Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/2024

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trauma Center[edit]

Trauma Center is a simulation video game series developed and published by Atlus between 2005 and 2010. Beginning with Trauma Center: Under the Knife for the Nintendo DS, the series continued for four more entries; a Wii remake Second Opinion, and three original titles for DS and Wii. While now a dormant series, each entry saw positive reception and sales, with many gaming journalists praising each entry's controls for utilising hardware-specific elements.

edit | discuss
Trauma Center: Under the Knife
5 articles
Trauma Center: Second Opinion
Trauma Center: New Blood
Trauma Center: Under the Knife 2
Trauma Team
Contributor(s): ProtoDrake

I'm nominating this GT because I ended up doing a GA clean sweep of the series. I believe all of them cover each game in as much detail as is suitable for their quality level. While there would normally be a series article, there has been little to no commentary on the series as a whole despite its popularity during its period of release. Due to this, the series article has been redirected, and for this topic the lead article is the debut entry. The series is unlikely to see any additions in the near future, so the topic should remain stable. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Although the matter of a series article can't be helped in this scenario, the articles are all clearly related and linked together by a designated template, and since all the articles within are GA-class, the topic qualifies for promotion. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until the new series article reaches GA status. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 03:25, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold Scratch that, I think there's some latent GUILT in the patient that needs to be treated. Er... I mean potential for another article. Specifically, the series article is quite viable and probably shouldn't have been redirected just to fast track a Good Topic. Hardcore Gaming 101 goes over the series as a whole as a decent chunk of their review of the original Trauma Center, besides this retrospective that was already mentioned in the article. Combined with this overview of the series in Nintendo Power, I think it's absolutely salvageable and GNG passing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Again the commentary there seems too localized to specific titles over talking about the series as a whole. The main problem with the series article was it was parroting stuff from the articles. There was little to no overarching commentary, and the sources you've provided don't really solve that issue. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on these three sources, I must agree with ProtoDrake. Hardcore Gamer's two articles are specific-game reviews, as is the Nintendo Power article. They describe the series in order to give context to the item they are reviewing. Only the USGamer (VG247) article is about the series as a whole. These three sources suggest the potential for a series article, but they would not be enough. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Being specifically about the series as a whole has nothing to do with it really. So unless you are saying these are all trivial, that shouldn't apply. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am just suggesting that all of the information in these sources are summarily covered in the respective game articles. Only one of them features reception for the franchise as a whole. We could put together a somewhat functional article to encompass the franchise, but there's not really any reason to do it with these sources. The Gameplay and Legacy sections on Under the Knife have it covered. This might change if more retrospectives on the franchise as a whole are found or written, though. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason would be ease of navigation and to give people a proper landing page for learning about the Trauma Center series. At MOS:VG it is stated that as long as a series page "describe[s] the series as a whole in broader terms, such as what the games have in common. This could include general gameplay, and recurring elements such as characters and locations", and there are at least 3 entries, its existence is merited. The question should be why it shouldn't exist, and there appears to be no special reason in this case to inconvenience readers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you joking? It also says "Avoid creating a series article that only repeats what sources say about the individual games, and instead base the article on what reliable sources say about the series as a whole.". Except that there aren't reliable sources that talk about the series as a whole, and you've been unable to produce them. --PresN 13:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To straight-up copy-paste my reply above, because it seems like it got ignored, Hardcore Gaming 101 goes over the series as a whole as a decent chunk of their review of the original Trauma Center, besides this retrospective that was already mentioned in the article. Combined with this overview of the series in Nintendo Power. These are the sources I have produced that prove a series page is possible and passes GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking bluntly, yes it's possible, but it'll also look like a giant echo chamber and that in my opinion is one of the worst kinds of Wikipedia articles. Speaking personally, and I may have to go back over some of my own contributions in light of these opinions, I dislike whole articles that just reproduce word for word, or with arbitrary variations. That's why I did the redirect. There was barely anything original, and even with those small bits you've found, they'll still be barely anything original. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, if what you are saying is true, I am doubtful any franchise article would exist - it would be required to only have navboxes connecting them, because any blurb describing the game, film or other media would be classified as an "echo chamber" and "repetitive content". Sometimes repetition is required to describe something in another article in which it appears. I am a bit flummoxed as to how that is a bad thing as long as it's not just a straight copypaste of the entire article. Sometimes people want a quick summary, other times a long examination of the subject. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – After quickly looking through each of the articles, I can say this looks like a lovely Good Topic. Excellent work, ProtoDrake! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Solid topic, and I agree that a series article is not viable at this time. --PresN 13:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I am convinced that a series article to serve as the main topic is not viable, at least not based on what's been presented. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm gonna chime in a say that for the time being, it's best having all the series info in the article for the first game. Look at Knightmare on MSX for example. I condensed everything related to the trilogy into the legacy section, including the follow-ups, cameos, the unreleased stand-alone sequel, etc. I do feel that Trauma Center has potential to have its own series page more than Knightmare, not gonna lie, but i do agree with Drake's approach here. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It makes sense to have the first game here. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 17:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold until a series article is made per Zxcvbnm.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I do not know why the series article was "merged" with the first game of the series. I was planning to work that into a good article. It is not impossible to expand on it. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The series article is at a C-class level, it should be part of the topic and raised to Good Article status. DanganMachin (talk) 05:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as Trauma Center (video game series) exists (it should be the main article of the topic) and it’s neither a GA or an FA. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:33, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, Oppose, since the series article's been restored. (EDIT: And since there's a lot of...strong feelings on the subject that I have neither time nor patience to cope with). --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing with a consensus to not promote – Aza24 (talk) 00:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Grant[edit]

Milton Grant (1923–2007) was an American disc jockey and owner of television stations. After a career in radio and television in the Washington, D.C., area, where he made his mark as a disc jockey and hosted the regionally influential The Milt Grant Show on TV from 1956 to 1961, he turned to broadcast station management. He founded Washington's WDCA-TV in 1966; he sold it in 1969 but remained general manager until 1980. He then owned TV stations primarily by way of three vehicles: a partnership with Sidney Shlenker that started two highly successful stations in Texas; the Grant Broadcasting System, which lost its three stations in bankruptcy; and Grant Communications/Grant Broadcasting System II, which operated in midsize and smaller markets and continued in business after Milton Grant's death until 2014.

edit | discuss
Broadcast stations owned by Milton Grant
16 articles
Contributor(s): Sammi Brie

The proposed Good Topic consists of Grant's biography, his eponymous TV show (which is independently notable), and all the operating television stations he owned in part or full (WLAX and WEUX share an article). This is the second GT in broadcasting (KTXA is also in the ON TV GT) and a third is planned which will have some of these articles. --Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:17, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: Is the various stations' association with the guy significant enough to merit their inclusion in a topic together? Five of the articles don't contain even a single mention of Milton Grant, and in most of the others he's just mentioned in passing as one of various owners in the station's history. On the other hand, the stations where you say he established his notability (WINX, WOL, and WTTG) aren't included. This topic doesn't seem well focused on this man's life and notable work to me. Sorry, it's clear that an enormous amount of work has gone into promoting all of these articles; I just don't see a shared topic. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bryanrutherford0: These are the stations he owned (he never owned WTTG or the radio stations), and some of them have very significant association with Grant. Grant built WDCA, KTXA, KTXH, and WBFS, and comprehensively rebuilt (in terms of programming and/or facility) WGBO (as in "Grant Broadcasting"), WPSG (as WGBS — Grant Broadcasting System), WNYO (which had been a Christian station for years), and KGCW (which was off the air when he bought it). Grant's station ownership tenure is unusual in that he owned stations in four discrete eras (WDCA; KTXA/KTXH; the Grant Broadcasting System; and then the smaller stations he owned at his death). All of them except WDCA used the same logo style—even the tiny Fox affiliate in La Crosse/Eau Claire, Wisconsin. KLRT-TV is probably the most fringe, as he never ran the station (he owned 25%), but I wanted to cover my bases and had substantial material left over from KASN to improve it. I designed the GT scope in such a way as to include Grant, his eponymous show, and the TV stations he owned. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the scope you want, then the name of the proposed topic should be changed to something more like "broadcast stations owned by Milton Grant", and the Milt Grant Show should be cut, since it has nothing to do with any stations he owned. Even then, again, it doesn't seem like his ownership was important to all of these stations, since his name doesn't come up at all in their articles. Sorry to be a downer! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've gone ahead and made the changes to focus it on the broadcast stations, but I fundamentally and thoroughly disagree with your assertion that "his ownership wasn't important". Here, I will go through, fundamentally, and tell you the things that happened under Grant at each of these stations... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • KGCW: This station was off the air and bankrupt when acquired by Grant in 1995. Grant put it back on the air in 1996 using the resources of KLJB.
    • KLJB: Grant owned this station for 20+ years, during which time it started a local 9 p.m. newscast. The newscast was outsourced, which spawned a whole company, Independent News Network.
    • KLRT: Probably a fringe inclusion since Grant owned 25 percent and was not involved directly in its operation, but for completeness it is here as he did own some of it.
    • KTXA and KTXH: The first stations owned in part or whole by Grant since the 1960s. Grant's "full-grown" model to independent stations was perfected here, aided—in hindsight—by economic tailwinds. KTXH in particular was enormously successful.
    • WBFS: This was the station in what later became Grant's home market (he moved to and died in Fort Lauderdale) and heralded the start of the Grant Broadcasting System—whose bankruptcy and collapse was said to have ended an independent stations bubble.
    • WDCA: Grant put the station on the air in 1966; while he sold it in 1969, he remained general manager until 1980 and was instrumental in its programming policy and management.
    • WFXR (and WWCW, which simulcast for most of their history under Grant): Among the quieter pickups, but important nonetheless. Grant reached a deal to have a newscast for the station.
    • WGBO: That's G for Grant. This was the worst-performing of the Grant Broadcasting System stations by a country mile and helped drag the whole thing into bankruptcy.
    • WLAX: See above but a decade after WFXR.
    • WNYO-TV: Grant engineered the license swap that returned this facility to being a commercially run station after it was made Christian in 1990. His relationship with The WB, started in Buffalo, resulted in him receiving The WB affiliations in three of his other markets.
    • WPSG: This was WGBS, as in Grant Broadcasting System. It had existed prior to 1985 but was a non-factor with subscription TV programming. It was essentially a new station in facilities and programming.
    • WZDX: On the quieter side, but after GBS failed, this station marked his return to station ownership and was built up considerably under him.
    Okay, I'm not interested in this getting belligerent. I'll just say that your bullet points above pretty much all seem to be reasons why these stations were important in Grant's business life, rather than reasons why Grant was important in the histories of the stations. I still don't see a topic. Sorry! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I reviewed a number of the articles (including Grant himself) and find that Sammi has justified the inclusion of these stations. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 14:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I've given this some thought over several days, and have come to the conclusion that I can't see how these form a unified topic of closely-related articles. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 14:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Since this is still open, if it helps consensus, I think this is too weak a connection to make a GT. Especially since they weren't owned by Grant personally, but rather his company. Sets an awkward precedent, because ownership can and does move around over time and is traded back and forth between holding companies. Corporate owner just isn't very high in the mind when people think of a station, either. It's still some amazing work, but maybe a regional connection would work better? e.g. {{Buffalo TV}} might work as a GT. SnowFire (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SnowFire Wanted to respond to this before I request closure of this languishing nomination. The problem with taking an entire market to GT is that there are many low-power TV stations whose articles can't be reasonably improved due to sourcing depth. Buffalo has six of them. The closest I've come would either be Tucson (missing KWBA and the Univision station) or Sioux City (which sits in the coverage area of three different statewide PBS networks). I'd also like to know what you'd think about a GT of TVX Broadcast Group and stations—the company owned all the stations that would be in the GT, all the relevant pages are GAs now or are at GAN after improvement, and a number are shared with this nomination. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the nomination: Eh, it could have been closed ages ago without need to force you to request closure yourself, but I think we may need new FTC/GTC coordinators (or for the existing ones to come off wikibreak). See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_and_good_topic_questions#Timeline/expectations - we've had a number of very easily closed noms sitting around for months. I suppose the risk of complaining is that you get asked to do it, but hey.
    On other corporate owners: Unfortunately, I think the same problems with this nomination would apply to TVX Broadcast Group. I just don't think a GT/FT "by corporate owner" would be a good idea for almost anything (not talking about just radio / TV here) - maybe if we're only talking direct subsidiaries that don't get passed around and sold between owners ever, and the company was defunct so there was no worry about future maintenance. But this is the equivalent of saying "maybe rare exceptions exist."
    On categorizing by location: I think Tucson or Sioux City would be interesting test cases then, yes. Something nice about categorization by locality is that there won't usually be much overlap (although I suppose it'll still happen in dense areas, e.g. some Northern NJ stations might be in both the NYC and the Philadelphia market). For the tougher markets, I'd argue you could perhaps define the criteria as "Major stations in the Buffalo area" with an explanatory note that "major" really means "high-power and cable". If you don't think that's viable... well, for perma-stubs, I'd argue that perhaps criteria 3c of WP:FTCRITERIA could be refined to remove the "only for lists" exception, and instead have an explanatory note that says articles with less than 300 words also qualify if they are comprehensive given the sources reasonably available. Even if that criteria isn't modified at all, there is a way around it: you could make a List of defunct stations in the Buffalo region list article or the like, and then merge WBES-TV, etc. there. That would handle the defunct stations at least, but the low-power ones like WNYB... yeah I dunno, those you'd probably be stuck getting to GA if you wanted to avoid an argument over whether "major" is a valid differentiator. SnowFire (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed with consensus not to promote - GamerPro64 00:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change in Turkey[edit]

edit | discuss
Climate change in Turkey Energy in Turkey
13 articles
Climate change
Coal
Coal power
Electricity sector
Gas
Geothermal energy
Greenhouse gas emissions
Hyodroelectricity
Oil
Renewable energy
Solar power
Wind power
Contributor(s): Arcahaeoindris, Chidgk1

Clearly a high number of good articles providing good coverage of climate change and the corresponding energy sector. This could alternatively be under the umbrella of "Energy in Turkey" with climate change being a subsection. --Arcahaeoindris (talk) 14:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Arcahaeoindris Thank you for nominating this. @Bryanrutherford0 I would much prefer the title to be “Climate change in Turkey”. The only reason I have brought the energy articles to “good” is because (as in most countries) energy is the biggest of Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey. I don’t know whether having an energy good topic hinders having a climate change good topic in future but if there is any chance it might I would rather scrap this. Having covered energy I am now moving on to non-energy climate change related topics such as Agriculture in Turkey. As I understand 3 articles are enough for a good topic how about the title to be “Climate change in Turkey” and articles Climate change in Turkey and Greenhouse gas emissions by Turkey and Energy in Turkey with agriculture to be added later if promoted? Chidgk1 (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The theme running through the articles in this nomination by Arcahaeoindris is definitely energy and not climate change. If you, Chidgk1, would also like to propose a Good Topic about Climate Change in Turkey, then my question would be, what is the scope of articles that should be included, and why? Typically we would want to see the topic reflect the contents of its corresponding category (in this case, Category:Climate change in Turkey) under FT criteria 1c) and 1d). Maybe that category needs some cleanup to reflect a more appropriate scope for the topic? Prepare a convincing defense of your proposed topic scope, and then you'll have a strong proposal for a GT. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for info - I need to do a lot more work before proposing that. But can you tell me whether an article being in this proposed energy GT would be any hindrence to it also being in a future climate change GT? Chidgk1 (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to me. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I have no objection to this proposal Chidgk1 (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bioenergy in Turkey and Renewable energy in Turkey still need to be GA's, though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to bring renewable energy to GA but not bioenergy as it is not important enough Chidgk1 (talk) 08:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added Renewable energy in Turkey as this has just achieved GA status. @AirshipJungleman29: @Chidgk1: @Bryanrutherford0: any further thoughts on this? Would be good to conclude this. Arcahaeoindris (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Still looks to me like it needs Bioenergy in Turkey. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt bioenergy in Turkey has much potential for helping to fix climate change. In 2020 Ege Uni said at https://www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/geothermal-biomass/biomass-can-meet-one-third-of-turkeys-annual-power/29862 it would need government incentives. I can't see the government incentivizing this in future but if anyone knows better please let me know at Talk:Bioenergy_in_Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 14:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect Turkish Airlines of greenwashing https://www.aa.com.tr/en/energy/turkey/turkish-airlines-launches-flights-using-sustainable-aviation-fuel/34554. But if the sugar beet could be increased in price a lot due to SAF demand this might help solve the obesity problem so would be great - we shall see. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closed with consensus not to promote - GamerPro64 00:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/Failed_log/2024&oldid=1228211611"