Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions/Archive 3

Hawaii hotspot GT/FT?
Workgroup. Solid enough? ResMar 23:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1- you don't need to restate the lead article (Hawaii hotspot) in the body. 2- Why does it not include Puʻu ʻŌʻō and Kīlauea Iki? -- Pres N  23:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Expained here.
 * Alright, I see. As long as they're merged in by the time you bring it as a nomination, it all looks good to me. -- Pres  N  04:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by...Ohhhhh! Yes, by the time of the nom they'll diffinetly be in Kīlauea. Ceranthor's working on in his sandbox, somewhere. ResMar 16:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Basketball Hall of Fame
Just wondering if this is a possible GT/FT.— Chris!  c t 03:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What about Bob Cousy Award and Frances Pomeroy Naismith Award? Also, what would the prospects be of listing unsuccessful nominees somewhere? rst20xx (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by listing unsuccessful nominees?— Chris!  c t 17:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well for example if you look at Baseball Hall of Fame balloting, 2007, then that gives both the successful, and unsuccessful nominees for 2007. Is any data on unsuccessful nominees available for the Basketball Hall of Fame, or are the names of unsuccessful nominees kept secret? rst20xx (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they are kept secret.— Chris!  c t 19:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, well that answers that question then, thanks! rst20xx (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Blond Bombers potential Good Topic?
I've been working on articles about the Blond Bombers professional wrestling tag team (consisting of Swede Hanson (wrestler) and Rip Hawk. All three articles are currently GAs. Would this be sufficient to create a Good Topic? My biggest concern would be that other tag teams have also used the name Blond Bombers (as noted and elaborated on in the main article). Is it possible to specify that the Good Topic is "Blond Bombers (Hanson and Hawk)" and use these three articles to create a Good Topic? GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not convinced, sorry. Only four out of 12 paragraphs of the lead article are about the proposed scope, so I would say this would be a case of the lead being too big for the scope. Have you considered creating a new article on just the first iteration of the team? Would this be notable enough? rst20xx (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Top Latin Albums
Hi. I was wondering if this could be a featured topic?. I'll be glad to receive your feedback, thank you. Jaespinoza (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it has all the required articles for an FT. Gary King  ( talk ) 00:21, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks pretty good to me, but what about Top Latin Albums Year-End Chart of 2008 and similar articles for other years? I think it would be acceptable to get around this problem by renaming the topic to "Number-one Billboard Top Latin Albums, lists of" - rst20xx (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FIXED! Jaespinoza (talk) 02:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Are not the year end charts also Billboard charts?
 * Yes, they are. But this topic is about number-one albums and some albums included on the year-end lists did not reach the top of the chart. Also, in the main article (Top Latin Albums) I put a section for year-end best selling albums. Jaespinoza (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the Lead article have to be featured?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be a requirement, but I think everything else looks great! --haha169 (talk) 16:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Battles of Ticonderoga
I'm wondering if this makes a good FT/GT grouping. 1758 and 1777 will both get to GA eventually; the lead, 1758, and 1759, are all eventual FA contenders. The lead article is the article about Fort Ticonderoga; it includes summaries of the battles. There is a page Battle of Ticonderoga; is a DAB page listing all of these. (The war links are there for background/headers only.)

Thanks for your feedback.  Magic ♪piano 14:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, not the way you have it set up. French and Indian War and American Revolutionary War shouldn't be there- they're larger subjects than the fort is. -- Pres N  15:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought they'd be useful as headers, but they're easy enough to remove...  Magic ♪piano 16:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This looks very good to me, though I'd be honest about the names of the battles and not hide them behind pipes. Also I'd pipe the whole topic name in the lead. And you forgot to set the title parameter, which should match the piped lead. Is there any reason you couldn't just call the topic "Fort Ticonderoga" though? A quick scan of the Fort Ticonderoga article suggests to me that this proposed topic would include all the articles necessary to name the topic more generally after the fort, than for the battles at the fort. I guess Battle on Snowshoes could be added, though the two Battles on Snowshoes were only fought near, and not at, the fort - rst20xx (talk) 17:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly be indifferent to the presentation of the names, either as years or titles is no matter to me. This is just an idea I'm tossing about as I work on the articles.  There are quite a few things that bear the name "Ticonderoga".  Most of the military uses are presumably named for the fort, rather than the place (for which the fort itself is named); however, I've not seen any reliable sources that actually say this.
 * This is one reason I decided to ask questions. If I were to pursue this, is the fort article an adequate lead for these four articles (and possibly Battle on Snowshoes, which I could probably get to GA with reasonable effort)?  I'm trying to avoid having to get to GA+ 20th-century naval vessels and vessel classes, not to mention pencil companies and small upstate NY communities, things I'm not really in a position to research.  I could also write Battles of Ticonderoga as a non-DAB summarization of the battles and use that as a lead instead, but that seems somewhat contrived, as I'm not sure how much other use that sort of article is.  It's OK if consensus seems to be that the idea doesn't work; like I said, this is only in the idea stage.  Magic ♪piano 17:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I still think what I outlined is fine. If you could try and verify that things are named for the fort and not the place, that would be good, but obviously the 4 battles took place in Ticonderoga because the fort was there, not just by chance, so I don't think this is too much of a worry. I guess the strongest argument amongst the articles you mentioned would be for including the community but I would support the topic without it, as I think the fort would be a subarticle of the community, not the other way around, and topics only include articles within the scope of the lead. The pencil company should probably be mentioned in the fort's article though :P rst20xx (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your feedback. (I added the pencil company note to the fort article.)  Magic ♪piano 22:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Gregorian mission
I was wondering if there is anything glaringly missing from this article that should be included? Just waiting on the promotion of Paulinus and I think I'm good to go for a featured topic. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Maybe add Æthelberht of Kent? rst20xx (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I could, but then to be complete wouldn't I need to add Edwin of Northumbria, Rædwald of East Anglia, Bertha of Kent, and Saebert of Essex, at the least. This way, since I'm including no royalty, only the missionaries, I can justify excluding one. If I include one king, I'd think I'd need to include them all. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm well Æthelberht is certainly the most notable monarch to the mission, but you're possibly right - rst20xx (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

List of minor planets GT?
This are 210,454 numbered minor planets, and thus should be considered "overly large". Now, I don't think it would be possible to make them all good articles, but I think it would be possible to make twenty or twenty-five of them. I ask you how should this be split; into groups of 20 or 30 by the number preceeding the minor planets name? Also, what should be the main article and name of such topics? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm you ask an interesting question. Generally arbitrary cutoffs are discouraged, and cutting off based on numbers would be somewhat arbitrary, but with so many minor planets I'm not sure how best to get around this. We already have one FT related to minor planets - the Main asteroid belt topic. There, the nominators argued that those 4 minor planets were significantly more notable than others (due to being significantly bigger) and hence including these 4 planets and not others is not so arbitrary.
 * One solution that doesn't completely generalise but is a start is that you could work on an asteroid group/family such as the Neptune Trojans, of which there are only 6. There are also the near-earth Aten asteroids (34) and Apollo asteroids (33), the Mars Trojans (4)... more ideas can be seen here, here and here. As you say it may well be that not all can be good articles, but I would think the Trojan families at least would have a pretty good shot, and are quite doable size-wise as well.
 * Though obviously if you take this approach then it would restrict somewhat which asteroids you could work on - you wouldn't then be starting at 5 Astraea and working your way up, so maybe this wouldn't interest you so much, but it's a suggestion of how to break the problem down into non-arbitrary chunks - rst20xx (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for your suggestions, List of minor planet groups is helpful. But I would be much more interested in creating a featured topic with the first twenty minor planets instead, as the articles would have a bit more variation and there would most probably be more sources on them. I understand it would be arbitury, but I think a title "Minor planets: 1–20" would define the scope of the topics. I just have a concern about the topic's main article?? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm but what would the lead article be? I cannot see any that would fit very well at all. Another idea that would allow you to work on early asteroids would be to try and work off discoverer, and do "Asteroids discovered by X" topics. Some examples of early discoverers: John Russell Hind (discovered 10), Annibale de Gasparis (discovered 9), Hermann Mayer Salomon Goldschmidt (discovered 14), Karl Theodor Robert Luther (24)... though obviously then you'd have to get the person's article up to scratch as well. And narrowing a topic from being on "X" to just "Asteroids discovered by X" is a little bit arbitrary - with some people the asteroids might be the only articles you would need to include either way, but with others, if you were to do a full topic on the individual, there might be a few more articles that would need including, for example many of these individuals have had later asteroids named after them which should be included in a general topic on them (so more asteroids :P) - rst20xx (talk) 22:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am still almost soley interested in creating a "Minor planets: 1–20" topic, but I suppose this cannot be a good/featured topic seeing as there are no appropriate lists or articles to use as an introductory/main article, and so I'll have to abandon the idea all togther. Thanks for all your suggestions though. Alex Douglas (talk) 07:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

GT for a season of X sports team
If I wanted to make a GT for a single season of a sports team (say, 2008-09 Toronto Raptors season, would it be OK if I just got all the players (and maybe coaches) to be GAs? Would that be comprehensive enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noble Story (talk • contribs)
 * I think so, yes. I think 2008–09 NBA season is of higher scope than 2008-09 Toronto Raptors season, in other words the latter would be included in a topic based around the former, not the other way round. So you don't need to worry about including it in a topic on the latter - rst20xx (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But I suppose having "X player in the 2008-08 NBA season" wouldn't be necessary for the topic? In other words, I could just use their main article? And I suppose if I did an earlier season, I could just re-use the same players? Noble Story (talk • contributions) 23:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * PS- Sorry for the stupid questions. This is my first time here.
 * No, there's no need to go around creating "X player in the 2008-08 NBA season" articles. The topic would be 2008-09 Toronto Raptors season and all of the important people on the team.  If you went and later made a GT on the 2007-08 season, and some of the players overlapped, that's fine, unless almost all the articles were the same.  Then, we'd have to figure something out, but that's a ways off to worry about right now. -- Pres  N  00:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite so. Well, I guess I'll have to knuckle down to it. Thanks for taking time to answer. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 13:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * YellowMonkey is working on an FT on the Invincibles - see Invincibles Advert - and it seems planning to include the players, season articles for the players, AND some of the matches they played in! But the Invincibles are particularly notable, so unlike here (no offence) merit season articles for the players. Plus there are no articles on individual matches that the 08-09 Raptors participated in, so there's nothing extra for you to include there, either - rst20xx (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Overlap?
How is it determined if two featured/good topics overlap? How many (or what percent) of shared articles would be cause for comment or concern? I'm considering several topics that could eventually qualify as good or featured, where two might both encompass (by differing criteria) one or two articles in common.

Topics under consideration include:
 * battles of Fort Ticonderoga (see my query above)
 * battles of the Invasion of Canada (1775) (contains Capture of Fort Ticonderoga)
 * battles of the Saratoga campaign (contains Battle of Ticonderoga (1777))
 * battles of the French and Indian War (contains Battle of Carillon and Battle of Ticonderoga (1759))

--  Magic ♪piano 04:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO, all the proposed above are in principle acceptable overlaps, assuming all the "see also" battles are being included. It would maybe be a problem if for example the Saratoga campaign was only 2 battles, but i count 6 or 7, so having one or even 2 overlapping articles would not be too much, particularly with the different focuses (one on the location, and the others on campaigns).YobMod 07:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, sort of what I figured. (The Canada and Saratoga campaigns currently have 9 and 7 sub-articles respectively, numbers that are not likely to shrink :).)  Magic ♪piano 16:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Joanne Gair
Joanne Gair has been associated with three well known works of art. She was the primary artist for Demi's Birthday Suit and Disappearing Model (DM). She was also the make-up artist for More Demi Moore. I am trying to determine if she would be a good GT. I am having extreme difficulty finding substantial encyclopedic information about DM. I am not sure if More Demi Moore would be included in the topic and am not sure whether Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue would be included in the topic. I sort of think Gair might be more an article for a topic about the latter than vice versa. I doubt I will be able to get DM to GA, but was curious what it would take for a GT.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you'd need to get Disappearing Model to GA, sorry. It's short but comprehensive and definitely notable, so maybe try and fill it out a bit more if you can, and then give it a shot? On the other hand, I think you're spot on about not including Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue. What about Joanne Gair's books? Are any of them notable enough to deserve their own articles? At a cursory glance that seems like the most obvious possible omission, but I really don't know whether they merit articles or not. Something for you to think about if you haven't already - rst20xx (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I also wondered about the books. From my experience, many books do not yet have articles on wikipedia, but many could easily pass notability guidlines. I might suggest a bibliography type article that could cover them all, with redirect pointing to it: "Books by Joanne Gair" as a GA? Otherwise, if a fan comes along and creates the book articles with a contents synopsis, worldwide release info and some critical reception, i'm not sure arguements to merge into the main article would be correct (depending on length, number of sources etc), but would be a lot of work to get to GA, whereas merging into an already GA "Books by..." article would be much easier. This would also give a place to discuss her Sport Illustrated pictures in more depth, in the context of the collection book.YobMod 16:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think any book is so notable that an article is a must, but each book could probably survive a notability challenge. I think her book articles would be a good subtopic, and I am not familiar with the "Books by..." type of article unless it is a "List of..." article.  I do not think with three books she should have a "List of..." article yet.  More feedback is appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm well I don't think there ARE any "Books by..." types of articles, though that doesn't mean it isn't possible. I guess the closest comparison would be videogame series where each individual game doesn't have its own article, eg the recently created Guitar Hero: On Tour series article (which should be in the Guitar Hero FT before too long). Ultimately I find it a shame that merging 3 books into one makes them more GA-able, when there will in fact be no extra coverage in the resultant product. But that's how things go. I'm not sure how best to proceed - rst20xx (talk) 17:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well there is not much to worry about, because I do not feel I will be able to find more content for Disappearing Model. However, I anticipate bringing forth two more GTCs next month if all goes well at GAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:00, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is one bibliography featured list i've seen (which this couldn't be as too few items), and i've seen "Lists of works/books/etc" articles, but don't think they were GA and are usually long enough to be lists, so it seems the concept is feasible, but not often done to a high standard. The other option would be allowing the topic as is, and only worrying about getting books to GA if they are created, but if one is created (even at GA level), then i guess that would leave a gap (why one book and not the others, etc).
 * In terms of Dis. Model, could it not be merged? If the sources really don't exist to write more, it would easily fit in the main article, and it seems much more reasonable for a single piece of modern art to not have a separate article, unless extremely notable (which would mean more sources were findable). Seems apurely editorial decision, rather than "of course it should/n't have an article".YobMod 07:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In terms of expanding Disappearing Model, I have hope that there is more expansive information available about it in general texts on body painting if such text exist. I have read Gair's books, but if there are other books that include this work, I may be able to expand the article.  I have not, for example, gone to the library and researcheed body painting in general or even done google books searches on Disappearing model.  I will try the latter today.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions to modify either http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Disappearing+Model%22+body+painting&btnG=Search+Books or http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Disappearing+Model%22+Gair&btnG=Search+Books ? It seems like further information should be somewhere.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, simply searching for "Disappearing Model" throws up nothing relevant... rst20xx (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed FT
Just wanted to confirm that this FT will fly after the last two lists (currently at FLC) pass. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 18:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not - rst20xx (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

National Basketball Association awards FT
FL Walter A. Brown Trophy, a part of the National Basketball Association awards FT, was up at FLRC per the new FL criteria. It is proposed that the content be merged to FL List of NBA champions since both have similar content. I think it won't affect the FT because the topic is still complete. But still, I want to ask here to make sure if the topic will still fulfill the FT criteria. Thoughts?— Chris!  c t 05:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is merged then yeah, the topic will still meet the criteria, unless it is a weak failure of 1.d) - I say this because I don't think it should be merged and redirected outright. As I just said over at the FLRC, I think that the listy stuff should be removed and what is left should be rewritten to be a GA a la Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy. It was about for almost twice as long as the O'Brien Trophy has been. I think it is notable enough to merit a GA and not simply be redirected to List of NBA champions. If you decide to go down this route, you'd have 3 months to get the GA as well - rst20xx (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'll do is to temporarily merge the content to List of NBA champions. When I have time 2 weeks later, I will definitely start writing a GA for the trophy itself.— Chris!  c t 18:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * OK sounds good! :) rst20xx (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesus College, Oxford - additions to existing topic, or new sub-topic?

 * Existing:

The list of alumni had expanded to unmanageable size, so it's generated three sub-lists:
 * New
 * List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Law and government
 * List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Mathematics, medicine and science
 * List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Clergy (at FLC at present)

If this last one passes, any thoughts on whether to make a FT out of "Lists of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford", with the main list as the lead and the three sub-lists in addition? Or should I just add them to the existing topic? BencherliteTalk 19:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * subtopic. n
 * I don't think you should split, no, and in fact I would oppose it. Add them to the existing topic! The combined total number of articles will be 9 which isn't that many, the only reason I can see to split is because it looks better but that's not a real reason. I'm sure you've looked around and seen other similarly narrowly scoped topics to what you're suggesting here (heck, there is even one on just University alumni!) but equally for those topics if they get a wider scoped parent topic up to scratch, and the article numbers are this low, I would advocate combining the two there as well - rst20xx (talk) 01:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. BencherliteTalk 10:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Then how come Featured topics/New York State Route 20SY exists? n
 * Hmm well 4 of the articles in that topic are in Featured topics/New York State Route 20N. You are therefore probably right in that it overly overlaps with other topics. The difficulty there though can be seen in the way the topics came about - the topic on 20N was promoted first, and then when the topic on 20SY was brought about, well neither can be cleanly subtopiced to the other, neither is more deserving than the other, so the second one ended up being promoted. I think the whole concept of these two topics is a little strange, and having topics on the roads in Onondaga and Madison counties instead would be better, but these latter topics do not exist and there is no rule saying that topics may not overly overlap with or be overly split from theoretical future topics. I don't know, maybe you should open a demotion discussion and see if something can be sorted out with these two because you're right, it is silly and they do overly overlap.
 * On a side note, I think you need to sign your posts properly instead of just writing "n" - rst20xx (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Millennium Park expansion
I am wondering if the Millennium Park GT will require expansion. Nichols Bridgeway has opened, but it does not seem to be an official park feature. Also, this summer two temporary structures will be unveiled.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm not sure, would be good to add the Bridgeway but up to you as far as I'm concerned - rst20xx (talk) 10:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * FYI, I think it is officially an extension of the Art Institute of Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is another relevant link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:14, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Discographies of Young Divas members FT
Alright, I have brought three members discographies (Ricki-Lee Coulter, Jessica Mauboy, Paulini Curuenavuli) to featured lists so far. I am nominating another (Kate DeAraugo) and then the group's (Young Divas) discography shortly thereafter. However, my only problem is with the fifth member (Emily Williams), can her discography be deemed "ineligible for featured list status" because of it's "limited subject matter", because it has six releases 'or should it be removed from the topic altogether? Alex Douglas (talk) 01:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if the article exists, it must be included in the topic. But for a discography of an artist with such meagre output (so far), i think the discography should be merged into the main article on the singer, at least until she releases an album. "working on" an album since 2006 makes it sound like this album may never be released (as she has lost of any buzz it might have had), so including the discogrphy in the topic could turn out to be including a peer reviewed list that can never grow. So i say merge for now, and consider splitting when there are more releases, with the grace period 3 months to get the split discog to FL. At the moment i would oppose FL status for that discog, not only because it is so short, but on the basis of the new "un-needed forking" criterion.YobMod 08:23, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Understood. So, if I achieved featured list status for Young Divas discography and Kate DeAraugo discography, you would support it as a FT? A three-month grace period would apply from when the Emily Williams or any future member has ten releases, ie from when their discography article is created? Is that all correct? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

...so that's how it would look? Does that meet the featured topic criteria? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

This is an artificial topic, and I kind of doubt it would pass FTC. Nergaal (talk) 06:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What is an artificial topic? Why is this an artifial topic? What criterion would it fail? I am hoping to achieve featured list for the remaining discographies (Young Divas & Kate DeAraugo) shortly. I hope you can help. Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 09:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what Nergaal is getting at is that there is a mismatch between the scope of the topic and the contents of the lead. The lead in no way addresses the individual discographies of the members of the band and as a result there is an artificial feeling about the topic. I feel that there is something to this topic but equally can see where he is coming from. Maybe if the lead listed the individual members' albums, though this is not standard practice on Wikipedia. On the other hand the 6 articles are about 60k in total between them so for now are small enough to be combined into one, though that would probably change in about 2 years - rst20xx (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. So does this look better? Alex Douglas (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I changed the title of the topic. If I edited the Young Divas discography lead to include the member's studio album releases (not singles, eps, etc) then would you support this topic as a featured topic? Alex Douglas (talk) 06:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Discography of Young Divas and its members" - well that's the thing - it doesn't include the discography of Young Divas, or its members, it only contains its members' discography articles! rst20xx (talk) 07:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest as a title? The topic will also include the Young Divas discography, that will be the lead article. I don't know much about featured topics, so I'm learning about it slowly. Thanks. Alex Douglas (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well no, it won't, the topic will only include the article on the Young Divas discography. The discography itself, namely their two albums and four singles, are not included. Hence the original name of "Discographies of Young Divas members" was somewhat more apt, because to me that more refers to the discography articles, than the records in the discographies, so I would go back to the old name. Nergaal's point is that there is a disconnect in that the contents of the lead article in no way references the contents of the other articles, and you've suggested that you might edit the lead article to mention the albums of the individual members, in order to rectify this. Whether this change makes the topic acceptable for Nergaal is a question for him - rst20xx (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that it is somewhat artifical, in that the natural topics according to precedent would be:
 * Young Divas (containing member articles or subtopics and discography subtopic, possibly a tours article)
 * Young Divas' discography (containing the groups albums)
 * Young Divas album (containing the singles from the album)
 * New Attitude album (containing the singles from the album)
 * Member 1 subtopic (with discography and releases)
 * Member 2 subtopic (with discography and releases)
 * etc.


 * With few articles in each subtopic, combining some of them would be better imo, such as the discography topic containing both albums and singles, rather than sub-topicing. But combining discographies of the members seems strange as it is a combination of articles at the same level in the hierachy, rather than the typical comination of subtopics into parent topics. I think it is worth considering whether that can make a good topic, but it would be the first of its kind. Another point to think about is that this topic could have complete overlapp if each of the members articles and releases was brought to GA, and soe people may oppose based on future too much overlapp (even if it may never exist)<b style="color:#0000CD;">Yob</b><b style="color:#008000;">Mod</b> 14:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of precedent topics. But I still don't see what criterion the topic fails. Furthermore, Kate DeAraugo discography has been merged with Kate DeArarugo because of limited subject matter.

Each of the discography articles could have subtopics; there is complete overlap. The lead article will mention the release of each of the member's solo studio albums. Alex Douglas (talk) 03:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Trucking industry in the United States
Hmm, I'm surprised I never heard of "good topics" or "featured topics" before now. So excuse me if I seem ignorant. I have been working on a set of articles involving the trucking industry in the US. The two FA-class articles are Hours of service and Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula. While Trucking industry in the United States is only a GA-class article (This article has turned out to be much more of a chore than I originally thought, so much to cover and so little time. I'm thinking of splitting out the history section, it just keeps growing and growing, which might help cut down the work for FA status... but I digress). Also I have Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States, which would be a list-class article but still needs work for FA status. Those are the basic core articles. I have read the requirements and I assume it is up to the reivewers as to which articles constitute a topic. Do these four articles cover the basics of trucking? The only other article that might belong here is Commercial driver's license, but there is some debate as to whether that article should cover the world-wide definition of trucker's licenses, or just the United States. Commercial licenses go by many different names in other countries, but they have been added to the CDL article anyway, so I assume it should stay an international-focused article. There is also the navbox Template:Trucking industry in the United States, which shows all the articles that are associated with this topic. So if I improve the glossary to an FA-list, do I have a shot for at least a good topic? -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  02:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This would be an Overview topic. I think if you look at the sections of Trucking industry in the United States you'll get a better idea of what I think you need. Hours of service and Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula are two forms of regulations, but there are others, such as National Network and indeed US-specific stuff on Commercial driver's license, that are missing, so I would suggest it might be worth creating a summary-style article to cover the entirety of regulation. Similarly I would expect any topic on the trucking industry to contain an article on US manufacturers, one on prominent carriers, and perhaps a US-focused article on the truck driver (which is indeed a very different type of person from his European counterpart). You'd also need to cover popular culture somewhere, perhaps in its own article but much of this could be covered in the truck driver article. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration could possibly be covered in the regulation article though some might think it deserves inclusion anyway. And yes you'd need Glossary of trucking industry terms in the United States. So in summary, it's better to think more about which articles deserve exist to make this topic comprehensively covered in sub-articles, rather than thinking about which do exist already - rst20xx (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are good ideas! I could make articles such as "trucking regulation in the united states" which would include national network and CDL, and "truck drivers in the united states", I didn't even think of that. Carriers and manufacturers could probably go in the "trucking industry" article itself, no? If I summarize the history and split it into its own article, then I'd have more room for carriers and manufacturers. Thanks for your input.-- ErgoSum • talk • trib  11:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm you could possibly make a list or 2 lists out of the manufacturers and carriers, at the moment many of them aren't even mentioned in the "trucking industry" article. But true, a history article could cover them well as well - rst20xx (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

2008 Summer Olympics
As a sort of long-term project, I was pondering the following:

What else would need to be included? There are a number of other related articles linked to in the main article, and I'm trying to figure out whether this topic would become so large as to be practically impossible. Beijing National Stadium? 2008 Summer Paralympics? List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners? 2008 Summer Olympics national flag bearers? Geraldk (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm I would say the articles you listed in the box, plus 2008 Summer Olympics broadcasting, possibly World records at the 2008 Summer Olympics and then there should be some article listing the events in more detail than the main does - List of 2008 Summer Olympics medal winners fills this role nicely, and probably deserves including anyway. Beijing National Stadium is one of the venues so can be "subtopiced" to the Venues article. Similarly the flag bearers are part of the opening ceremony. I am not sure about the Paralympics, is it considered to be part of the Olympics in any capacity at all, or is it a separate event of equal standing? If the former, then include it. If the latter, then you could exclude. These last 3 articles plus 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay route are ones you could think about including but I wouldn't oppose on if you did exclude. One final question: Should the Beijing olympic bid have its own article, a la all the bids for 2012? If so, then that probably deserves including in addition to the article on the general bidding process - rst20xx (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Also needed are the medals winners and the bradcasting article. The opening and closing articles should not be 100% necessary; I also foresee a forking of the participants section into a distinct article, in which case it would become necessary too. Nergaal (talk) 22:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the responses. Large project, but doable. Geraldk (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Gold Glove Award
I'm planning a Gold Glove Award featured topic featuring the following articles:

Most of these articles don't currently exist, but the AL and NL separated lists are having their data merged per a discussion at WT:MLB, so I'm doing the featured workup and the merging all at the same time. The question is: Does List of Gold Glove middle infield duos also need to be included in this topic? KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 14:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think all the sublists should be included, so yes, but the infield duos list looks like it can be merged into the main list, or alternatively both the shortstop and second base lists - rst20xx (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. I am going to merge it into the main list because the information is already available in the tables and can therefore be cross-referenced. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 18:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

3(c) Question
I was wondering if someone could provide a more comprehensive rule on the standards for omitted articles? Take, for example, Golden Sun DS. It is a video game that has not been released, with very little information known about the game. Could that count towards an omitted article if I put it through peer review? --haha169 (talk) 16:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. 3(c) covers articles that can not become GA+, no matter how much effort you put into them. Unreleased media such as video games are actually the primary example we have for that criteria- you could try your hardest to get that article to GA, but you can't until it gets released because the information isn't there now and will be constantly changing as time passes, making the article inherently unstable and unGA-able.  As the article exists, however, it would still need to go into a nominated "Golden Sun" topic, so it just needs a PR. -- Pres  N  16:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All right. Thanks for the help! --haha169 (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Obvious Gap
Ok, I'm working on some aritcles right now. None have been reviewed yet, but I'd like to eventually submit them to become a FT. The problem is that one of the articles 1980 Super Bowl of Poker has zero chance of passing an FL or even GA. For there is almost no information on this particular event. The other 12 Super Bowl's of Poker we have enough that I have little fear of getting them passed as FL's, but there doesn't appear to be enough sources for this article. If all articles have to be Good/Feature status, what do I do when there is an obvious gap? (The SBOP ran from 1979-1991.) Is there a way to work with this?--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the FT criteria do not allow audited articles. Personally I have a policy that I want to see something try for GA, and demonstrably fail for lack of notability, before I would accept the article to say have been merged into another one. It's surprising how often the article then passes GA. Having said that looking at the article here it appears you don't even know all the details of the tournament, which is clearly, objectively!, a problem. Why is so little known about it? rst20xx (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not much was perserved on this particular event... we have details from all of the other years, but I can't find anything about 1980 except that it was won by Gabe Kaplan. The 1979 one was recorded because it was the first event, but the second year it hadn't blossomed into what it would eventually become.  From what I've been able to deduce, it wasn't until Stu Ungar won the event in 84 that it could stand on its own.  Prior to that it was riding Amarillo Slim's coattails.  The idea of merging it might be an option though.. combine it with 1979.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 07:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

1996 PHS
Speaking of obvious gaps, this could be considered cherry picking. Tropical Storm Cristina (1996) or Hurricane Hernan (1996) do not have enough info to get to GA which becomes a problem. Leave Message ,Yellow Evan home, Sandbox
 * If an article exists on it, it needs including as a GA. If not, it doesn't. But you need to argue in the nomination why the subject is not notable enough to merit an article - rst20xx (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

List of Connecticut tornadoes
I was just looking to see if there was any problem with this as a featured topic (assuming I can get all to GA/FA status, of course):

The reason I ask is that there are a few articles, such as Late-May 1998 tornado outbreak and derecho and 2006 Westchester County tornado, as well as a few I plan on creating in the future, which contain information on one or more Connecticut tornadoes, but the main impact of these events was elsewhere. I just want to make sure this couldn't be construed as cherry-picking. - Running On Brains (talk page) 09:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, you should include them - rst20xx (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)