Wikipedia:Featured topic candidate/United States Marine Corps leadership

United States Marine Corps leadership
I am nominating this group of articles for Featured Topic because I believe it represents a gap in our current topics. --Kumioko (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support... naturally enough, though I'm biased here. :P  bahamut0013  words deeds 23:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose... because I believe it has gaps in the current topic. It is like proposing a topic on Microsoft composed of Bill Gates and Paul Allen. That has been proposed and rejected and I don't see enough differences with the proposal here. Nergaal (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think its missing? Maybe I can fill it in.--Kumioko (talk) 00:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There were a lot more concerns with the Microsoft FTC than just that. And yes, what gaps do you see?  bahamut0013  words deeds 11:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Umh... pretty much everything that is not directly related to the highest ranks in the corps? How would a topic called "USA" be if it only included the articles on the president and the vice-president, an perhaps the senate? A possibility could be to rename the topic "Highest ranks in..." but that would be like having a topic on the founding of Microsoft but using the main article, not even the history one as a lead. Nergaal (talk) 18:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Umm, not trying to sound stupid here but that's why I called it United States Marine Corps leadership. And I don't really see the narrow scope point you are trying to make. Just because the scope of the topic is related specifically to USMC leadership doesn't mean its invalid. And using the example you gave for USA. If it was for say Leadership of the USA it might be valid, but if it was just USA then likely not. Know as you have brought up the point I have given it some thought and perhaps you might have a point in that I should probably include the Secretary of the Navy, President of the USA and the Vice President of the USA. But they are not exactly in the chain of command. --Kumioko (talk)
 * I'd say probably not... the scope was defined narrowly, and I don't see what value in expanding it past that would be (not to mention that the POTUS article is not likely to meet the stability criterion (1e) for FA anytime in the near future). I think he may have assumed that the topic was supposed to be for the Marine Corps as a whole because that was the main article.  bahamut0013  words deeds 03:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not notice the title as the lead uses the simple title. My point is that an article called Leadership of the USMC (or chain of command or something like that) can be created and would do fine as a stand-alone article, especially as this topic is not clearly covered in the main article. With such a lead article this would be a fine topic, but with just the USMC is really not. Nergaal (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. United_States_Marine_Corps clearly covers the topic and isn't appropriate for a stand-alone article as I outline below. I believe there is some precedent for lead article being a section within an article of lerger scope.  bahamut0013  words deeds 13:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose – At the very least, I would expect most of the articles in US Marine Corps navbox to be at FA or GA status before this topic could be featured. Alternatively, if Leadership of the United States Marine Corps were created, and the articles under Leadership in the navbox were brought up to the right quality, that would work as well. NW ( Talk ) 03:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * But the majority of the articles in the Navbox relate to things beyond Marine Corps leadership, which this topic is not about. This is for Marine Corps leadership. And all four of these are currently featured status. Additionally IMO we don't need to create a redundant article for USMC leadership. We have multiple articles relating to it already. --Kumioko (talk)
 * Theoretically, we could split United_States_Marine_Corps off to its own article, but then it would be completely redundant because there really isn't any room to trim or summarize from that section on the main article. And like Kumioko says, most of the other articles are in a scope well above and beyond this proposed topic, and broadening it would not be especially helpful. I could see the case being made for List of United States Marine Corps four-star generals, however.  bahamut0013  words deeds 13:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the above. The nav box is a good start, as are any basic lists/articles that directly mention the Corps in the name. Where is List of United States Marine Corps individual equipment? List of vehicles of the United States Marine Corps? United States Marine Corps Aviation? List of United States Marine Corps installations? Etc. Staxringold talkcontribs 16:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok so let me say again because apparently it isnt clear...This topic IS NOT a general, all inclusive topic about the Marine Corps. It is for the Marine Corps leadership (CMC, ACMC, SgtMaj of the USMC, Myabe the Secnav and the president and I could even go so far as to say the list of Generals. Now maybe I need to take off the United States Marine Corps article to be more clear but I think it sets a good base as in Heres a link to the United States Marine Corps and here are the leadership lists and all are featured. --Kumioko (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok then, yes, oppose because the lead article is 100% incorrect. Even if piped it simply isn't on the command structure of the Marines, it's the general marine article. It'd be like making a New York Yankees manager featured topic using New York Yankees as the lead article and not List of New York Yankees managers. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Your point is taken, but as I said before, I don't think that an article like Leadership of the United States Marine Corps would be feasible because it would literally be a word-for-word copy of United_States_Marine_Corps, which in turn could not comfortably be summarized further on the main article.  bahamut0013  words deeds 19:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If the subsection isn't notable/broad enough for a stand-alone list then there may just not be a subtopic here. We could have a Jewish MoH winners topic because that has a lead article, but Jewish... I dunno Jewish second basemen we couldn't because there is no such article. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't say anything about notability.  bahamut0013  words deeds 20:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever word you want to use. If a proper title article doesn't exist, it doesn't exist. You can't force-create one by piping an article from the same general topic area. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose as written. I'd probably support if List of United States Marine Corps four-star generals and United States Secretary of the Navy were included, as I see the topic's defined scope as valid, but the 4-stars and SECNAV are fairly important parts of the leadership. Courcelles 17:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok that gets us part of the way but then that leaves off the Sergeants major because they arent generals but they are animportant part of the leadership chain. Hence I am left with the original title...United States Marine Corps leadership. I am already working on the Pres of the USA list and will start working on the other 2 in the near future. --Kumioko (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm? The Sgt. Majors are already included, as well they should.  I'm afraid I didn't quite get your comment. Courcelles 18:38, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe I misunderstood you comment but it looked as though you were saying to change it to be only generals and higher. --Kumioko (talk) 19:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, that's all. I wouldn't remove anything, just think more needs adding. Courcelles 19:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I thank you for being clear! :) BTW, the word "sergeant major" in plural is written "sergeants major". It's a fairly obscure grammatical rule, to be sure.  bahamut0013  <sup style="color:#000;margin-left:-1px">words <sub style="color:#000;margin-left:-16px">deeds 19:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Like Surgeons and Attorneys general. :) Staxringold talkcontribs 21:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Close with no consensus to promote. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 03:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)