Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Supernatural (season 2)/archive1
Supernatural (season 2)
[edit]
I am nominating this because I feel that FA's All Hell Breaks Loose (Supernatural), What Is and What Should Never Be (Supernatural), and Supernatural (season 2) qualify for a featured topic. I don't really understand how to do the book part of the nomination, so any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Ωphois 21:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose I am not convinced that the season's lowest ratings episodes deserve articles while the other ones (especially the season premiere) do not deserve stand-alone articles. Nergaal (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Higher ratings does not equal higher notability. In fact, the two were critically praised, and one is the season finale. Standalone articles for the rest are unnecessary, as the little info available on them is already covered in the topic article. Ωphois 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- This sounds like a pile of original research. Just looking quickly at the reception section here, I found this He also found "Nightshifter" to be the "best action hour of Supernatural's second year", deeming it "riveting from beginning to end" which makes your argument not stand well. Anyways, especially for a show's second season, it is important to include the premiere; presumably, it was renewed because the first season gave a good impression so many critics must have bothered to review the first episode of the next season, saying at least that it sucked. Nergaal (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not understanding your argument. If little-to-no information is present about an episode, then how is an article supposed to be created for it? For the premiere, any information available applies to the overall storyline, so it is more appropriate for the season article. Repeating the same exact information in another article would be pointless. Likewise, the few tidbits about "Nightshifter" are already included in the season article. Ωphois 02:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- This sounds like a pile of original research. Just looking quickly at the reception section here, I found this He also found "Nightshifter" to be the "best action hour of Supernatural's second year", deeming it "riveting from beginning to end" which makes your argument not stand well. Anyways, especially for a show's second season, it is important to include the premiere; presumably, it was renewed because the first season gave a good impression so many critics must have bothered to review the first episode of the next season, saying at least that it sucked. Nergaal (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Higher ratings does not equal higher notability. In fact, the two were critically praised, and one is the season finale. Standalone articles for the rest are unnecessary, as the little info available on them is already covered in the topic article. Ωphois 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support - I don't know much about FTs. I'm pretty sure that more than two eps are notable, but that that doesn't mean they have to have their own articles. As long as their covered in the season page, then I think it's fine. It only becomes an issue if one of the eps receives it's own article, then I think you get a certain amount of time to get it to GA/FA. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support. Meets all the featured topic criteria, and since all three articles are featured, it will survive the September 1 criteria update too. Sarilox (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I have to take Ophois' word that there is not enough coverage in reliable sources for the other episodes of season 2 to be notable enough to merit their own articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
- Comment - like Nergaal I am surprised that no other articles are notable enough for their own article - in particular I would expect the premiere to be notable. The requirement for FT here is that if an article is notable enough to exist, it should exist. So far you have been arguing that there is no point in the premiere having an article because the information in such an article is already found in the lead. Firstly I would find it surprising if there is no more information on the premiere than what is found in the lead. Maybe it is the case that any story information available for the premiere also apply to the overall storyline (though I don't see why this would be more true for the premiere than the finale) but what about reviews? Secondly, you should be arguing in terms of notability, not repetition. These two things taken together lead me to ask - is the premiere notable enough for its own article? rst20xx (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- By repetition, I mean in production info, not story info. For example, the main bit of info (even at that, only about a sentence or two) that would be included would be about the death of one of the major characters. That has to do with the main storyline of the series, so it is already in the season article. There is little-to-none notable information available otherwise to create an article, merely a few random facts already present in the season article. Ωphois 18:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- What exactly makes the last two episodes that much more notable? Nergaal (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- The first is a highly-praised and award-winning episode that featured the return of two characters, and the second is a two-part episode that ends one of the main storylines of the season. Ωphois 16:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- What exactly makes the last two episodes that much more notable? Nergaal (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- By repetition, I mean in production info, not story info. For example, the main bit of info (even at that, only about a sentence or two) that would be included would be about the death of one of the major characters. That has to do with the main storyline of the series, so it is already in the season article. There is little-to-none notable information available otherwise to create an article, merely a few random facts already present in the season article. Ωphois 18:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support: Per above. It meets criteria; just because there are few episodes notable enough production and reception wise to warrant articles does not deter from this FTC's qualification. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 23:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - I read this as having 3 supports and 1 oppose - I'm discounting Peregrine Fisher's support because actually, if an ep is notable enough to have an article, it DOES have to have one. I feel that this is right on the threshold of having enough support to pass. If however at any stage any more episodes gain articles, then you will have 3 months to get these articles to GA and into the topic - rst20xx (talk) 14:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)