Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Samuel Johnson's Irene/archive1

Samuel Johnson's Irene

3 articles

This is a featured topic nomination based around Johnson's only play, Irene. The first Johnson page deals with Johnson as an author, and the early life page deals with the biographical aspects of the creation of Irene. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for very obvious reasons. Neither the author, or his life are subfields in a topic on Irene. Irene IS a subfield of any of the other two, but not the other way around. Nergaal (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, an author is a subfield of his works. They always have been and always will be. Hence why on the works page the author does not come first. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Nergaal, I see the works of an author being a subset of the author, not the other way around. as for "the works page," I'm not sure of what you are talking about, but I know that there is a works subsection on the Samuel Johnson article.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC) EDIT: When I see a Topic with the name "Samuel Johnson's Irene" the fact that the authors name is first indicates that the author is nominant. In order for me to accept this as a topic, I was expecting to see articles that are subsets of Irene. Eg articles on the major cast members, location, plot, etc. Not articles on the author who wrote the play. To prove that Irene is the subset of Johnson, ask a simple question: Can one write a quality essay on Johnson omitting Irene? Yes. can one write a quality essay on Irene omitting Johnson? No.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is only called Samuel Johnson's Irene because I didn't want "(play)" in the title. There are multiple "Irene"s. The play was only performed for a limited time, but was written over 15 years and spans his life. It is a closet drama for all purposes. And the fact that you point out that a quality essay requires Johnson only proves that Johnson is a subset of Irene, not the other way around. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the lead - "written between 1726 and 1749 by Samuel Johnson." That is what makes the play something and why the biographies are subsets of the play. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Johnson only wrote one play, so Irene is the page on Johnson's plays. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
No, when there is a parent-child relationship, eg one is dependent upon the other, then the one that can stand on its own is the parent. Samuel Johnson can stand on it's own without referencing Irene, Irene is dependent upon Samuel Johnson. Samuel Johnson is the parent, Irene is the offspring. A quick look at other FT's will show a consistent trend: Mary Wollstonecraft, Nine Inch Nails, Powder Finger, Rock Steady. When dealing with a list, the parent is always listed as the main article while the children are the subtopics. As for your attempted slight on my talk page, I'm not biting. It would be like a taking "Carrie" and saying "Stephen King" is a subtopic of Carrie because Carrie is bigger print than Stephen King's name.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread the rules for Featured Topic. Any topic can be chosen. All topics connected to that topic need to be included. This topic is Irene, which was a written play that is part of the closet drama genre and spans a large portion of his life. Thus, Irene is the topic with sub topics of Johnson. If this was all of Johnson's works, then sure. This is not. This is about a play. That is how Featured Topic works. If you want to change it and say that only the biggest pages can be in topics, then go ahead. However, your claims and the other claims are utterly absurd. The work Irene stands alone. It is an independent publication. You can read the work without having a clue about Johnson. This is common sense and you know it, so I can only think that your objection and the objections above and below without having any connection to the rules are disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can stand on its own... but standing on it's own it would be by itself and article, not a topic. As a topic, you have things backwards. Irene would work as a subset for Johnson, but the only person to whom it makes sense to have the parent as a child is you.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now you are really becoming absurd. You stated before that you search for works by author and it is a subset. That was proven wrong and now you are pulling straws. Did you actually read the featured topic page? It says to start with a topic and deal with articles that are part of that topic. That does not mean that the biggest topic must be the only topic. Furthermore, Samuel Johnson is NOT the biggest topic when it comes to the play. The author, in literary criticism, only plays a tiny portion. New Criticism was devoted to reading works without ANY understanding of the author, and guess what? Walter Jackson Bate, who wrote the prize winning biography, started off as a New Critic and analyzed Johnson's works as one. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I agree with Nergal: Irene would be a subarticle to the Samuel Johnson topic, not the other way around. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never bought a book before? If it is literature, it may have a tiny section on the author but it is not devoted to it. Logic contradicts and invalidates your oppose and the oppose above. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I suggest you reread Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria. Your oppose is not an actionable oppose under the criteria. Ottava Rima (talk)
Yes I've bought books before, and when I am looking for a book, I go to the section (literature, history, sci-fi) and then look for the book by AUTHOR not title. You won't find IRENE listed with other books/plays called Irene, but with other books by Johnson. As for what is a FT, this fails 1(d) in that for a category on Johnson, it is clearly lacking key articles.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Authors are listed because multiple books can share titles, but rarely does an author write a book with the same title. And if you look at the title page at Irene, what comes first? It is right there at the GA. And it is not a category on Johnson so your claim does not stand. It is clearly a category on a play written by Johnson. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And when you are looking for books, you are not looking for them because they have a title that is familiar, but rather because you know the author and his/her works. Author's build libraries of their work not the other way around.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As proven by the title page, publishers and writers think you are 100% wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose~~ my reasoning has already been established and I choose not to succumb any further into the name calling and insults that is undoubtably going to come with this topic. Irene is a single play that is part of Johnsons larger body of work. Johnson is in no way a subset of Irene. This is nothing more than an attempt to create an obscure topic to try to fit the pieces into the puzzle, cherry picking at its worse.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)I'm striking my oppose because apparently, I am trying to get in with the clique that is at FLC, and Ottava is going to start an RFC on me. Keeping my oppose would be a conflict of interest with a threatened RfC.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing someone of "name calling and insults" without proof, as there are clearly none above, is against WP:CIVIL. You are also opposing on something that is not a grounds for oppose, so your oppose is a point violation. Are you happy to be disruptive along with being completely absurd? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per the others, I think this topic is upside down. Part of the Samuel Johnson article is dedicated to Irene, whilst most of it is not, whereas the entirety of the Irene (play) article is dedicated to Irene. Hence Samuel Johnson acts as a summary article for Irene (play), and I would expect any information relevant to the play that appears in the Samuel Johnson article to also appear in the Irene (play) article, and hence the rest of the article is irrelevant to this topic. As others have said, compare with other topics; the best comparison is for album topics, which do not contain the band articles, as they are considered to be of higher scope. Unfortunately for you, there are no subarticles to Irene (play) and so I do not think it is possible to make a topic out of it - rst20xx (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out above, none of what you state is part of the requirement and therefore an invalid oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent articles on their own, but this isn't a valid topic I feel. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the definition of what a Featured Topic is at the page, it is, and it meets all of the requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should be noted that Ottava sought to get support for this topic, but the person he canvassed doesn't even agree with him.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 00:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as how he is a co-nom for two of the three articles listed, he is included in this discussion. Your claims of impropriety are just as absurd as your comments above. You have no shame. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so others can see exactly what your statement said, The field of New Criticism apparently doesn't exist! Forget close readings! Balloonman and the others have some nerve, and I am thoroughly disgusted by their lack of reason, sense, or even following the requirements that are really blatant and clear. Which is a clear violation of a neutral messge, thus CANVASS. Please, don't bother responding to me here, I am eagerly awaiting the promised RfC related to this.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A person with the status of co-nominator would not be allowed to support the article in any kind of way. So, your whole statement is laughable. Your striking above is just verification that you are far from operating in a logical manner. You can oppose all you want, it is your claims of personal attacks and canvassing that is in question. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What's with all this wiki-drama? Pieces of art are part of the larger topic on bibliographies/discographies of artists, and each piece of art forms a topic with subarticles such as critical review of the art, characters/themes/topics in that art. Another example: the creator of Simpsons WILL NEVER be part of the topic on Simpsons simply because he has a ton of other stuff which together with The Simpsons form a topic on himself. Nergaal (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ps: this is a possible model topic: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Mary Wollstonecraft. Nergaal (talk) 05:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a work like the Bible without an author? What? Would you require "God" or something ridiculous as the subject? Your argument has no basis in reality. Look at New Criticism for the fact that critical theory says that a book exists independent of an author and without knowledge of the author. The idea of close reading, which follows the above, is practiced in most major literary articles. And if the topic was "Samuel Johnson", his only play, a very minor work when compared to the author's works, would not be under that topic when there are over 200 actual major works to consider. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I believe Authors of the Bible would be included in a prospective "Bible" topic, just like List of writers of The Simpsons would be included in a Simpsons topic. However this is different as the contents of these two articles only pertains directly to the parent article (Bible and Simpsons, respectively), unlike here - rst20xx (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly think that authorship is required to understand any book, let alone the Bible, then I hope to God that you never edit an article dealing with literature. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, then why is there a Background section in Irene (play), giving context about Samuel Johnson's writing of the play? rst20xx (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The very fact that the information is limited to a Background section verifies that the background is secondary to the page. This should have been obvious while writing your question. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close with no consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]