Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/2001–02 South Pacific cyclone season/archive1

2001–02 South Pacific cyclone season edit

2001–02 South Pacific cyclone season

3 articles

Contributor(s): Jason Rees, Cyclonebiskit

The 2001-02 South Pacific cyclone season topic was primarily worked on by User:Cyclonebiskit with minimal edits from me. The season was a near average tropical cyclone season with 5 tropical cyclones existing within the basin during the season.Jason Rees (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC) --Jason Rees (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Everything's in order here. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I tried to get CB to do this nomination, but it appears he is too busy with college. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Collection meets all the criteria for a featured topic, no additional items are necessary in this topic. Kudos. TheAustinMan^{(Talk·Works)} 01:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As the reviewer of the main article of the 2001–02 South Pacific cyclone season, I do believe everything encompassed within this season deserves to be recognized as a Good Topic.--12george1 (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Technically this passes the criteria, but I would like if you guys decide to create topics based on decades or something like that. Having dozens of topics on each year, on each basin, with two or three storms each seems quite lame from a project as prolific as yours. Nergaal (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- How?????? Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 23:22, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Nergaal, agreed somewhat, but for what it's worth, the project is working toward a good topic for each season in the calendar year 2002, of which this would be a part of. As for what's lame or not, there are many other 3 article good topics, just check out all of the ones in the military. I'm not saying they're lame, just that if it meets the criteria, it meets the criteria. In addition, such a topic you suggested wouldn't work, as there isn't a decade-based article that we'd use for the main article. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support, quite significant contribution, good quality improvement effort across multiple articles, scientific and educational. — Cirt (talk) 06:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason this hasn't been promoted? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd ping TAWX to do it (not on IRC right now, so I can't). Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:00, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He can't, he's already supported. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:03, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a rule if you support you can't promote? I've seen FAC delegates support and oppose FA's. Y E ^Pacific ^Hurricane 17:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic - GamerPro64 15:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]