and movie. What halo media is the series article lacking? Rreagan007 (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, my point would more be that the series article also covers characters, factions, etc., which aren't included in this topic. Hence, the scope of the lead is too big for the scope of the topic. (Okay, I'm sure someone would parallel this to the "titles" topics at this point, but actually only StarCraft and Zelda have comparable list articles that could be used, so they are the only two that go against what I'm suggesting, but neither of them have ALL the media included in their topics, so the lead wouldn't perfectly fit the topic there whatever they used!) - rst20xx (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right it does have extra stuff besides just media in the article, but Halo media is the core of the series article with some extra things added in that relate to the media. And as you point out there are other topics that do the same thing. Just look at the current Halo Trilogy topic. The series article is the lead for that topic, but it clearly contains a lot of information that does not pertain to the trilogy. So if you're correct then the current Halo trilogy topic does not have an appropriate lead either. Also if you are correct and the series article exceeds the scope too much to be the lead article, then it's also too broad in scope to be a non-lead article in the topic. And the Halo 3 marketing article (and maybe other articles in the topic) is too broad as it does not contain just the media. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But marketing IS a form of media! ...But yes, I would advocate removing the series article from the topic altogether. Anyway, I don't think any of us want to stop this nom over the choice of lead, so shall we put this to a vote, and let whichever side wins be the deciding factor? I vote media - rst20xx (talk) 22:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll go along with whatever the majority votes for. I vote series. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (reset) - alright, well, it seems Sabre would agree with Rreagan007, and Gary King would agree with me. Does anyone else have an opinion? David Fuchs? rst20xx (talk) 13:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends. If Halo media is the main article, then I think it's a tad disingenuous to have this FTC as a supplementary nom as we're not only adding articles but changing the lead (and scope). -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 18:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not unprecedented to have supplementary noms/removal candidates remove articles, this has happened a few times actually - eg here (removal candidate), here (sup nom), here (sup nom). In fact in the second case the lead article was changed from media to series! (Because media got demoted from FL, not because of suitability considerations)
 * The only reason I said this should be a sup nom is because procedurally it's easier to carry out, but this can always be considered a fresh nom if the nom type's gonna have an effect on your decision on this - rst20xx (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My vote is for media, and I would prefer in that case to have it be a separate nom--if it's too much trouble for you though, just disregard that :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 01:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll separate nom it - rst20xx (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry that I'm saying this so late in the day (got a bit sidetracked by the main article discussion) but I'd like to see more from The Cole Protocol added elsewhere. At the moment The Cole Protocol gets no more a mention in List of Halo media and Halo (series) than the rest of the books do, but as it doesn't have its own article I think it should get more coverage, probably given its own paragraph in the books section of Halo (series). I think this paragraph should be a combination of the lead, background, overview and reception sections that were in the Halo: The Cole Protocol article - rst20xx (talk) 14:08, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * But the background section was no more than a minor note that Nylund had been interested in telling the story of Grey Team, per WP:NOT it seems a poor idea to add a plot summary beyond the minor mentions; the reception was just a list of bestseller lists, which has been added to the series article. Given its lack of coverage it's kind of undue weight to give the book a bigger treatment than the others. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, you have a point that the lead/background/reception are largely integrated already but I'd still be inclined to add more to the series article. You say that that it'd be undue weight to give this book more coverage than the others, but I'd argue the opposite and point out that at the moment this book has significantly less coverage than the others, because it doesn't have its own article, whereas they do! I guess the difference then is you're thinking of weighting within individual articles whereas I'm thinking within the overall set of all the articles - rst20xx (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My thoughts exactly. I just don't see why we should make special provisions and alterations to the structure of an article to accommodate what couldn't stand on its own. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK well I guess I just figure including the information somewhere provides more useful information for the reader than not including it, but anyway, I should have struck my oppose long ago now and I certainly don't want to hold the nom up over The Cole Protocol - rst20xx (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I just did a quick scan, but Halo Wars is not up to par for even B-class standards, IMO. It's Peer Review was absymally short and took place over seven months ago, when practically no information was there. There are sentences in the article like "Units are built, buildings upgraded, and special abilities utilized by using resources that are simply known as supplies," which is a lead topic sentence. The Audio section is just a list of the songs; it does not have any information about song length, and is not formatted well. Halo: Chronicles and Halo: Chronicles Halo:ODST (whose AfD closed as merge) are also much the same. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 23:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean Halo 3: ODST as the merge reference? (That AfD was before the project actually had an official name.) I don't see what's the issue with Halo: Chronicles, as it's pretty much the same as it was after the PR; same with ODST. Halo Wars is in the middle of being expanded in preparation for launch; I can guarantee it will be FA within 3 months or whatever the retention period is. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, if you checked the citation, you would see that the actual lengths of the tracks for audio have not yet been released; it's just a press release before the soundtrack comes out after the game. The gameplay section was mangled by vandalism; I have reverted it. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Halo Wars seems fine then, though ideally, I would have liked to see more work done for it. Chronicles and ODST simply seem too short for me now. I know that there is probably nothing you can do about it, but I'd really prefer if they were expanded somehow, as I don't think that Start-class articles really cut it. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 00:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, not much I can add. Stop by sometime soon for Halo Wars though, I'm adding info on the audio :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 00:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Close with consensus to promote - and when I'm done, I'll nominate the other topic for removal - rst20xx (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Supplementary nominations

 * 1) Featured topic candidates/Halo media/addition1