Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Washington Park (Chicago park)

Washington Park (Chicago park)

4 articles

Bud Billiken Parade and Picnic

DuSable Museum of African American History

Fountain of Time

This is a subtopic of Washington Park, Chicago. I believe the topic to be complete. I am not certain that Bud Billiken Parade and Picnic is part of the topic, so feedback is welcome. It should be noted that I am aware that the Chicago 2016 Olympic bid will be evaluated on 2 October 2009. If successful, there will surely be articles under names to be determined for 2016 Olympic Stadium and 2016 Olympic Aquatics Center. I am not sure whether they would belong here or in the main topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Meets WP:WIAFT standards--₮RU CӨ 00:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support, but I don't understand the relevance of the link.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Typo, fixed.--₮RU CӨ 03:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Disclosure: I've just GA reviewed and passed Fountain of Time. I consider this collection of articles to be excellent in depth of focus and coverage, and to have exceptional photographs. -- Chzz ► 02:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - given that both this and the Washington Park, Chicago good topic are quite small, and neither has massive potential for future growth, would it not make more sense to have the two be one topic, and have this instead be a supplementary nomination into that other topic? I think to do otherwise would be over-splitting, giving two topics when there can be one - after all, it says in the Recommendations at WP:FT?, "a topic should not be excessively sub-divided; an all-encompassing topic of six articles is better than two topics of three each" - rst20xx (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These topics have clear room for growth in seven months. If Chicago wins the their Olympic bid, there will be at least two more articles. I am not sure which of these it goes into. In the original of the two GTC for the parent topic, it was agreed that these park components were not necessary for the larger topic. Where do you think the two Olympic buildings would belong? I think they might belong in this topic. Further, the larger topic deals with articels related to discriminatory practices and the change in socio-economics of the city. These articles are different issues.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 6 articles + 3 articles still only equals 9 articles. Topics often go up to 20-25. While I agreed in the nomination for the parent topic that these articles weren't necessary for that topic, I still think that now that we're here, they'd fit better there than they would seperately - rst20xx (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First off, where would you see the Olympic structures if they come to be?
Don't know - rst20xx (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second, do we want every neighborhood to have to create articles for every fountain in its parks. Suppose you were doing a topic on Manhattan or even Upper West Side, you might include Central Park, but I don't think you would include Strawberry Fields, Wollman Rink, Metropolitan Museum of Art, etc. Do we want to set a precedent for doing so by moving these lower level detail topics into the neighborhood article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With Central Park, there would be many many more articles involved, and hence no, I wouldn't advocate any kind of combination - a combined topic would be much too big, and so it should stand as its own topic! Millennium Park too would be too big to merge into Grant Park, no matter about Chicago Loop. Here, however, there are 3 extra articles, with the potential for 2-3 more, and the parent topic has 9 6.

I would imagine that any topic that covers a park in the lowest level of notable detail (as here) would need to include an article on all notable fountains, but I don't think by merging these two topics, we'd be setting any kind of precedent that all neighbourhoods that contain a park will automatically have to include the articles within the scope of the park. Instead I would think that, as would happen here were we to fold these articles into the neighbourhood topic, the park articles can be optionally done at a later date, and then, depending on the number of articles involved, either added to the neighbourhood topic, or made into their own topic - rst20xx (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think FT/GT should try to be consistent. If you want a policy where a modestly sized neighborhood has to have articles for all its National Register of Historic Places structures that is a good policy as we have seen here. I think in general a neighborhood topic should include articles for its National Register of Historic Places parks, but it should not those parks should have their own topics.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also think merging into the parent topic would look better, assuming it doesn't leave any gaps. There is nothing to stop future topics from having sub-topics, on a case-by-case basis - that is why these discussion exist. In this case, the level of notability of the articles is also similar (Museum cf. Race track). If consensus goes towards keeping the subtopic, i would still support, but merging would be a strong support, as it is simply a more impressive topicYob Mod 09:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think having a topic and subtopic is more impressive than one topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but "impressiveness" is not really a reason for doing something. The oversplitting rules at WP:FT? are there for good reason - rst20xx (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ja - i think a topic that has the room and scope to include all of the articles in a subtopic, and the articles are on similar level subjects would count as oversplitting if kept separate. Which is what i think about this one. It's great work, just doesn't need to be sub-topiced, imo.Yob Mod 08:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - what does everyone else think about whether this should be a separate topic, or form part of the existing Washington Park, Chicago topic? At the moment I see two people saying "group" and one saying "separate" and I think more feedback would be valuable - rst20xx (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Truco and Chzz for their opinions - rst20xx (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually support that as well, since this is just a smaller topic that can be merged into that bigger topic.--Best, ₮RU CӨ 02:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have read through the issues raised, and the points put forward by TonyTheTiger have convinced me that this should be a separate FT. -- Chzz ► 18:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Promoting into existing topic - I'm sorry Tony, but it's 3 to 2 in favour of promoting this into the existing Washington Park topic, and so that is what I shall do. I only wish that we got more feedback on this, but it seems no-one else has an opinion - rst20xx (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]