Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured and Good topics in Wikipedia

This star symbolizes the featured topic candidates on Wikipedia.
GA icon symbolizing Good topic candidates on Wikipedia.
A featured topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles).

A good topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles) with a less stringent quality threshold than a featured topic.

This page is for the nomination of potential featured and good topics. See the good and featured topic criteria for criteria on both types of topic. If you would like to ask any questions about your topic and the featured topic process before submitting it, visit Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates.

Before nominating a topic, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Featured topic questions. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FTC/GTC process. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

The featured topic director, GamerPro64, or his delegate Juhachi, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FT or GT status, consensus must be reached for a group to be promoted to featured or good topic status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates topic and archived.

You may want to check previous archived nominations first:
Purge the cache to refresh this page

Featured content:

Good content:

Good and featured topic tools:

Nomination procedure

To create a new nomination use the form below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Saffron/archive1) and click the "Create new nomination" button.

Once the nomination page is created, remember to transclude it in the appropriate section below, to leave nomination templates on the talk pages of the articles nominated for the topic, and to create appropriate books (see Book:Jupiter for a good example). For detailed instructions on how to nominate topics or add articles to existing topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure.


Supporting and objecting

Please review all the articles of the nominated topic with the featured topic criteria in mind before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. Following the creation of the book, NoomBot will create a book report (see example) containing details about cleanup issues (only those that have been flagged with cleanup templates, so it may not pick up everything), and various tools to inspect external links or resolve disambiguation pages. It can be a good idea to check the report and inspect links to see if certain articles need some cleanup (doing this before the nomination is even better).

  • To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the article nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link).
  • If you approve of a nomination, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write '''Oppose''' or '''Object''' followed by the reason for your 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.
    • To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

For a topic to be promoted to featured topic status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. If enough time passes without objections being resolved (at least one week), nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived. Nominations will stay here for ten days if there is unanimous consent, or longer if warranted by debate.


Featured topic nominations

M.I.A. albums (4th supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/M.I.A. albums for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

  1. AIM (album)
8 articles
Featured article M.I.A. albums
MIA Bonnaroo 2008.jpg
Good article Piracy Funds Terrorism
Featured article Arular
Featured article Kala
Featured article Maya
Good article Vicki Leekx
Good article Matangi
Good article AIM

AIM (album) needs to be added to the topic..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Support. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as good topic The addition of a 9th article will bring it to 5 GA, 4 FL/FA, dropping it below the threshold of Featured Topic. No prejudice against a speedy re-promotion to FT once the balance of featured content again rises above 50%. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    Whoops, due to an oversight on my part, I was counting the new article twice. Will be 4/4, still FT eligible. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Aoba47 (talk) 15:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Current Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre championships

26 articles
Featured article Current Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre championships
Máscara Dorada CMLL World Welterweight Champion.jpg
Featured article CMLL World Heavyweight Championship
Featured article List of CMLL World Heavyweight Champions
Featured article CMLL World Light Heavyweight Championship
Featured article List of CMLL World Light Heavyweight Champions
Featured article CMLL World Middleweight Championship
Featured article List of CMLL World Middleweight Champions
Good article CMLL World Welterweight Championship
Featured article List of CMLL World Welterweight Champions
Good article CMLL World Lightweight Championship
Good article CMLL World Tag Team Championship
Featured article List of CMLL World Tag Team Champions
Good article CMLL World Trios Championship
Featured article List of CMLL World Trios Champions
Featured article CMLL World Mini-Estrella Championship
Featured article CMLL World Women's Championship
Good article CMLL Arena Coliseo Tag Team Championship
Good article Mexican National Trios Championship
Featured article List of Mexican National Trios Champions
Featured article Mexican National Welterweight Championship
Featured article Mexican National Lightweight Championship
Featured article Mexican National Light Heavyweight Championship
Good article Mexican National Women's Championship
Good article NWA World Historic Light Heavyweight Championship(subtopic)
Good article NWA World Historic Middleweight Championship(subtopic)
Good article NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship(subtopic)
Contributor(s): MPJ-DK

This Feature Topic is about the professional wrestling championships currently promoted by Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL), Some of the articles with large tables have been split into an article about the championship and a list of champions. This topic covers all active championships that have articles on Wikipedia, 15 out of the 26 are Featured work, the remaining 11 are Good Articles and thus qualifies for Featured Topic. There is a navigation box that unites all subjects under one and I believe this hits all the marks for a Feature Topic.

Since the topic here is not about the champions but the championships the topic size is very stable, and does not change from year to year. There are currently three Good Topic sub topics for this feature topic, with 2 more close to being ready for GT nomination as well. This Feature Topic is the culmination of my Lucha Libre championship work that started Featured List in April 2009 and only eight short years later it's completed. I will be creating the book in the next day or two.

And yes I'll have a "Former CMLL Championship" Feature Topic candidate at some point in the future, hopefully in less than 8 years from now.  MPJ-DK  00:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Topic seems fine, but please expand the lead. Nergaal (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nergaal: that is a fair point, I have expanded it with some detail from the main article. Better??  MPJ-DK  19:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nergaal: - I have expanded the lead, does that work for you? If so I'd love your support.  MPJ-DK  16:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Support in principle. Nergaal (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Overall, it looks good, however, there's a discrepancy in the summary. You said that the Mexican National Lightweight Championship was created in 1932, but the article says June 28, 1934, and then the Mexican National Welterweight Championship says it was created on June 17, 1934, which actually makes it older. The summary on the Welterweight title only says that it's the oldest in the U.S., Canada, and Japan, but nowhere else. That to me says that there's actually an older title that's still active, it's just not promoted in those 3 countries. The source on the article is from 2000, so that may or may not still be true. --JDC808 21:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @JDC808: You are right about the discrepancy and that the Welterweight is actually older, I'll check my sources to see if I can figure out where the 1932 figure comes from (unless it was a brainfart - which I freely admit can happen). I'll track down the US/Can/Japan claim but I that's just an unfortunately restrictive phrase used, the scope is world wide as far as I'm aware, but again I've got the book I'll check. Side note - if it's listed as "the oldest" in 2000 and still exists today then that is still the truth unless we invoke time travel.  MPJ-DK  21:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It's listed as the oldest for those three countries, but not the world. For example, Europe or some other country may have an active pro-wrestling title that's still active, but not promoted in the US, Canada, or Japan. The other comment was that maybe it is in fact the oldest active title now. As in, maybe at that time (2000), there was an older active title in another country, but that older title has since been retired. --JDC808 21:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • That is a big old D'oh on my part for misreading the magazine comment.  MPJ-DK  22:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Cannot find the 1932 date but I have adjusted for the Welterweight being the oldest, not just older than US/Canada/Japan but world wide as far as I can find.  MPJ-DK  22:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I would suggest to say that it's "one of the oldest" until there's definitive evidence to support that it is in fact the oldest still active world wide. --JDC808 22:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
  • So I actually did that research in the past, I just had the date for the Lightweight creation when I checked the Wrestling Titles history book a while back, not noticing that the Welterweight predated it by a little. Part of my search is also based on the age of promotions - with no other active promotins dating to 1934 I found no championships with unbroken lieage dating back that far.  MPJ-DK  22:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Good topic nominations

List of London Monopoly locations

27 articles
Featured list List of London Monopoly locations
Monopoly board on white bg.jpg
Good article Old Kent Road
Good article Whitechapel Road
Good article King's Cross station
Good article The Angel, Islington
Good article Euston Road
Good article Pentonville Road
Good article Pall Mall
Good article Whitehall
Good article Northumberland Avenue
Good article Marylebone station
Good article Bow Street
Good article Marlborough Street
Good article Vine Street
Good article Strand
Good article Fleet Street
Good article Trafalgar Square
Good article Fenchurch Street station
Good article Leicester Square
Good article Coventry Street
Good article Piccadilly
Good article Regent Street
Good article Oxford Street
Good article Bond Street
Good article Liverpool Street station
Good article Park Lane
Good article Mayfair
Contributor(s): Ritchie333, Dr. Blofeld, Anarchyte, OcarinaOfTime

In summer 2015, Dr. Blofeld asked me if I fancied working on Piccadilly, which ended up with us getting it to good article status. We then had a go at Park Lane, at which point I thought, "wouldn't it be a good idea to get all the places on the Monopoly board up to GA?" We had a few initial problems; Vine Street had narrowly survived AfD, Pentonville Road hadn't even been written, and I wasn't sure if I'd have enough source material for tackling the better-known landmarks such as King's Cross station and Trafalgar Square. Still, several people chipped in to help and 21 months later it's all done, so here is a good topic for you, hopefully in name and in spirit. Enjoy! (Homage must be paid to Tim Moore for the basic concept, whose book "Do Not Pass Go" was mined extensively for all articles here. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support it's very kind of Ritchie333 to include me, but I merely tweaked the list and reviewed two GAs, so I'm removing myself as a nom, and thereby allowing myself to vote in support of this featured topic candidate. I want to see mainline stations of London next. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. This is a truly impressive set of articles. Well done! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support My concerns that this is a trivial categorisation is overcome by the sheer number of affected articles. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Arabian Peninsula tropical cyclones

The Arabian Peninsula has been affected by at least 57 tropical cyclones, several of which have been damaging or deadly.

11 articles
Featured list List of Arabian Peninsula tropical cyclones
TC Gonu 05 June 07 0635Z.jpg
1977 Oman cyclone
1996 Oman cyclone
2002 Oman cyclone
Featured article Cyclone Gonu
2008 Yemen cyclone
Cyclone Phet
Cyclone Keila
Cyclone Nilofar
Cyclone Chapala
Cyclone Megh
Contributor(s): Hurricanehink

After a lot of work, I managed to get every single storm that affected the Arabian Peninsula listed in a single article. Every storm that has an article is a good article, except for Cyclone Gonu which is featured. I'll happily address any concerns you might have about this series of articles. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - As far as I can tell, all of the notable storms have articles and they're all listed here, so no concerns about cherry picking. Clear topic and an impressive body of work. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


Wipeout

10 articles
Good article Wipeout series
Wipeout logo.png
Good article Wipeout
Good article Wipeout 2097
Good article Wipeout 64
Featured article Wipeout 3
Good article Wipeout Fusion
Good article Wipeout Pure
Good article Wipeout Pulse
Good article Wipeout HD
Good article Wipeout 2048
Contributor(s): Jaguar

It's finally done. This is a project I never really thought about doing till the last minute. It all started when I brought the first Wipeout to GA status back in autumn 2014, and then I got to doing them roughly in order throughout the next two years. With the final one given the green stamp yesterday, this should be good to go. It's been a pleasure. --JAGUAR  20:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment An article for Wipeout: Omega Collection also exists, so that should either be listed for peer review or redirected. Also the current scope of the topic would probably need the inclusion of the soundtracks. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes, I forgot to mention that. There's virtually nothing on it yet, but I will of course get it promoted to GA once it comes out in the summer (although the release date is not yet confirmed). I don't know what the procedure is for upcoming titles—is it a grace period? The soundtracks shouldn't be included as they're not video games and could even be redirected themselves as I pondered bringing them to GA but found virtually no reliable sources to warrant an expansion. JAGUAR  11:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Peer Reviews are recommended for games or products that aren't released yet. I suggest checking out the criteria page. GamerPro64 14:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
2c of the criteria states ...must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed. I'm not sure how that applies here as the Omega Collection is a two sentence stub and is unlikely to be expanded until its release later in the year. I'm open to alternatives. JAGUAR  22:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment Support: I'm not sure what the standard procedure is, but considering that Omega Collection hasn't even been released yet I don't think that should render this topic ineligible. If it's a problem just redirect it until it gets released. I'd redirect or even PROD two of those three soundtrack articles regardless of whether soundtracks fall under the scope of the topic or not. Wipeout 2097: The Soundtrack appears to have some notability due to the AllMusic review, but not enough to warrant its own article. Why don't you merge it as a sub-section of Wipeout 2097? That would satisfy any concern for this nomination, but regardless I think it would be more appropriate anyway. Also just a minor issue that should be easily fixed - there's an open citation request at Wipeout 2097. Freikorp (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I've removed the unsourced sentence. It was one of my very early GAs after all! I'll check out the soundtracks, but I wouldn't worry about including them in this topic as they're not relevant. Final Fantasy has its own topic for music for example. I think they might be better off as subsections of their respective articles, I'll check it out. JAGUAR  22:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm happy to support this as it is, but I would prefer to see those soundtracks merged as sub-sections. Freikorp (talk) 03:33, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I've merged the soundtrack articles. The music sections in their respective articles should cover it as it turns out there aren't any reliable sources for the soundtrack themselves. JAGUAR  21:43, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Redirection/PROD was not discussed on the article/Talk pages first, so I am objecting to it here and now. Please go through proper channels now that the change is no longer unanimous. Thanks! SharkD  Talk  23:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Armbrust, Freikorp, GamerPro64. SharkD  Talk  23:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I would support a merger, BTW. SharkD  Talk  23:11, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I didn't realize Discogs.com wasn't considered reliable, so never mind. SharkD  Talk  23:17, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice work! I think the Omega Collection should be merged into the series article, at least until some substantial detail is released, but the topic is complete either way. Good call on merging the soundtracks. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 04:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy

36 articles
Featured list Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy
Naval Ensign of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia.svg
Good article Dalmacija
Good article Kumbor
Featured article Dubrovnik
Good article Beograd-class destroyer
Good article Beograd
Good article Zagreb
Good article Ljubljana
Good article Nada
Good article Beli Orao
Good article Galeb-class minelayer
Good article Malinska-class minelayer
Good article Schichau-class minesweeper
Good article 250t-class torpedo boat
Featured article T1
Good article T2
Featured article T3
Good article T4
Good article T5
Good article T6
Good article T7
Good article T8
Good article Kaiman-class torpedo boat
Good article Uskok-class torpedo boat
Good article Orjen-class torpedo boat
Good article Zmaj
Good article Hrabri-class submarine
Good article Hrabri
Featured article Nebojša
Good article Osvetnik-class submarine
Good article Osvetnik
Good article Smeli
Featured article Vardar
Featured article Sava
Featured article Drava
Featured article Morava

This good topic candidate contains a lead article, Royal Yugoslav Navy, is led by List of ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy, and articles covering all the ship classes, and where they are individually notable, articles for all individual ships on the list. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

  • What other articles? The reason for T9–12 not being included is that they are not independently notable, as I mentioned in a general sense in the nom statement. The 250t-class ones clearly are, which can be seen from the individual articles. That is clear if you look at the 250t-class and Kaiman-class articles, and is a function of how old they were when WWI commenced, the 250t-class were new and were very active, the Kaiman-class not so much. The MT-class is the same, they are PT-boats that served for less than a year in a war, given their size, very little has been written about any individual PT-boats (except the one JFK captained in the Pacific). It is also highly questionable whether any of the senior officers of the Royal Yugoslav Navy are themselves notable. Of course, I'd be interested in any sources you might have that call into question my statements about the notability of individual ships. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I think I understand what you are saying, remove Royal Yugoslav Navy from this topic and call it List of ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Until other articles relevant to the topic (but which are not ships) are also improved. Nergaal (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
About 1/3 of the articles are linked to different names than listed here. I am not sure what is the best procedure for this. Maybe put together a good introduction that details all this and others in short. Same for the book, which is a joke right now. Nergaal (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Nergaal Will fix that. This is the first time I've done a proper good-sized book. Do you have any suggestions on a possible structure? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Have worked on the book, dividing it up into chapters by ship type similar to other FT/GT on ships. Let me know what you think? Have also fixed the naming issue by piping to the Yugoslav names. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
Now it is readable. I almost suggest leaving out names with boat types so this list is more readable. Also, you need a descriptive intro paragraph. Nergaal (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Trimmed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Added intro para. Let me know what you think? More? Less? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - I wrote a couple of the articles in this topic, so I'm probably too involved to vote, but I do have a question: why are the monitors written out with their full titles, but none of the other vessels are? Also, the columns should probably be as even as possible - I'd suggest swapping Beli Orao and the three minelayers/sweepers, which would give you columns of 12, 12, and 11, which balances much nicer. Parsecboy (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

1896 Atlantic hurricane season

3 articles
Good article 1896 Atlantic hurricane season
1896 Atlantic hurricane season summary map.png
Featured article 1896 Cedar Keys hurricane
Good article 1896 East Coast hurricane

For consideration to become a good topic: a high-quality, complete, and relatively straightforward set of articles concerning the Atlantic hurricane season of 1896. The two well-documented storms of the season have standalone articles, while the rest are discussed within the season article. Note that although Tropical Storm Seven – which doesn't have its own article – was highly destructive, it struck an impoverished and remote island, and information about it is consequently scarce. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Support as one of the GA reviewers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Support Enough detailed articles for the season.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 04:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - If 5 can have an article, then 2 should have one too. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Nergaal: All of the notable info available for Hurricane Two is in the season article. Whilst I would love to have written standalone articles for each and every storm in the season, the sparse meteorological records of the 19th century don't allow us that luxury. I think you'll agree that splitting two paragraphs off into its own page would be pointless, especially since the season article is acceptably short as it is. It would be nice to do a little research or consult involved editors before opposing. – Juliancolton | Talk 14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I am sure info from back then is sparse, but same way you found info for 5 you should be able to get info for 2 also. Nergaal (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I just told you that information doesn't exist. In the US, Hurricane Two had a much lighter impact in a much smaller area than Five, and only a few precious nuggets of info are available from Puerto Rico. I consulted my fairly comprehensive library of weather books, along with three newspaper archives and all the other sources I've compiled from 10 years of writing tropical cyclone articles, and could not find anywhere near enough on the storm to support its own page. It would be a permanent stub. I think you'll find that you're objecting to the balance of historical records and not to Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. – Juliancolton | Talk 15:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Nergaal, do you have any outstanding concerns? – Juliancolton | Talk 23:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Well written and comprehensive. No issues from what I can see. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 01:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Main Fire Emblem series

13 articles
Good article Main Fire Emblem series
Fire Emblem series logo.png
Good article Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light
Good article Gaiden
Good article Mystery of the Emblem
Good article Genealogy of the Holy War
Good article Thracia 776
Good article The Binding Blade
Good article Fire Emblem
Good article The Sacred Stones
Good article Path of Radiance
Good article Radiant Dawn
Good article Awakening
Good article Fates
Contributor(s): haha169

Many talented editors have brought all of these articles up to Good Article status. They are all quality articles and each one fits the GA criteria, so this topic fits the GT criteria. --haha169 (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Did you contact the editors who brought these articles to Good Article status about this nomination? GamerPro64 16:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
No I did not, and I didn't realize that it was a requirement until now. I've identified two who are still active, ProtoDrake and IDV, and leave a message on their talk page. --haha169 (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I've said this before, but I still think it makes more sense to create a topic that includes all Fire Emblem games considering there are not that many of them. There are two remakes, both of which already are at GA, and two spin-offs (Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE and Fire Emblem Heroes), one of which is close to GA already.--IDVtalk 07:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Since you're one of the main contributors to making these articles, do you think the nomination should be closed? GamerPro64 16:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
      • ProtoDrake is the main contributor, I only helped with some copyediting etc and taking two of the articles through GAN. I think it makes sense to get Tokyo Mirage Sessions FE and Fire Emblem Heroes up to GA and including them in the topic, but I don't feel I have more say in this than any other editors.--IDVtalk 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
        • I'm alright with it as it stands. These are the mainline titles, and they're all GA. Trying to bring all the games under a single banner will drag this nomination out indefinitely, particularly as there are three known Fire Emblem games that will release in the near future. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 👏👏👏 ProtoDrake did much (almost all?) of this on his own, and deserves a ton of credit. I disagree with the scope of the topic. "Main Fire Emblem series" is not independently notable but the series is, hence why we have an article on the series but not on the "main games". Scope should include Heroes, Echoes, the remakes with their own articles, etc. I don't think Tokyo Mirage should be included—there's a difference between a spin-off that uses characters/elements from the series and a spin-off that is a minor release perhaps not in the main releases but still in the series overall. Consider closing this nom until the other articles are ready/reviewed, and please verify with the main contributor (ProtoDrake) before nominating on their behalf. (Also FT intro paragraph should be expanded.) I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 17:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    • @Czar: What are your thoughts on Marth (Fire Emblem)? It would be the only remaining FE article after FE Heroes and the remakes.--IDVtalk 22:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Personally, I would choose to cover him as Ness is covered in EarthBound#Ness, which is to say that the character was made popular by Super Smash Bros, is known for this association, but there is little to say about that in any depth. The Ness section puts succinctly the most important details about the character and its affiliations without descending into the in-universe (Wikia-style) detail that haunts the current Marth article. I think someone could make a case for keeping it, as it's in that gray area, but I would just ask what benefit there is to see in coat racking for the in-universe detail when everything that needs to be said can be said within the character/plot section from one of Marth's games or the series article. If the article is kept, I'd include it within the topic scope (all independently notable elements of the series). czar 23:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The current intro does not explain how the articles are linked together. Nergaal (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Wording may be better, but I've changed it to say: "...the series consists of twelve games plus two remakes and a spin-off game across multiple game systems." --haha169 (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Needs a book, but looking good so far. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Alesta

8 articles
Good article Alesta
Alexandra Stan in Sofia.JPG
"We Wanna"
"Écoute"
"9 Lives"
"I Did It, Mama!"
"Baby, It's OK"
"Balans"
"Boom Pow"
Contributor(s): Cartoon network freak

All article were promoted to GA status, so I think this should be promoted... ;) --Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Looks good to me. All singles and the album itself are included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kees08 (talkcontribs)
  • Needs a book, but looks good so far. Ping me if you need help with that and/or can't figure it out from one of the other GT nominations. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)



Topic removal candidates

X&Y

5 articles
Good article X&Y
Chris Martin in Hong Kong.jpg
Good article "Speed of Sound"
Good article "Fix You"
Good article "Talk"
Good article "The Hardest Part"

No longer meets GT criteria: one article "White Shadows" is not a GA. It seems that people keep re-creating the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Shadows. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delist per nominator's comment. Topic can be re-nominated if "White Shadows" is brought up to a GA or it is redirected/deleted through an AfD again. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist as the article in question has been present and properly referenced (meets GNG, not an unambiguous merge candidate) since 2010. Again, no prejudice against re-nomination for GT if this issues is remedied. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates&oldid=776112267"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA