Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Good log/March 2010

South Park (season 13)[edit]

South Park (season 13)

15 articles

"The Ring"

"The Coon"

"Fishsticks"

"Fatbeard"

"Butters' Bottom Bitch"

"W.T.F."

"Whale Whores"

"The F Word"

"Dances with Smurfs"

"Pee"

This is a good topic nomination. I've been working on this for some time in conjunction with the South Park Featured Topic Drive, and since all the articles are now GA status, I believe it's ready for GT. Nergaal and other WikiProject South Park users have helped out along the way. Thanks! — Hun ter Ka hn 04:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you've not formatted the book correctly; I suggest you copy Book:South Park (season 1) more closely. Also, as per the Season 1 FTC, you need to put {{South Park episodes}} everywhere - rst20xx (talk) 14:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I've fixed the book, but please let me know if I didn't. And sorry I completely forgot about {{South Park episodes}}, but they are now added. — Hun ter Ka hn 14:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support - rst20xx (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: All criteria met. Great work. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 19:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why is Dances with Smurfs out of order in the box? Zginder 2010-03-19T21:17Z (UTC)
- Not sure how I mixed them up, but its fixed. — Hun ter Ka hn 21:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Z gin der 2010-03-20T02:24Z (UTC)

Hell ya —Terrence and Phillip 08:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great work. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 23:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Well done. Pyrrhus16 19:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - keep 'em coming! rst20xx (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

German Type UB I submarines[edit]

German Type UB I submarine

22 articles

SM UB-2

SM UB-3

SM UB-4

SM UB-5

SM UB-6

SM UB-7

SM UB-8

SM UB-9

SM UB-10

SM UB-11

SM UB-12

SM UB-13

SM UB-14

SM UB-16

SM UB-17

Austro-Hungarian U-10 class

SM U-10 (ex-UB-1)

SM U-11 (ex-UB-15)

SM U-15

SM U-16

SM U-17

Main contribuitor: Bellhalla

He has suddenly stopped editing two months ago and I have left a notification on his talkpage about a month ago. This might be one of the last contributions that Bellhalla has given to Wikipedia. Nergaal (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I believe the subtopic should be separated because it has 5+1 article by itself and because I plan on nominating a super-topic on Austro-Hungarian classes or submarine list which would need the U-10 class as a subtopic by itself. Nergaal (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ - I disagree as I do not think the topics are big enough to merit splitting. I definitely think that SM U-10 (Austria-Hungary) (the only one of the 5 not a GA but at GAN) and SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary), in particular, should be part of this topic, as they were originally used by the German navy, and were only later sold to Austria-Hungary (while the other three boats in the U-10 class were built for and used from the start by Austria-Hungary). Also I don't think your plans to nominate a supertopic are relevant as the U-10 class article can appear in such a supertopic whether it has its own topic or not. While it would make for nice visual structures, I don't see why this supertopic would need the U-10 class to appear as a subtopic at all. More than that, the subtopic link could actually point back to this topic - rst20xx (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you are suggesting to remove the class article and add 10 & 11, then in the supertopic put the class article but link here for the subtopic? Or you want the class and the five other articles here? Nergaal (talk) 07:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the second option would be better, and after all, 10 is the only one of the 6 articles that isn't a GA already - rst20xx (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What should happen to the image in that case, as some of the boats did not run under the German flag. Nergaal (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the Germans made all the boats, I don't see a problem with still using this flag, or maybe the German national flag - rst20xx (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've gotten SM U-11 to GA status and the GA for SM U-10 was a quick pass. All articles are at GA status now.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so uh then the Austro-Hungarian boats, all GAs now, are SM U-10 (Austria-Hungary), SM U-11 (Austria-Hungary), SM U-15 (Austria-Hungary), SM U-16 (Austria-Hungary) and SM U-17 (Austria-Hungary). As I understand it, they were all built with the UB Is, and the first two were in fact formerly used by Germany in the UB I class. I think all 5 should be added to this topic, and certainly the first two - rst20xx (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to all, Nergal promoted SM U-10 and I promoted SM U-11. However credit goes to Bellhalla for the whole thing. But all articles are now at GA.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - so, uh, it seems most people would favour adding the articles (well, 2 out of 3). I've added them above and struck my oppose. I would support the 22-article layout above. Feedback from others would be appreciated - rst20xx (talk) 23:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, ~~but should the U-10 class be a subtopic?~~ —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what all the discussion before your vote was about... rst20xx (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and I continue to demonstrate my lack of reading skills. ;) Thanks Rst. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:13, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saratoga campaign[edit]

Saratoga campaign

9 articles

Siege of Fort Ticonderoga

Battle of Hubbardton

Battle of Fort Anne

Siege of Fort Stanwix

Battle of Oriskany

Battle of Bennington

Battle of Forts Clinton and Montgomery

Battles of Saratoga

This topic is based on the contents of {{Campaignbox American Revolutionary War: Saratoga campaign}}, which are unified by the article on the Saratoga campaign. Magic♪piano 15:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - book please - rst20xx (talk) 16:25, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It just took me a bit to figure out how to do it (I didn't find the book tool helpful). Magic♪piano 19:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support - I would have thought you'd have just copied another book! Anyway I removed the piping out of battle/siege etc above as better to let people see which it was. Also colons not bullet points. Support - rst20xx (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support - I think these articles have much for info than they did a few months ago. Bernstein2291 ^{(Talk • Contributions • Sign Here)} 08:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support - Everything checks out. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support -MBK₀₀₄ 20:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - sorry about the delay - rst20xx (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quietly Confident Quartet[edit]

Quietly Confident Quartet

6 articles

Men's 4 x 100 metre medley relay at the 1980 Summer Olympics

Main contribuitor: YellowMonkey

Last time one article was missing. Nergaal (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No votes (even opposing) in a whole week? Nergaal (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't vote; I'll give the main race another run-through YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 01:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - everything seems covered -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is comprehensive, now the race's article is included. Nice work - rst20xx (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support —Terrence and Phillip 09:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - book please - rst20xx (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- check Nergaal (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I fixed the formatting, which has to follow strict rules for books - rst20xx (talk) 14:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 17:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]