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)
  • Comment - Is there a reason the mixtapes are included but the EP's are not? Kees08 (Talk) 19:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
    • An EP is not an album. The How Many Votes Fix Mix EP, for example, only has 10 minutes of music, which means that, had it sold enough copies, it would have charted on the singles chart (in the UK certainly). Ergo, it isn't an album and therefore falls outside the scope of the topic -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
      • Yeah that makes sense. I was more asking if mixtapes were considered albums I suppose, is that what we have done historically? Kees08 (Talk) 20:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
        • Dunno really - they are certainly long enough to be considered albums (PFT is nearly an hour long), so I suppose the only query would be their "semi-unofficial" status........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Good topic nominations

Golden Sun series

4 articles
Good article Golden Sun series
Golden Sun icon.png
Featured article Golden Sun
Good article The Lost Age
Good article Dark Dawn
Contributor(s): haha169

This has been a series of articles that I have been working on, on and off for probably almost a decade now. The first Golden Sun game passed FA long ago before I came onto the scene, but since then I have been working to bring the other three up to GA. This year I had a stroke of inspiration and worked for the past few months to improve the last two articles, Dark Dawn and the series page, and they have both just passed the GAN nomination. So I'm bringing them up here. --haha169 (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Support, though as there are no character or other articles that you're excluding, you can probably get rid of the qualifier and just call this "Golden Sun" or "Golden Sun series". --PresN 14:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Huh, this whole time I thought there was a list of characters, but appears it was redirected in this edit two days ago. That list was in terrible shape anyways, and I'll change the title of the topic as you suggested. --haha169 (talk) 15:11, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Jclemens (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Suport this even reminds me I have to play Dark Dawn some day. igordebraga 02:41, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, very nice.--IDVtalk 08:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Truth Serum

5 articles
Truth Serum
Tove Lo (1) By Daniel Åhs Karlsson.jpeg
Contributor(s): Paparazzzi

I have decided to nominate this for Good Topic. I have worked on these articles since my introduction on the English Wikipedia in late 2015, starting with "Out of Mind". All of the articles have been promoted to GA status, with the most recent being Truth Serum, which was promoted today. --Paparazzzi (talk) 06:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support yet another singer inspiring a Good Topic. igordebraga 02:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Operation Rainfall

4 articles
Good article Operation Rainfall
Water drop on a leaf.jpg

Good article Xenoblade Chronicles

Good article The Last Story

Good article Pandora's Tower

Contributor(s): ProtoDrake

All four articles are at GA level and connected by a single subject which has received recognition and commentary from independent sources. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

James Bond films

27 articles
Featured list James Bond films
Dr No trailer.jpg
Good article Dr. No
Good article From Russia with Love
Good article Goldfinger
Good article Thunderball
Good article Casino Royale (1967)
Good article You Only Live Twice
Good article On Her Majesty's Secret Service
Good article Diamonds Are Forever
Good article Live and Let Die
Good article The Man with the Golden Gun
Good article The Spy Who Loved Me
Good article Moonraker
Good article For Your Eyes Only
Good article Octopussy
Good article Never Say Never Again
Good article A View to a Kill
Good article The Living Daylights
Good article Licence to Kill
Good article GoldenEye
Good article Tomorrow Never Dies
Good article The World Is Not Enough
Good article Die Another Day
Featured article Casino Royale (2006)
Good article Quantum of Solace
Good article Skyfall
Good article Spectre
Contributor(s): igordebraga, SchroCat, Dr. Blofeld, Betty Logan

This is more for bureaucracy than anything else. This topic was promoted back in 2012, successfully survived the retention period of Skyfall, but was not so lucky with Spectre, leading to a demotion last year. So I've been ever since working to get a Good Article out of the 24th Bond film (saving the topic's lead article from FL demotion along the way), and it passed this month. So, can 007 finally get back his licence to kill (or at least, to brandish the Good topic symbol)? igordebraga 06:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC) --igordebraga 06:18, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Support Good to see it back here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It's safe to say that this topic is once again complete, until the next film is coming out. Nickag989talk 19:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support --PresN 01:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Jclemens (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: Wonderful work with this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


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 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)
  • Support igordebraga 01:37, 18 June 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)
  • Comment – I notice in the list of ships you state that auxiliaries are not listed there. Is that list somewhere else? If not, can it not be created? Presumably, they were ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy too, even if they weren't fighting ones. –Noswall59 (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC).
  • G'day, the reason the larger auxiliaries are not part of the topic is because they do not meet the general notability guideline, and therefore do not have an article, whereas the ships and classes of ships in this topic are, and do. They are, as you point out, covered by their inclusion in the list. The smaller auxiliaries, tugs and hulks are also non-notable. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Director Comment - Only one Support has been made for this topic. This nomination needs more discussion for a consensus to be made. GamerPro64 17:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I've listed it on the Wikicup list of articles/topics needing attention, in the hope that will attract more attention. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - Why is patrol torpedo boat not included? Otherwise, I will just have to trust you on certain ships not being notable, as I do not have access to resources that would verify their notability. Kees08 (Talk) 19:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
  • G'day. I think that is stretching the scope of a good topic outside what constitutes "thoroughly covering all parts of that topic" when the topic is about Royal Yugoslav Navy ships. The Yugoslav PT boats were drawn from one of several models of PT boats, there isn't even significant coverage in reliable sources of the Yugoslav "MT class" of eight boats, let alone the individual boats, and the lead list of this topic already covers all of the available and admittedly basic information about the class. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Comment - The Schichau class link should not be italicized, no ship named Schichau. Other than that Support - Llammakey (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Topic removal candidates

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
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