edit | discuss

Tyrannosauridae

7 articles

Albertosaurus

Alioramus

Daspletosaurus

Gorgosaurus

Tarbosaurus

Tyrannosaurus

Note: main contributor Sheep81 has made 6 contributions since May 2008

Contributors/nominators: Sheep81, J. Spencer, WP:DINO, Nergaal

I give you T-rex and his family! Nergaal (talk) 01:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - should include and Aublysodon, Alashansaurus, Deinodon, Itemirus and certainly Nanotyrannus. Yes, the former four are "dubious", whilst the latter is "possibly a juvenile specimen of Tyrannosaurus", but the confirmation/refutation of these are unlikely to come any time soon (hence the articles are stable), and in the last case there appears to be genuine ongoing controversy, and as a result I feel that this article at least should be included. The job of FTC is not to decide what is and what is not a dinosaur in this genus, but to ensure the whole of the topic is covered, and as there is a genuine possibility that Nanotyrannus is a species of dinosaur in the genus (no matter about the others!), it should certainly be included - rst20xx (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All these represent claims that are mostly discarded by the researchers in the field:

Aublysodon "is now widely considered to be just a juvenile tyrannosaurine"

Alashansaurus "possibly related to Tyrannosaurus, but has not yet been fully described"

Deinodon "is today a dubious scientific name of little use"

Itemirus "was a possible Tyrannosaurid"

Nanotyrannus "is often considered to be a juvenile T-rex"

As such, I believe these articles ought not be a part of the topic, especially since I've seen singles NOT covered in any albums not to be necessary as a part of discography topics. At best the nanot-rex should be a subtopic of a T-rex topic. Nergaal (talk) 18:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I have taken a look at the articles rst20xx belives should be included in the topic. They all appear to me to be riddled with speculation. Obviously any study of animals that have been extinct for millions or years involves some degree of speculation, but I think we have to go with what the best available science of today says. Using that standard I think the topic is as complete as it can be made at this time. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree with Rreagan007 and Nergall on this one. Zginder 2008-11-03T21:06Z (UTC)
• Support - Per Rreagan007 and Nergall. ~~ ComputerGuy 22:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support why it took so long to appear a Dinosaur FTC? igordebraga ≠ 01:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There probably should have been some mention of this nomination at WT:DINO. The FAC process for these articles took three years. These are all the major genera; bits and pieces like Chingkankousaurus (scraps of bone dubiously assigned to tyrannosaurids) will probably never reach FA or GA status: there isn't enough work on them. The work of Currie et al. (2003), Holtz (2004), and Carr et al. (2005) support only these six plus Nanotyrannus as valid genera, and the status of Nanotyrannus is in doubt (and Carr et al. even merges Tarbosaurus and Gorgosaurus). When Bakker, Larson, and Currie publish their new paper, the status of Nanotyrannus can be redetermined. But at this time, Wikipedia's central Tyrannosauridae articles closely resemble that of The Dinosauria (Second Edition), and there's no reason for Wikipedia to second-guess those experts. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Nanotyrannus may be in doubt, but its article led me to believe that there is genuine controversy over its classification. You're right that it's not our job to try and be experts and draw our own conclusions, but you're wrong in arguing that therefore the article should be excluded - why should it be? Surely the conclusion is that it should be included, as that way all the information on the subject is included within the scope of the topic. We'd be drawing the conclusion that it is NOT a genuine member of the family by excluding it! rst20xx (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Are you saying that singles not within any albums are not a genuine member of the artist's discography by excluding them from a topic? Anyways, all of the three examples in fact contain only a very limited number of skeletal remains and is really hard for researchers to say weather they are or not a member of this family, and as such I don't quite understand your opinion of having to include them in this topic. I am sure that if someone wants to add them later on nobody would oppose. On the other hand, by mandating to include them now you seem to force them to be genuine members of the family. Nergaal (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You see I would argue the opposite, I would say that including them leaves open the possibility that they are members, whereas excluding them is saying they are not. Though it seems to me that only Nanotyrannus has actual ongoing controversy so I am willing to drop the issue on the others somewhat. Finally, I don't see where your comparison to singles with discographies comes from - rst20xx (talk) 17:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Singles are a part of the artist's discography (but they are not albums). While these examples you gave may be a part of the family. As for the other part, even if they were a part of the family, because they are relatively not well known, they may be seen as less "important" members of the family. Nergaal (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  By this same logic, we should require Sedna, Orcus, Quaoar, Ixion, and a dozen other solar system objects in the dwarf planets topic because they are probable or possible dwarf planets, even though they have not yet been classified as such. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A family is a nomenclatural unit, not a physical entity. So are genus names. All the genus names listed above, though dubious, are valid and should be included. The only names that should not be included are junior synonyms (or names that have been otherwise rejected like Manospondylus). Under no nomenclatural code are nomina dubia excluded (or even really recognized). Excluding Aublysodon or Deinodon would be fairly arbitrary. Statements like "Aublysodon "is now widely considered to be just a juvenile tyrannosaurine"" fail to recognize the basic distinction between a specimen (undiagnosable teeth) and its name (validly proposed under an accepted zoological code). A family is a group of names, not a group of specimens. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to Rreagan007) No, because those are not classified as dwarf planets (yet). There is no equivalent body making official classifications with regards to dinosaur families - rst20xx (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose — I'm with Rst20xx on this one. Species that might be part of this group, or were for a long time thought to be part of it, should be included if we want this topic to be comprehensive for someone researching the subject. If there were an official body that decided what species are members of the group, like there is for dwarf planets, things would be different. I would be in support this if the main article included a sub-section about the borderline species and why they are likely not true members (the borderline species are currently only given a brief mention). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, hate to keep harping on this, but this common mistake in logic is what's fueling the discussion. They're all unquestionably members. What's questionable is that some of them are distinct members. Deinodon represents a species of tyrannosaurid, with 100% certainty. The problem is it's impossible to determine which one. The name is suspect, not the species, and there is a body that governs the name (the ICZN)--according to their rules it's valid, so it should be included. (In fact, according to their rules, this should be Deinodontidae, not Tyrannosauridae, but since the literature universally likes to ignore that we might as well follow suit ;) ). Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am personally confused: is deinodon a separate specie or not? Nergaal (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deinodon was named for teeth. At the time, the teeth were unique, so they named a new species. Later, more tyrannosaurs were found. Tyrannosaurus, Gorgosaurus, etc. All were different species, but all their teeth were basically the same. Normally, this would mean on of the new names gets thrown out and Deinodon takes priority. But, if all their teeth are basically the same, but they're different species, how do we know which species the Deinodon teeth came from? If it came from Tyrannosaurus, the name Tyrannosaurus gets thrown out, and replaced by Deinodon. If it came from Gorgosaurus, the name Gorgosaurus gets thrown out, and replaced with Deinodon. But we can't tell which it came from, all the teeth look the same. So Deinodon is a nomen dubium--"dubious name." The name can't be matched to a species, but it's still a valid name because it's the oldest and follows all the rules for proper naming.

As you can see, the situation is way more complicated than a simple "which are valid species and which aren't" when it comes to fossils, which is the point people here are missing. That, and the fact that a Family is a collection of valid Genus names, not a collection of valid 'real' species.Dinoguy2 (talk) 08:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For us, the issue isn't so much whether it's a distinct species, but whether it is necessary information about the topic. If someone wanted to have a good encyclopedic understanding about science's current conception of Tyrannosauridae, would they need to read those other articles? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that for now Nanotyrannus is important to include. If not, it should be merged with T. rex, which I'd oppose (see comments below). Deinodon was the first tyrannosaurid to be named, the first carnivorous dinosaur to get a family name, and is very important to the history of this family and dinosaurs in general. I don't see any logical reason to exlude it. Even if it's not a valid "species" (it is, one way or another), it's an important topic in this category. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Moral support as a contributor. The family and the core six genera are taken care of. Deinodon and Aublysodon are not actually all that bad; what is present in each could serve as the cores of GAs, albeit very boring GAs. J. Spencer (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per ComputerGuy (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per rst20xx's sentiments. While I understand User:Firsfron's concern about the smaller, less written articles which cannot get GA, I'm still unsure about whether excluding Nanotyrannus is a neutral thing to do. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nano- should ONLY be a part of a subtopic on Trex alone! Nergaal (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus yet on whether Nanotyrannus is a juvenile T. rex or not. In fact last I heard, the opinion in the study of Jane may be that it is in fact a distinct species. Include it until a paper is published stating an opinion one way or the other. We shouldn't go by our personal opinions here. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, as I've argued above, there's no good reason to exclude some of these taxa from the topic, unless the topic is specifically to only include robustly understood specimens. Which would seem to ignore the point of having a topic on tyrannosaurids. Even the taxa that likely do not represent distinct species, they're important to the history of the study and nomenclature of Tyrannosauridae. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Close with no consensus - 7 supports and 4 opposes makes a majority, but not consensus - rst20xx (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

previous FTC

edit | discuss

Slipknot discography

11 articles

Slipknot

Iowa

Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)

All Hope Is Gone

9.0: Live

Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat.

Slipknot Demo

Welcome to Our Neighborhood

Disasterpieces

Voliminal: Inside the Nine

I am renominating this per Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_questions#Slipknot_discography. The two audited articles have both gone through failed GANs, complete PRs, and passed AfDs. The video albums are also included here, something that I realize is not common among the discography topics. Gary King (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I am going to go out on a limb here and support. Zginder 2008-11-06T23:39Z (UTC)
• Support - it is a shame that this will mean we now have permanently PRed articles, a precedent, but I think you have done all you can really, there's nothing more to say - rst20xx (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I aim to please. I imagine I've received plenty of opposes based on things that have not been done before, but hey, someone's gotta do it at some point. Gary King (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant Oppose - You have two articles that are not unreleased materials, or new materials that are likely to grow significantly (Like elections in a new province, or a new award). As such, they should be submitted to Good Article status, or merged to an appropriate parent article if they aren't notable enough to fulfill GA status. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, these did go through AfD's and GAN's too. The GAN's were rejected because the articles were not deep enough, but no other reliable sources could be found to further add to the article. The AfD's stated pretty much that merging the information from the two articles into the parent article would create unnecessary bias towards those two merged. Also, this ought to be taken as a precedent only if AfD's and failed GAN's are provided. Nergaal (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#1GA and its AfD. #2 GAN and its AfD. Nergaal (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when should we remove/merge articles just because we can't get them to GA status, now that's a new one. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because all articles have to be GA status or better to be in Good or Featured Topics. So you are 100% sure that these articles can't be made GA status? Real short but GA? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria, in the Good topic criteria it says: "Items that are ineligible for featured or good article status, either due to their limited subject matter (in the case of lists) or their inherent instability (for lists and articles), must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed." REZTER ^TALK ø 11:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm the "in the case of lists" bit was changed with this edit, which there was no consensus for (well, see the edit description). In light of this nom I shall undo it, and if someone wants to redo it, they need to try and establish consensus first, per WP:BRD - rst20xx (talk) 11:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the question I'm asking is what was the reason these two articles failed GA? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly due to lack of information and sources. They are articles which lack sections due to the lack of sources and are basically too short to be good articles. Oh, and please don't tell us to go look for sources because we seriously would have provided them if they were out there, we are the Slipknot Wikiproject and we have a hell of a lot of sources. REZTER ^TALK ø 18:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't suggest that, but these would be the first accepted "permanent non-GA's" to be allowed under the audited review feature here, and I'm not sure if that is what was intended by the auditing feature. You may want to consider being really bold and merging the two into a parent article and making it stick, because otherwise, there is no reasonable prospect for them to become Good Articles in the future. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That also has been suggested before, we have enough information so that they deserve their own articles but not enough to become GAs. Now I don't see anywhere in WP:DEL that it says if an article cannot become GAs then they should be deleted or merged. Plus if we added this information to the main Slipknot article it would add far too much weight on these subjects in that article. I don't see in what instances should these articles fail 3.c. of WP:WIAFT. REZTER ^TALK ø 12:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it is difficult, but I think that the topic criteria is clear that all articles must be GA, FA or FL, and I think that the audited criteria, even if it hasn't spelled it out explicitly, is for articles that will grow in the future, not for articles that are permanent stubs. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's not spelled out should probably mean that it should be made explicit, so that it's clear that it means one way or the other, unless everyone is fine with the relative flexibility that it offers. Gary King (talk) 03:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judgesurreal I believe you're misinterpreting it. You are sayign that an audited article is an article which is not a good article but could potentially be one.... then surely if that was the case then that article should be expanded before being submitted for a good topic. An audited article is an article which is well written but lacks certain information that would make them good articles, and clearly shown by our evidence these articles will never (with the current lack of sources) become good articles, but they are still well written and sourced. REZTER ^TALK ø 11:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Articles should not be deleted or merged just because they are unable to become good or featured articles, and certainly not so they can become featured topics. I have read the topic criteria numerous times, particularly the part about audited articles, and I see nothing in there (expressed or implied) that says you can not have perpetual audited articles in a topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Oppose. Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) does indeed bring up some valid concerns. Cirt (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seriously disagree and it's not just because I'm one of the major contributors to these articles I just don't see why those two articles fail 3.c. of WP:WIAFT. I have tried to explain numerous times that there is a serious lack of sources for them and I believe whole-heartedly that no further information will be published about them, therefore the articles will not grow in to GAs in the future. If the only advise you can give us is "just hope more information is published" then I don't understand how we can help the situation. REZTER ^TALK ø 17:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral — This is another nom that I'm torn about. The way I see it, if it can't be make GA because there aren't enough sources, doesn't that mean that it fails the notability requirement of having significant coverage and should be deleted? The only reason that I'm not opposing now is that this did go through GAN and AFD and failed both. I personally think that they could make GA, though they might have to use some unusual sources, like archival MTV footage. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as no consensus - I think I should give some reasoning for my ruling on this one. I normally give little weight to oppose votes that do not cite a specific violation of WIAFT, and the opposes here are both concerned about criterion 3c, which this topic technically passes by the criterion's current wording. I'm closing this as no consensus because the wording of 3c is vague enough that one could make an argument that it implies temporarily limited subject matter. I recommend that we have a discussion about what that rule means, and depending on the outcome of the discussion, this topic could be renominated. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main page	Articles
Universities in Canada	Universities in Alberta · Universities in British Columbia · Universities in Manitoba · Universities in New Brunswick · Universities in Nova Scotia · Universities in Ontario · Universities in Quebec · Universities in Saskatchewan

Note: Peer reviews of the s ongoing - rst20xx (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was quite the project; I brought all of these articles to featured status. These are lists of universities in Canada. Canada has ten provinces (and three territories), but only four of those provinces and territories have enough universities, with ten, to actually qualify for featured list status (all three territories have no universities), and so those are here. The other provinces have their universities in the main article in this topic. Gary King (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Everything seems to be in order. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:08, 22 October 2008 (UTC) withdrew support per argument raised by Miss Madeline and Rst22xx. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question what about Group of Thirteen (Canadian universities) Nergaal (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't belong in the topic otherwise I would have included it. It's a group of research-intensive universities in Canada. This topic is for lists of universities. Perhaps that article and others like it could be added in a supplementary nomination if and when this topic expands in scope. Gary King (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: I think this is cherry-picking because List of universities and colleges in Alberta is not included. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC) [reply]

• • Based on the information provided by Rst20xx in response to my comment, I must oppose. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 02:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Miss Madeline. In fact let's go through all the lists. We also have List of universities in Manitoba (redirected over by Gary on the 8th October, I can't see a prior discussion), List of universities and colleges in Newfoundland and Labrador (moved to "List of colleges" and Uni bits of list deleted by Gary on the 8th, again no prior discussion), List of universities and colleges in New Brunswick, List of universities and colleges in Prince Edward Island (same as Newfoundland and Labrador), List of universities and colleges in Saskatchewan (same as Newfoundland and Labrador). List of universities and colleges in Alberta currently exists because someone reverted the merge. Conclusion: A large number of articles were deleted in preparation for this topic, without any consensus for this. I don't think deleting articles to make topics easier to write is on at all. I can see Gary trying to argue that these articles he deleted were non-notable, and while that might be true for Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and possibly Saskatchewan, I am sure that is not the case for Alberta and possibly Manitoba and New Brunswick. Clear attempt to work the system, IMO. Disappointing - rst20xx (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Frankly, rst20xx, I am surprised at your response. Please assume good faith. See my reply to Arctic Gnome for more. Gary King (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, I apologise, you're absolutely right, I came on much too strong. But I still feel there is a coverage mismatch between the provinces with lists, and the provinces without, and hence I uphold my oppose. I acknowledge that most of the other lists probably wouldn't be large enough to get featured, but part of the reason may be because of the format you've decided to take for the lists in this topic. Each province list could have a short summary of the various universities in the province, similarly to how the main article summarises the provinces. This would probably go some way to help, as well as making the topic more comprehensive. Some of the lists may still be deemed too short to pass, but in that case, I think that they should be included as audited lists, as per Miss Madeline, below. And as always, I personally would want a literal demonstration that the articles can't pass FLC, by having them fail an FLC solely for being inherently short - rst20xx (talk) 15:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not going to abuse the FLC process by submitting lists that I should know will fail because they are too short. Gary King (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• We've seen topics with this kind of structure before, where lists that aren't notable enough to have their own page are included in the lead. To be able to use this model, you have to make an argument that the missing articles would not be long enough to deserve their own page. On this point I'm afraid that I have to agree with Rst20xx; there should be enough information to make a featured list about universities in Alberta. You mention that no list can be featured if it has fewer than ten items in it, but that rule is not mentioned in the Featured list criteria. Where did you hear about that rule? If a list truly does need ten items to get featured, than I might be able to support your case. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I've worked on enough FLs (more than 40 from my last count) to know that there is an unofficial rule of a minimum of ten items on a list before it can be featured. In some cases, yes, it's possible to have less than ten with enough content, but I don't believe I've ever seen that happen yet. Feel free to peruse the WT:FLC archives for prior discussions on this issue as it has been discussed ad nauseum. As you might imagine, questions like "Does this list have enough items to become featured?" pop up quite often. For some of these university lists, I had longer leads, and I received several comments that asked to reduce the size of the lead because it was longer than the table. I'm sure the same thing might come up for smaller lists.

  The bottom line is that I am willing to work on the other university lists. I'm not trying to game the system. My line of thought was: why would I submit the other lists to FLC if I know, and the FLC guys know I know, that they need a minimum of ten items to be featured? Anyways, if you guys really want the other lists to be featured, too, or at least Alberta, then I can do that by talking with the FLC directors. Gary King (talk) 05:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why is Alberta etc. being unfeaturable a barrier? If it cannot be featured, surely it could be given "individual quality audit that include[s] a completed peer review" and be entered into the topic through criterion 3c. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 06:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There always seems to be a lot controversy whenever an audited article is included into a topic. I usually only include audited articles when it is temporary, such as for something that is unreleased, like an upcoming video game, film, or television season. Surely in this case, arguments can be made for both cases that Alberta should have its own list? Alberta only has six universities, which isn't really close to ten. Also, just to be clear, I didn't "delete" the information that was in the other lists; I merged them into List of universities in Canada, and then summarized the information, added leads for each one, references, etc. Gary King (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is controversy here about whether Alberta should be included. And if other articles are still too short, why not rename everything "List of post-secondary institutions in _______"? Doing that would allow longer lists and resolve the splittism. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Universities and colleges are sufficiently different in Canada that I'd be wary of immediately merging them. In any case, most of the provinces would still have less than ten colleges and universities, so it wouldn't really resolve much. Gary King (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The lists should have been audited if they were too short to become featured. Rreagan007 (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? Only Alberta, or the other provinces which have less universities than Alberta as well? Gary King (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per the Miss Madeline, Arctic.gnome, and Rst20xx. I think the problem here is over splitism. The United States which has more universities does not have separate articles for colleges and universities. I think the solution is to combine the colleges with the universities. If there is some fundamental difference between colleges and universities in Canada that does not exist in the US then this needs to be explained. When I read the main list I thought there were only 83 institutions of higher learning in Canada which sounds like a small number. Zginder 2008-10-23T16:50Z (UTC)

  Universities and colleges are distinctly different in Canada; I've tried to explain this in more detail in the lead for List of universities in Canada. Gary King (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since this is already breaking up into several discussions, let's try to keep this centralized. As I mentioned above, universities and colleges in Canada are distinctly different from each other as opposed to the United States. I've tried to clarify this in the lead for List of universities in Canada. Even if universities and colleges were merged together, some of the provinces would still have less than the unofficial minimum of ten items to become featured. I will not submit lists to FLC just for the purpose of having them deliberately failed. One possible option is that I create and have audited a "List of universities in Alberta". Who would be on board with that? Who wouldn't, and if not, then what should be done? Gary King (talk) 23:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be willing to go along with there being an audited (or better) "List of universities in Alberta". I will go along with the consensus for possible lists for (some of) the other provinces. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 00:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the other provinces should also have their own, audited lists? Gary King (talk) 00:08, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the Alberta page includes colleges. Zginder 2008-10-24T00:19Z (UTC)

Each page is inconsistent with the others. The larger provinces had universities and colleges separate. Ultimately, universities and colleges are defined differently in Canada. I was thinking of including articles like List of universities in Ontario and then just letting something like List of universities and colleges in Alberta stay like that, but I figured it would be too inconsistent. The former universities/colleges lists had no prose at all, so now that I've created leads for them, it makes less sense to have them all on the same page as the lead would have to compare them to each other when it isn't entirely logical since both universities and colleges are pretty different from each other. In any case, I've created List of universities in Alberta. Also, I've been using this list from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada at here to create these lists, so that they are all consistent with each other. Gary King (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each province's list was essentially maintained by separate people. Some are in poor condition, including the templates. The template for Template:Universities in Alberta was missing colleges before, even though it was supposed to contain both universities and colleges of Alberta. Gary King (talk) 00:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough call because on one extreme you could say that every province should have their own list, and on the other extreme you could say that no province should have their own separate list because all the universities are already listed in the main list. Right now there is a fairly arbitrary cut off of 10 items being needed for a separate list. I certainly think it would be perfectly acceptable if every province had their own list and we just audit the ones that are too short to be featured, and I would certainly be willing to accept the idea that a list with fewer than 10 items is not likely to make it through FLC. It would probably be a little silly for Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island to have lists since they only have 1 university each, but I think the rest could all have a separate list. This would probably be the safest way to go because eventually someone will come along and want to know why their province doesn't have their own separate list like the others and will try to create it, and then someone will say that if the list exists it should be in the topic. I'm not saying I would require all those provinces to have a list for me to support the topic, but I think it would be kind of nice if they did. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone comes along and wants to find a list for their own province, it will exist as a redirect. So, it's not as bad as you might think; try this one out: List of universities in Newfoundland and Labrador. I will go ahead and create separate lists for each province that has more than one university, and then get them audited. Gary King (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion - One option is to merge neighbouring provinces as needs be. For example, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Hurricane Isabel has done this somewhat. Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba would form one such grouping (14 Unis between them) as List of Universities in the Canadian Prairies, and New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nefoundland and Labrador could form another with Nova Scotia (4 + 1 + 1 + 11 = 17), as List of universities in Atlantic Canada - rst20xx (talk) 14:38, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's true it would work fine that way. I kind of like it broken up into each province though just because that's how the main list has it broken up. But either way Gary King wants to go with it I would support. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Each provincial government regulates their universities differently, so I'm more inclined to keep them separated. Hurricanes do not discriminate and would strike the same way in one state or another. The provinces are peer reviewed now. I will update the box. I would like to see where we all stand now. Gary King (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could always just have a more expanded prose section... rst20xx (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea, it could give us a set of all-featured lists of roughly equal lengths. The differences between university rules between the provinces could be explained in the prose. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support now that all the lists have been added. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before any more comments are added, I'd like to point out that the following provinces do not have separate lists because they each have one university: Newfoundland and Labrador and Prince Edward Island. Gary King (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning towards oppose, even though all the lists are included. I know that FTC accepts audited articles, but I cannot support a topic that has as many audited articles as it does featured pages. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with sending them all to FLC. I've never liked that unwritten 10-item rule. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  FAC also has an unwritten minimum length. Gary King (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• How about FLC then? :-) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 17:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this thing about people not liking audited articles has been coming up a lot lately and I think we need to address it. The featured topic criteria are very clear that if an article is of limited subject matter and thus can't go through the featured process then it can be audited. There is still a minimum of at least 2 featured items and at least 3 articles (audited articles excluded), and this topic meets both of those. There is no maximum number of audited articles rule (either written or unwritten). If someone wants to propose a change to the topic criteria to limit the number of audited articles go right ahead, but until that change is made this nomination should go through. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Since audited articles for missing provinces have been included, I feel that my concern has been resolved satisfactorily and hence I will support now, conditional on the audits being completed. Personally, I would rather that Alberta be featured, but since the topic has minimum featured and total entries included, I won't oppose for that reason as Alberta's specific status is irrelevant. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 23:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - may I point out that none of the peer reviews are actually finished yet, so it's a bit premature for various people to be supporting - rst20xx (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, we can wait, although they've all already had several comments and I've responded to all of them. And the "List of storms" at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/2002 Atlantic hurricane season does not have a completed PR, too – sorry Julian! :P Gary King (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment - while the rules do not stipulate that lists need to go to FLC before they can be considered for being audited due to being limited, I do not think that this is an unreasonable request. This may not be written into WP:FT?, but equally, the much mentioned 10-items rule isn't mentioned in WP:FL? I think therefore that I will continue to oppose until Alberta makes a run at FLC - if this fails, I believe it will be a safe assumption that all the shorter lists will fail, as well. But if it passes, then, well, we will see where things go from there - rst20xx (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am one of the FL directors, and I believe this is highly unnecessary and would just plug up the FLC process. The list is too short to pass a FLC, there have been numerous discussions about minimum length and the general (albeit unofficial) consensus is around 10. I've seen bigger lists fail because of that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support now. Per Scorpion's argument. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral, I'm still not quite sure what the point of the individual provincial lists is. The exact same tables are used in List of universities in Canada, and the leads in the province pages could easily be merged into the main one too. They are all great lists and Gary has done a fantastic job, but why have a bunch of branch articles when they basically copy what is in the main article? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm thinking maybe remove the prose from each section in the main list, and leave the tables. The analysis can be saved for the individual articles, which should be kept and beefed up more over time. Gary King (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it makes pretty good sense to have the separate lists for each province. You don't want the main list loaded down with too much detail and having the individual lists allows for greater coverage than a single list could manage successfully. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral — The audited list could let this technically pass the requirements, but I think that Rst20xx's suggestion to make amalgamated lists for the prairie provinces and for the Atlantic provinces would produce a much neater final product, as well as get the topic fully-featured status. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question I could be wrong about this, but aren't audited articles excluded for determining fully-featured status? The star clusters show up on the featured topic boxes even when a topic contains audited articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is correct, but I think Arctic Gnome meant that every article is actually featured - rst20xx (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – per Scorpion. We don't send lists to FLC that have no purpose beyond wasting reviewers' time because they obviously will not pass. As I've said in the past, any proposal here requiring a list to go to FLC to ascertain that the list cannot achieve FL status will not be accepted by the FLC regulars because it is a waste of time. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Peer reviews have now been closed by the bot. Gary King (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I agree with some of the concerns and issues raised in the above comments by Rst20xx (talk · contribs) and Zginder (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose agree with Rst20xx on the subject of amalgamated lists, and Julian about the peer reviewed items. Some merging would contribute to a neater and in my opinion more complete and useful set of lists and a better topic. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as no consensus --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]