Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/December 2008

edit | discuss

Gilbert and Sullivan

3 articles

W. S. Gilbert

Arthur Sullivan

Main contributors: Ssilvers , Marc Shepherd, Shoemaker's Holiday ,

Gilbert and Sullivan were almost certainly the most important theatrical collaboration in Victorian England, and this topic will cover the core articles on them: W. S. Gilbert, Arthur Sullivan, and the summary of their collaboration, Gilbert and Sullivan, thus linking together their detailed biographies with the detailed summary of their collaboration.

W. S. Gilbert is an FA, the others are GAs. Future expansions to the topic might broaden the criteria to include their fourteen operas, two of which are FAs already, or any new satellite articles or lists; however, this forms a coherent group. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan. D'Oyly Carte Opera Company. Richard D'Oyly Carte? Savoy opera? rst20xx (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's kind of like saying the Solar System FT should be defeatured because not all the moons are GAs. Obviously, this could expand, but I don't think that the exclusion line is arbitrary, as what remains is coherent. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cultural influence of Gilbert and Sullivan strikes me as something that should be included, at the least, because of its very limited-and-yet-related scope. The other articles rst20xx suggested might not be as strongly related as that one; I'm not sure. Gary King (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's actually mainly just a lightly polished dumping ground for some trivia sections in the opera articles, that we didn't quite like to delete, but which are pretty crap. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article still exists, so either it needs to be AfD or it exists because it's notable enough. Gary King (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Also you're only focusing on one of the four articles I mentioned. Let's take Richard D'Oyly Carte instead. {{Gilbert and Sullivan}} states that Gilbert, Sullivan and Carte form a triumvirate, and yet now you're stating that Carte wasn't important enough to the Gilbert and Sullivan collaboration to need including in this topic. I didn't say that the exclusion line is arbitrary, as you clearly have here in this nom the 3 most important articles to this topic, but I am saying that I think the topic you are proposing doesn't contain enough articles to fully enough cover the scope - rst20xx (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Richard's article is almost GA-level and could be brought to GA level easily, but I don't agree that he's core to the topic. Yes, he was important to the original creation and success of the partnership, but it is the WORKS that survive and make G&S enduringly famous. I'd go with Pinafore, Pirates and Mikado as being core to the topic (and why not throw in Trial, since it's already FA?). How many articles do you usually need to start a Featured Topic? If the three articles named above by Shoe are not enough to start the topic, I'd wait until we get these three operas up to GA level. By then, I'm sure Richard will be GA also. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You need a minimum of three articles in a topic, but that's not the problem here. The relevant bit of WP:FT? here is 1(d), i.e. "There is no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic". I am arguing that excluding the articles I named above lead to obvious gaps in the scope of this topic, i.e. the collaboration of Gilbert & Sullivan. If you were to start including plays, then I expect many people would argue you should include all the plays. I didn't really address the issue of whether the topic should include the plays or not in my oppose as I felt that the topic failed the criteria anyway, for the reasons I stated above - rst20xx (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think the articles on Richard D'Oyly Carte or his opera company are essential. What is important about them is already in the G&S article. The Savoy Opera article is merely organizational and explains how the G&S operas relate to the lesser-known works produced by Carte, but they are not very important. The cultural references article is totally peripheral to the subject - it certainly never would be part of any core group of our articles, although I think it's a useful presentation of the evidence of how G&S has influenced our culture. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I agree with the nominator on this one the topic is the collaboration between the two and the scope is therefore the three articles. Zginder 2008-12-16T21:15Z (UTC)

  If someone was to propose a topic for a band that just included the band article itself and the band's members, would you support it? rst20xx (talk) 21:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Close with no consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 14:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit | discuss

USS Princess Matoika

3 articles

Mutiny of the Matoika

American Palestine Line

Major contributor: Bellhalla

First ship topic! Nergaal (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw support for this nomination. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - if the major contributor is against this, then so am I. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Is there some reason that the major contributor opposes these nominations? If you go up the page you will see that in order for there to be a valid objection "each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored." Also, I will remind everyone that major contributors do not own articles nor do they have a veto in the nomination process. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have two articles at FAC plus a lot of real-world commitments. I have no prior experience with FTC/GTC, but if the exchange above (over a consensus-style of navigation box template) is any indication, I am choosing not to add wikidrama into my life. If y'all want to continue the GTC for any or all of these, be my guest; I will not be an active participant in it and, as stated above, withdraw my support for any and all. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Withdrawing support" generally implies to me "opposing", not "staying neutral"... are you opposing these noms, or staying neutral? rst20xx (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose - I need some convincing as to why Los Angeles Steamship Company and Hamburg America Line aren't included. I know this ship was the only one owned by American Palestine Line, whereas the other companies had many ships, but this ship was with the other companies for much longer than with American Palestine Line, and hence while this ship may have had a more important role in the history of American Palestine Line than in the histories of the other companies, I'm not sure that the converse is true, i.e. that American Palestine Line had a significantly enough more important role in the history of this ship than the other companies, and as this topic is about the ship, that's what matters - rst20xx (talk) 20:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Close with no consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit | discuss

Metroid Prime

3 articles

Metroid Prime 2: Echoes

Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

After slowly bringing Metroid Prime 3: Corruption and then Metroid Prime 2: Echoes to FA status, I now present to you the Metroid Prime trilogy. The articles included in this topic were chosen after this discussion, and Metroid Prime, the topic's lead article, mentions the other two articles in Metroid Prime#Legacy. Gary King (talk) 01:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and Comment: Seeing as we already have Metroid (series) at GA, would it be more suitable to make this the "Metroid series" instead? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Too many articles that aren't at GA and FA yet, including most of the Metroid games. Gary King (talk) 01:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Mm, thought so; I wasn't for or against the idea. On the subject of the image, though, wouldn't a screenshot of the first-person gameplay of the series be more appropriate for this than an image of Retro's offices? Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 01:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Only free images can be used for topic boxes. This is a free image; gameplay images are not. Gary King (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I see; the current image still doesn't, in my opinion, though, describe the series very well, though there doesn't seem to be anything better. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 03:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  A photo of someone in a Samus costume would be a very nice image for this tpoic. Gary King (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This topic reminds me a lot of the Half-Life 2 episodes nomination. That nomination failed largely because it tried to create an unnatural feeling topic scope to leave out Half-Life 2: Lost Coast, Half-Life 2: Survivor, and Codename: Gordon. This topic seems to be attempting to do the same thing by restricting this to the trilogy instead of making it a Metroid Prime titles topic to leave out Metroid Prime Pinball and Metroid Prime Hunters. When the Half-Life 2 nomination went down it came back with the left out titles included and was a much stronger topic. I really don't like the idea of being influenced by precedent, but it's hard for me to ignore how much better the Half-Life 2 topic became. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  This was already brought up at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_candidates#Metroid_Prime_topic; this wasn't originally the topic that I wanted to build, but it was the one that we concluded on after discussing about it. Gary King (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Zginder 2008-12-14T03:26Z (UTC)
• Weak support with some comments - firstly, to address Rreagan007's point - look at the "Halo trilogy" topic, this operates along similar lines. Part of the problem with the "Half-Life 2 episodes" topic was the excessive overlap with the existing "Orange Box" topic, and obviously there are no similar overlap problems here with Metroid Prime - rst20xx (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Secondly, as for why I weak support - I think I would prefer Metroid (series) to be the main article, rather than Metroid Prime, as while this proposed topic doesn't cover the entire scope of the Metroid (series) article, there isn't a rule to say that the entire scope of the main article has to be covered by the topic, just that the entire scope of the topic must be covered, and I feel Metroid (series) would be a better fit for covering the scope of the topic than Metroid Prime. What does everyone else think? rst20xx (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Metroid (series) would be a better main article for the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose: There are not that many Metroid articles and there is no lead page in this nomination. –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The lead is Metroid Prime, and it discusses the other games in Metroid_Prime#Legacy. Gary King (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor Support as I helped bring these articles to FA status, and a full-fledged Metroid Good/Featured Topic will be difficult to achieve. For the image... well, I put that Metroid logo up there instead of the Retro studios photo, though it could fit more after making an static version (and there's an alternative). igordebraga ≠ 22:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: While I agree these article are of excellent quality and deserved to be featured, the topic scope seems mismatched to me. The lead article should be a good overview of the whole topic. In this case, it seems more like an introductory article to the topic. I realize the Halo trilogy topic is of a similar structure, but it's lead article frames the other sub-articles in the context of the whole topic. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  What do you think about using Metroid (series) as the topic's lead article? Gary King (talk) 23:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Unfortunately, I think that is also a miss match of scope as the Metroid series encompasses more than the Prime trilogy. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  How about a Metroid Prime (series)? Gary King (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  That would make a better lead article, but I think Metroid Prime Hunters should be included so there are no gaps. The Pinball game is a remake that doesn't add anything to the topic, so I don't think it's necessary. Also, what would happen if the rest of the Metroid articles improve and a full topic is possible? Would it be adsorbed into it? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  I'd rather that we do Metroid Prime sub-series, and include a potential Metroid Prime (series), Metroid Prime Hunters, and Metroid Prime Pinball. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All interesting suggestions, and I'm open to doing something different. However, is there one that most of us can agree on? I think that this makes sense; please comment on what you guys think:

• A better lead article appears to be desired
• Hunters has been included because some consider it to be a vital part of the storyline
• Pinball was not included; it was only suggested by User:New Age Retro Hippie and suggested to not be included by a few others because it does not follow with the series' storyline

Thoughts on that? Gary King (talk) 16:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems more reasonable to me. But with a series article non-existent and Hunters rated C-class, it might be best to withdraw the nomination for now. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, I don't plan on keeping this nomination open if we are changing the topic's scope. However, I'd still like more feedback on a new setup before closing this nomination. And perhaps more feedback from uninvolved parties to the current setup. Gary King (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still want Metroid Prime Pinball in, as it's a pinball remake of Metroid Prime (using areas and plot points from it). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see it being a good supplement, but I don't see how it adds much to the topic. You pretty much summed it up in a single sentence, and Metroid Prime already mentions it in such a capacity. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Yeah, I don't know how much I would be able to cover Pinball in Metroid Prime (series). I don't think there would be much on it to relate it back to the whole series. Gary King (talk) 20:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per the prior discussion at WT:FTC#Metroid Prime topic, I think Pinball should be included, if Hunters is to be included (once again, plot concerns are subjective). No-one's said they'd oppose if Pinball would be included, just that they think it would be fine without. Conversely, this makes two of us saying we'd oppose if it is excluded. Sorry.

Also, ask yourself honestly, would you be creating Metroid Prime (series) because you feel there is a genuine need for this article, or because it would be easier to get Metroid Prime (series) to GA than all the other already-existent Metroid articles? Because if it's the latter, then I don't think you should make the new article - rst20xx (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Metroid Prime is an official series, per pages like this, and a few times when Nintendo mentions it as a new series in press releases. Gary King (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn following request from nominator - rst20xx (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit | discuss

List of Doctor Who serials

3 articles

Doctor Who missing episodes

List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films

I've been working on several Doctor Who serial pages for quite some time, and my aim was to get a featured topic out of them (DWME was already a FA). With the redirection of the "list of titled" and "list of incomplete" episodes, for matters of redundancy, and the creation of series summary pages, the number of articles and lists to get to the FT has gone down to three. Now, I've got two problems: one, the titling: as DWME isn't a list, it can't be a "lists of", but it can't be simply "Doctor Who serials and episodes" (which I've nommed it as), because that would mean all two-hundred-odd pages being listed. The second is the series summary pages. I think that they shouldn't affect this nomination, because LODWS is the lead article, and DWME and LOUDWSAF are in different formats to the series pages, but it may appear to be cherry picking (when I'm not). Thanks, Sceptre ^(talk) 16:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Credit to User:Percy Snoodle for the list of unmade serials, User:khaosworks and User:Josiah Rowe for the missing episodes article, and to the entire Doctor Who WikiProject for maintaining the main list. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Question about scope Per Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of 30 Rock, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation and Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Seasons of Lost (and a bunch more), shouldn't all actual DW serial pages be included in this nom as well? I know there are technically no "gaps" (WP:FT?#1d), but this FTC still has some cherry-picky-ish about it. (No disrespect intended.) – sgeureka ^t•c 17:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said (actually, I didn't make it clear) in the nomination: this was originally going to be a "Lists of" topic, but merging the list of incomplete episodes into the DWME article has kinda made it weird and I'm unable to think of a title... Sceptre ^(talk) 18:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you summarize the quality status of the various Doctor Who (series XYZ) articles/lists? Does the DW WikiProject intend to create "season" lists for the early DW years (and would that make sense in the first place)? I know DW is in a unique position with its broadcast history and longevity, but seeing how much work has gone into e.g. Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation (even if it's just composed of FLs), I somewhat feel the same is necessary for a DW serial FT. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not taking Series 4 to FLC until after the Christmas special, and Series 2 and 3 need quite some work. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  As for the 26 seasons of classic Doctor Who (1963–1989), I'm not aware of any plans to make articles for them. (For peculiar historical reasons having to do with the history of Doctor Who fandom and a programme guide written in the 1980s by Jean-Marc Lofficier, each year of classic Doctor Who is usually called a "season" instead of a "series", even though "series" is common UK usage and "season" is an Americanism... really, it's not worth going into, although the usage does help distinguish, say, Season 2 (1964–65) from Series 2 (2006). God, I'm a hopeless nerd.) At the moment, the only classic season that has its own article is The Trial of a Time Lord, aka Doctor Who (season 23). Does the absence of these articles affect how this proposed FT is perceived? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I'm sorry but I do think you need to include, shall we say, "another layer" of articles. This can either be all the serials for pre-21st century and all the series articles for the new stuff, or alternatively you could make season articles for all the pre-21st century stuff, and then include them along with the series articles. I realise that this is a LOT of extra work, but unfortunately, not all topics are as easy to get to FT as each other. On top of this, an additional minor quibble: it appears some of the information in the table here may have been lost in the merge to Doctor Who missing episodes - rst20xx (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Close with no consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit | discuss

Batman films

7 articles

Batman

Batman Returns

Batman Forever

Batman & Robin

Batman Begins

The Dark Knight

Major contributors: Wildroot and Alientraveller

Every film article from Warner Bros.' Batman series is of GA status, except for Batman (1989 film), which is at A-Class status. It fulfills all criteria for a Good Topic. I brought Batman, Batman Returns, Batman Forever and Batman & Robin to GA-status, while Alientraveller contributed with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight. Wildroot (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good to me. One thing though: A-class is an unofficial status, mainly pertaining to wikiprojects. I have looked and it is a Good Article (an official status) so all is fine. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 19:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I really hate to oppose this because I love Batman, but if the topic is "Batman films" then I don't see a way around including Batman (1966 film). Also, you need to find a free image for the topic box. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why we aren't including the 1966 film is because a consensus was reached to only include the Batman films produced by Warner Bros. Pictures. The 1966 film was done by 20th Century Fox. Also, it's kind of hard to describe a free use description for a nominated good topic. I can understand to put a free use image for an article, but this topic is still in nomination and is not "official" on Wikipedia, yet. I hope that makes sense. Wildroot (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus as to which articles to include in a topic is decided in its nomination, not in a separate discussion. It needs to be explained why the 1966 film does not fall under the definition of "Batman films", the scope that this topic defined. Also, something like Image:Batpod.jpg would be a good free image. Gary King (talk) 21:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only discussion I could find was about whether or not to include the 1966 film in the Batman (film series) article. Even if the 1966 film is not in the lead article of the topic, the 1966 film article still belongs in the topic. Also, I'm thinking Batman: Mask of the Phantasm should also be included in the topic, as it was a theatrically released feature film. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think it would be better if I changed the topic to "Warner Bros. Batman films" instead of simply "Batman films"? That way, the 1966 film wouldn't have to be included. Even though Mask of the Phantasm is at GA-status (thanks to me), I just can't see that being a part of the Burton/Schumacher/Nolan Warner Bros. series. Wildroot (talk) 22:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would, of course, limit the scope to a manageable size. The question now arises of whether or not it is too arbitrary; it is similar to "Halloween films by John Carpenter", found at Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/Halloween film series/archive1. Gary King (talk) 04:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand you not wanting to lump in the '66 film and the animated film in with the others, as clearly there is a very large difference between them and the others qualitatively. However, they are both batman films and for the topic to be truely complete I think they should probably be included. I'm not sure there is a good way to limit the scope of the topic without being too narrow. But if these 2 films go into the topic it doesn't necessarily mean you have to include these 2 films in the topic lead article, but a brief mention or at least a "see also" link might be nice to add regardless of whether this becomes a featured topic or not. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But still, if we add in the 1966 film, then this whole topic wouldn't pass because the 1966 film article would have to be at GA-status. Do you know how hard it is to find encyclopedic info for some lame-ass movie made in the 1960s? Yeah, it's pretty much impossible to get the '66 article to GA-status. That way, this topic would never get to GA-status and it would be all of your guys' fault. Would you like to live your life like that, knowing that you ruined a perfectly good topic on some website? Would you? Yeah, didn't think so. Whatever, I'm tired. I really need to get some rest. It's 1:08 AM where I live. On a closing note, I think it would be alright if we just had a "See also" section for the 1966 film in Batman (film series). Yes or No? Wildroot (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of sources out there that talk about (or make fun of) that movie. It's camp classic. There are more obscure article that have managed to get GA. For example, the Simpsons Wikiproject has gotten several bad, forgettable episodes to GA. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I'm with Rreagan007 on this one. Time and time again people say "but this article can't get to GA", and time and time again, when they actually try to get the article to GA, they succeed. It's more a case of it being more effort to get to GA than that it can't get to GA. So yes, the 1966 film should be included. As for the animated film, there are other animated films though, like Batman & Mr. Freeze: SubZero and Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker. The difference between these and Batman: Mask of the Phantasm is that the latter was released at the cinemas, whereas the former were direct-to-video releases, but this doesn't stop the former from being Batman films! Having said that, I would consider it permissible to call the topic "Live action Batman films" and get all the animated films out of the scope, I think this would be a fairly sensible narrowing (see also the groupings on {{Batman in popular media}}). But any narrowing to exclude the 1966 film would seem to me to be more arbitrary. You can't even argue it should be excluded for continuity reasons, because you already have two separate continuities within your proposed topic - rst20xx (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing over "continuity reasons", it's "film studio" reasons if that makes sense. The six films in my proposed topic have been produced by Warner Brothers. I never said anything about continuity. Wildroot (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I would agree with having one series as a topic by itself, but if you are going to include the '90s series with the '00 series, you have to include the old ones too. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I think the topic works well this way, and if you include the 1966 one, you have to include the older ones, and yes, there are older ones from the 1940's, and there is a very good argument that these are the core batman films, not the ones created previously. Further, maybe no one bothered to read the lead article, but it is about the most recent 6 movies and no others, so the lead article is also focused on the recent, definitive movies as well, so it only makes sense to list only them. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Well maybe the lead article is wrong to do that? Also the pair from the 40s were in fact serials, which makes them distinct from a regular film, and by renaming the topic "feature films" then this problem is avoided - rst20xx (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. The lead is being arbitrary, but you can exclude serials the same way that you can exclude TV shows. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The lead isn't being arbitrary. The Batman film series that magazines and movie buffs call only refers to the recent films produced by Warner Brothers. Maybe I should call this topic "Live action Warner Bros. Batman films". Wildroot (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't quite understand your justification is for that grouping. The four 1990s movies seem to be a completely separate series from the 2000s series (especially given that the Joker appears twice between the two of them). If you are grouping two separate series together, why exclude a third? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why why the Nolan series is combined with the Burton/Schumacher series is that because all six films were produced by Warner Brothers, while the 1966 film wasn't. Besides, do you know how awkward it would be to have this: Batman (Burton/Schumacher series) or Batman (Nolan film series). It's simple enough to just have it as Batman (film series), otherwise the parenthesis' would be completely ridiculous. Wildroot (talk) 02:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we don't need those two new articles, which is why I proposed adding the '60s movie rather than splitting the article up. But in any case, the fact that they have the same producer may be a good justification. After all, the Zelda topic only includes the games made my Nintendo. I'll have to think on this a bit more. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - a good set of articles. And I see no problem in only using these, the topic is as specific on inclusion as the Zelda one (it simply has to be put in "Working definition" that it is Batman, live-action, Warner Bros.). igordebraga ≠ 23:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I think this might qualify, but there is something i am not conferable with. Zginder 2008-11-30T06:16Z (UTC)
  • Support After doing some more reading, I have changed my mind. Zginder 2008-12-02T02:55Z (UTC)

• Neutral - As someone who's never really edited a Batman article, I'm sure my opinion isn't that important, but it seems to me that this is a very, very narrow topic, all things considered. First, we're cutting the entire Batman franchise down to the movies. Then, further, down to the live action movies. Then further down to the live action movies by Warner Bros. Then, further, we're taking out Catwoman (which is in the WB Batman Films Category. Could I make a Featured Topic of "Young American Boys (8-9 years old) with red hair and freckles who prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla and like to wear their ball caps backwards"? At what point have we narrowed the topic down too far? TheUncleBob (talk) 18:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  About a specific point that you brought up: to be fair to the nominators, the lead article is only about the film series. That sounds reasonable to me considering that the Batman franchise is humongous. Gary King (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, I completely understand the need to narrow the topic down. "Young American Boys" would be too vast of a topic as well. What needs to be found is a happy medium between the "Young American Boys" and the "Young American Boys (8-9 years old) with red hair and freckles who prefer chocolate ice cream over vanilla and like to wear their ball caps backwards"... TheUncleBob (talk) 14:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? Wildroot (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for the animated films or the 1960's one is OK... but you expect the inclusion of Catwoman (film), with it barely having any connection with the Caped Crusader? (it isn't even mentioned in the Batman (film series) article... the cartoons aren't either, and the old one is a "See Also", but that's a detail) igordebraga ≠ 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that it isn't in the lead article is not really an excuse. In fact, it is a strike against the topic because an article that users feel should be included is not mentioned in it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't required that articles be included in the lead to be included in the topic. As for the Catwoman movie, it doesn't have Batman in it so I'm fine with leaving that out of a "Batman films" topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Changing the title to "Batman feature films" will be much better for this topic. Gary King (talk) 03:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure how that really solves anything. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've seen official lists of Batman feature films that only include the films listed in this topic. Probably something worth exploring. Gary King (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What about renaming this to "Batman live-action movies"? Nergaal (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming this to "Live-action Batman movies" would mean that Batman (serial), Batman and Robin (serial) and Batman (1966 film) would still need to be included. Renaming this to "Live-action Batman feature films" would mean that Batman (1966 film) would still need to be included - rst20xx (talk) 16:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to say I agree with rst20xx's assessment. I just don't see a way to keep the '66 film out. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Warner Brothers. That's the way to keep the '66 film out. Plus, think about that Zelda good topic. It only includes the games made my Nintendo. Just like this topic only includes the films made by Warner Brothers. Wildroot (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Zelda has been made by Nintendo since the beginning. Warner Bros only took over Batman in the 80s - rst20xx (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you give me a compelling argument for why the topic should be restricted according to which film studio made it? It just seems very arbitrary and unnatural to me as a means for excluding the '66 film. Maybe if all the Warner movies had been in the same continuity I would agree with it, but the hard restart of Batman Begins makes it more difficult for me to swallow.Rreagan007 (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Batman Battle at Box Office Mojo. Maybe not compelling, but shows what I mean in terms what the general public and the Internet, magazines, rest of media, etc. think of the "Batman films". The serials or the Adam West stuff isn't really mentioned in conjunction. For example, with the release of Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, many of the critics were comparing/contrasting with the Burton/Schumacher series. Wildroot (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Close with no consensus to promote - 4 supports, 3 opposes, one neutral. A majority support then, but not consensus - rst20xx (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]