Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/Star Wars episodes/archive1

Star Wars episodes
This topic has no lead article and thus violates criterion #2. The only possible lead article, Star Wars is only B-class. This topic will have used up its grace period by the time this nomination closes. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Removal Keep  Remove Keep This is definitely not the Star Wars topic, but simply a collection of the six articles on the films. The topic is much more expansive, including all kinds of media & etc.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You are correct that this is not the Star Wars topic. It is the Star Wars episodes topic, of which there are 6 and they are all either FAs or GAs, so the topic is complete. The question is whether it meets Criteria #2 "The topic has an introductory and summary lead article." and, by extention I guess, whether Criteria #2 is an absolute requirement or a flexible policy. --maclean 02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. The topic is complete as far as concerned, and unless someone can suggest an intro article that must be there and what it would constitute there isn't anything to be done about it.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have changed my mind. As soon as the main Star Wars article is up to par then the topic could be featured again.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove Does not meet current requirement. Zginder(talk) (Contrib) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - There's no way a centralised article could be created to encompass the films. There is a category for the films and if necessary, I'm certain that this can be expanded as a kind of an article itself, but there's no criteria for the quality of display of a category page. -- linca linca  08:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There are no critiria for the quality of categories, but there is a criterion that featured topics have "an introductory and summary lead article", which this topic does not. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep In this case, I think the rules are at fault. The topic is complete. All six Star Wars films meet GA or FA criteria. It just seems silly to drop it because of a technicality. WP:Ignore all rules seems to apply here. The general goal of featured topics is to feature series of articles covering the same subject. In this case, the subject = Star Wars films. There is no Star Wars films article. Big deal. We know the articles are good and that's what matters. I say keep it. I also think we should add a qualifies to that rule saying that topics should have "an introductory and summary lead article if such an article exists" or something like that. Wrad (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * If no lead article can be written to summarize a topic, than it isn't really a whole, unified subject worthy of being grouped as an FT. In this case, there already is an article that summarizes all six others: the main Star Wars article.  If that article was GA or higher, the topic could stay, but it is not.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems ridiculous to me to claim that this is not a "whole, unified subject worthy of being grouped". It also seems ridiculous to require the Star Wars article to be the lead. It wouldn't be an appropriate lead. It summarizes the films, yes, but also the comics, the action figures, the popular culture, the novel series... Just doesn't make any sense to me. The only logical lead would be Star Wars film series, along the lines of Spider-man film series, but that article doesn't even exist. That communicates to me that no one feels that such an article is important enough to be included on wikipedia. If that attitude changed, then maybe it would be right to remove it (there is actually a discussion about the issue here, but I just feel that it shouldn't be removed on such a technicality. I feel that it would hurt wikipedia not to feature this excellent article series. Wrad (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So maybe instead of removing this featured topic, let's give it a bit more time and figure out exactly what the intro article should be. There definitely is an intro article here that could be written, and I would suggest something more academic, looking at the themes, mythology & etc that is pervasive in the Star Wars episodes, rather than the entire Star Wars canon.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that an intro article could be written on the films. There is defiantly enough information about plot, making-of, and themes to write at least a GA-quality article about the films as a whole.  However, I disagree with BillDeanCarter suggestion that we keep the topic until such an article is writen.  This topic clearly violates one of the three major criteria for inclusion; I see no reason why this topic needs to have an exception to those rules made for it.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I've said my piece. I'll just leave it to what the consensus decides. Wrad (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove. Plainly does not meet criteria.  The WikiProject was informed months ago that Star Wars (or another chosen lead aricle) would have to get to GA by Jan 2008.--Pharos (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * AHEM!! Well, I've just created a potential lead article which centrally discusses the episodic films only. It's Star Wars theatrical films. It's nowhere near GA at the moment, but with a little TLC and a lot of references, we should be able to get it there before long. Could this discussion be placed on hold pending vast improvements to that article (I think the title's more appropriate than Star Wars film series)? Maybe give it, say, a week or so? It shouldn't take that much to get it to find its feet. Most of the references and info can be found on other Wikipages. -- linca linca  13:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to see Talk:Star Wars original trilogy, which discusses merging Star Wars original trilogy and Star Wars prequel trilogy into one article, which would be the article you are trying to create.  Pagra shtak  22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Bingo! With such strong articles on each film, and an article on the franchise, a merger would make good sense without this extra consideration. --kingboyk (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion can certainly be put on hold while you fix up that article. If you ask for a GA assessment for your new article within the next few days, this discussion shall not be closed until the review is made.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Remove - I played a secondary role in to User:The Filmaker in guiding these articles to FA, and even I must say that the rules are clear about Featured article requirements and they are correct, a lead article is needed and there is not one. I hope this will spur people to create a GA one so it can be brought back soon. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove or remove the rule about having a lead article. As it stands, this has to be removed and it's not even worth debating. Better outcome: get Star Wars up to GA or FA and come back, hopefully real soon! --kingboyk (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Remove topic meets criterion #2 but fails criterion #3. Either the Star Wars or merged Star Wars original trilogy and Star Wars prequel trilogy needs to be a single Good article. Mighty Antar (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Close as "remove" Although there are some keep votes, I am closing this discussion as a removal. All of the keep votes are critiquing the criterion itself rather than how this topic relates to that existing rule.  Those who voted to "keep" are encouraged to propose an amendment to the featured topic criteria to allow for a situation like this, but for now this topic will be judged by the rules as they currently stand.  It should also be noted that the article being written as a possible lead article has been deleted during the course of this discussion.  --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)