Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/2013 log

Kept

Road to... (Family Guy)

7 articles

"Road to Rhode Island"

"Road to Europe"

"Road to Rupert"

"Road to Germany"

"Road to the Multiverse"

"Road to the North Pole"

I am placing this topic up for review due to failure to meet to meet criterion 3.b as Roads to Vegas is not up to at least Good Article status. GamerPro64 16:40, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified WP:FAMILYGUY. Perhaps someone will take on the Vegas article. Delist if this doesn't happen. Adabow (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on it. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 20:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anything going on with working on the article? GamerPro64 21:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will review for GA. Adabow (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just passed Roads to Vegas as a GA. I !vote Keep now. Adabow (talk) 00:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since Roads to Vegas is now a GA, criterion 3.b is met. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 00:13, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed to have Road to... (Family Guy) retain its Good Topic status. - GamerPro64 01:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Supernatural (season 2)

Supernatural (season 2)

Independiente (Ricardo Arjona album)

Independiente

6 articles

"Mi Novia Se Me Está Poniendo Vieja"

"Fuiste Tú"

"Te Quiero"

"El Amor"

Metamorfosis World Tour

The retention period for Metamorfosis World Tour ended on June 9, so this topic no longer satisfies criterion 3(b), so the topic should be demoted until that article gets up to at least GA.--十八 07:49, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I myself did not start a GTR was because the article for the World Tour is up at GAN. It has been for over a month and if say it was promoted the day after this nomination was made, the review comes off as irrelevant. GamerPro64 13:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If required, I could take a look at the GAN? I haven't done one for a while and my standards may be slightly higher, but I can still have a go if requested? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewed, so if we could be patient with this FTC, that'd be good. I'm 99% sure we can get this to GA within a fortnight, assuming User:Hahc21 is around to help address my comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I'm around. I will solve these issues today. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:45, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Any progress on the review? GamerPro64 17:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep, first round of comments have been addressed, just half a dozen more to go (and I've contacted User:Hahc21 as a reminder) and then it's GA, GT saved, tea and biscuits and medals all round...! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's a GA now. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Good job for everyone who got this through. I will now close this and have the topic retain its Good Topic status. - GamerPro64 18:43, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slipknot discography

11 articles

Slipknot

Iowa

Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)

All Hope Is Gone

9.0: Live

Mate. Feed. Kill. Repeat.

Welcome to Our Neighborhood

Disasterpieces

Voliminal: Inside the Nine

(sic)nesses

After the release of Slipknot's 2012 album Antennas to Hell, this topic no longer satisfies criterion 1(d) for completeness, so the topic should be demoted until that article gets up to at least GA.--十八 07:45, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I nominated the topic initially, and I don't have the energy to work on the new album. Considering previous examples of GTs I suggest/propose to change the scope of the topic to just the studio albums. Nergaal (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slipknot studio albums

5 articles

Slipknot

Iowa

Vol. 3: (The Subliminal Verses)

All Hope Is Gone

If we can change this to just studio albums, I would Support that. GamerPro64 16:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support refining to studio albums. Adabow (talk) 06:36, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support refinement. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support redefinition.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed to Keep as Good Topic and change it to Slipknot studio albums - GamerPro64 15:37, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the Zone

In the Zone

9 articles

"Me Against the Music"

"Breathe on Me"

"Toxic"

"Everytime"

"Outrageous"

"I've Just Begun (Having My Fun)"

The Onyx Hotel Tour

Britney Spears: In the Zone

No longer meets GT criteria: two articles in the scope, "Breathe on Me" and "Touch of My Hand" are not qualified articles. HĐ (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Touch of My Hand" is now redirected to In the Zone, while "Breathe on Me" is now a GA. HĐ (talk) 02:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Have you contacted any editors that helped promote this or Wikiprojects related to this? GamerPro64 13:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Xwomanizerx was the only one that helped promote this, but now he's semi-retired. HĐ (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have copyedited and nominated "Breathe on Me" for GA, and redirected "Touch of My Hand" back to the album, as the song being not notable. — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:08, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I passed the GAN for "Breathe On Me", so it can now be included in the topic. WikiRedactor (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed to have the topic retain its Good Topic status. - GamerPro64 21:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy XII

Final Fantasy XII

8 articles

Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings

Fortress

Ivalice

Music

Characters

Vaan

Balthier

I recently brought up this issue at WT:VG here regarding this topic's status, but didn't get much of a response, so I'm bringing it here. Basically, I realized that while Characters of Final Fantasy XII is a GA and in the topic, two branch articles from that article, Vaan and Balthier, are not at least GAs and are obviously not included. These two articles were recreated in October 2009, about a year after this topic was first approved, and it looks like they were overlooked based on an assumption which User:PresN stated in the above linked thread: I guess the idea is that since Characters of Final Fantasy XII is in the topic, that Vaan and Balthier, as subarticles of that list, don't need to be directly included.

But I find this argument to be a little shallow when, as I noted, WP:VG has two current FTs which include separate character articles in their topics so as to satisfy WP:WIAFT criterion 1(d) for completeness: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and (perhaps ironically, being another Final Fantasy topic) Wikipedia:Featured topics/Final Fantasy VIII. So I believe this topic should be delisted until Vaan and Balthier are brought up to at least GA and added to the topic per criterion 1(d). Also, the GA Fortress may also need to be added to the topic, but perhaps that is for a later discussion.--十八 22:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles look really good. A few easy to fix issues are there such as proper ref citation. Fortress is already at GA. I suggest fixing these articles within the week and nominate them for Ga. If they fail, then we remove it as a featured topic. If we remove it now then itll just leave more work.Lucia Black (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I agree that the Fortress article must be added to satisfy completeness, but I think the character articles are a grey area. The featured topic criteria is vague on this point, and it has been understood to this point that these topics are focused on the game articles themselves. Perhaps we have to first come to a consensus on what the correct formatting should be, and it probably goes like this; if there is a "characters of" article with two or more character articles, that should be a separate topic, and only the characters of article should be present inthe games article with a link to the separate character topic. If there is one character article, it should be added to the topic for completeness sake.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am finding it difficult to accept this reasoning. How can you suggest that a list of all the characters of a given game is more necessary for inclusion than individual character articles from the same game? Just because it covers more content? If this isn't an example of cherry picking, I don't know what is. Why should the project treat only this topic differently when there are two current topics that have character branch articles?--十八 00:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree with you, we should not treat articles differently. I am saying that this has been a gray area till now, since topics have been promoted both with and without their individual character articles. I am saying that we should find a consensus position, and my proposal is that if there are at least 3 character articles (1 characters of article and 2 individual characters, they should be a subtopic, and only the characters of article should be in the games topic. Otherwise, they should all be a part of the games topic. If this reasoning makes sense, I think a nomination should be started to add the Fortress article and define the criteria at the featured topics criteria talk page. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Judgesurreal777's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Lucia. They do look good. Close this FTRC, GAN them, and do a supplemental nomination. No need to go through this extra step of bureaucracy. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is to have this FTRC closed, then put them up for GAN which may take weeks leaving a void in the topic and then do a supp nom even though there was an FTRC that would've taken care of it all. I'm sorry but as a delegate, and you mentioning these two articles should be part of the topic in the first place which doesn't make sense, I think the review should stay up until the GANs are taken care of. GamerPro64 01:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying that a potential outcome of this FTRC is that those two character articles are added to the FT (i.e. duplicating the functionality of a supplemental nom), then by all means, keep the FTRC open and do that. What I don't want is multiple drawn-out bureaucratic processes when one would suffice. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- The GANs for final fantasy related article go pretty fast. I think we are moving to fast just to un-feature the topic. There is still the question of editors believing the character articles is too indirect to be part oof the topic.Lucia Black (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominated Vaan for GA while we are at it. I haven't contributed too much to Balthier so I'm unsure about it.Tintor2 (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balthier has been nominated as well (not by me). --Pres N 03:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vaan now a GA; I've updated the box above to match the proposed expansion. --Pres N 17:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing that Balthier is now a Good Article, I will now Close this as Keep. GamerPro64 00:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Sports Personality of the Year

9 articles

The last time I tried doing a review on this topic, User:Rambo's Revenge pointed out that BBC Sports Unsung Hero Award was added due to criteria 3c and would have to wait til the tenth time the awards been given out. Now, three months after it did back in December 2012, the page is not up to snuff and its grace period has ended. And since Rambo is inactive hopefully someone could take care of the list. GamerPro64 20:03, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the best this article could hope for would be Good Article I suspect, as it lists people that don't meet the notability criteria of Wikipedia. If it made GA, being the only one of nine of the topic not being featured, would it still be a featured topic, or should we save the energy and just make it a Good Topic? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it would still be a Featured Topic. A topic is featured if 50% or more are of Featured Content. GamerPro64 20:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - So it has to be a GA? It's been peer-reviewed... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - It has but since 10 people have been awarded that honor, 3.c does not support it anymore. GamerPro64 20:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - So, in English (since your criteria are quite unapproachable!), this needs to become a GA? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Or Featured List. Whatever floats your boat really. GamerPro64 20:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Okeydokes, nominated as a good article, please allow this nomination to take into account that the GA process is notoriously slow ("Your GAN is 71st in a priority queue...." as of tonight) and that the primary editor of the topic is no longer present. I'll do my best to cover this, unless that's not deemed good enough. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That didn't turn out well, so it's now at FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the FLC is here. It's going okay. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done BBC Sports Unsung Hero Award was promoted to FL a few minutes ago, so unless there are wider concerns, I guess we can consider this FTC as job done! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Close to Keep topic as Featured. – GamerPro64 19:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Demoted

Naruto manga chapters

Naruto manga chapters

3 articles

Part I

Part II

I am nominating this topic for FTRC on the grounds that it fails criteria 1.d as the article List of Naruto chapters (Part II, volumes 49-current) is not part of the topic and is not up to Featured List status. GamerPro64 01:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - missing a major component. --Pres N 18:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even though there has been one comment on this, its been a month and no action has been taken. As such, I am Closing with consensus to have the topic Delisted. GamerPro64 01:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Doubt albums

10 articles

No Doubt

The Beacon Street Collection

Tragic Kingdom

Return of Saturn

Rock Steady ^(subtopic)

Push and Shove

The Singles 1992–2003

Boom Box

Everything in Time

After the release of No Doubt's 2012 album Push and Shove, this topic no longer satisfies criterion 1(d) for completeness, so the topic should be demoted until that article gets up to at least GA.--十八 07:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove nine months should be long enough to get an article to the straight-forward standards of GA with a little topic knowledge. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Remove--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, unfortunately. Hurricanehink mobile (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with consensus to have the topic Delisted - GamerPro64 15:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

StarCraft titles

StarCraft titles

5 articles

StarCraft

StarCraft: Brood War

StarCraft: Ghost

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty

I am putting this topic up for GTRC as it failed criteria 3.b due to StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm not being at least up to Good Article status and the grace period to reach it ended. GamerPro64 14:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't think I should dig this topic deeper, but if someone tries to get Heart of the Swarm to GA, they need to get a least a PR out of StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void as well. igordebraga ≠ 18:30, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Two articles missing Adabow (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove as Adabow has noted, incomplete. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Remove--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with consensus to have the topic Delisted. - GamerPro64 02:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bloc Party albums

6 articles

Silent Alarm

Silent Alarm Remixed

A Weekend in the City

Intimacy

Intimacy Remixed

I am placing this topic up for FTRC as it fails 1.d of the Featured topic criteria as it is missing Four (Bloc Party album), which itself is not at least Good Article status. The album came out on August 20th, 2012 so it had a long time to get cleaned up. GamerPro64 14:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I must say you timed this remarkably well - thanks to three coursework deadlines and a metric fuckton of work I will not have the time nor the energy to contest this removal. I'll see if I can work on Four but I can't promise anything. (Not to mention that Rafablu has been rather absent of late and it is he that knows more about writing these articles..) — foxj (in the wild) 15:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its been over a month since this review has started, as well as only four edits were made to "Four" during that time period, I am now Closing this and having the topic Delisted. GamerPro64 18:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Halo media

Halo media

20 articles

Halo: Combat Evolved

Original Soundtrack

Halo 2

Original Soundtrack

I Love Bees

Halo 3

Original Soundtrack

Marketing

Halo 3: ODST

Halo Wars

Halo: Reach

Halo Legends

Halo: The Fall of Reach

Halo: The Flood

Halo: First Strike

Halo: Ghosts of Onyx

Halo: Contact Harvest

The Halo Graphic Novel

Halo: Uprising

I am placing this topic up for FTRC as it fails criterion 3.b due to articles Halo 4 and Halo 4 Original Soundtrack are not at least Good Article. It should also be noted that while Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary is not part of the topic either, it is currently at GA status. GamerPro64 02:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I'm happy to add Combat Evolved Anniversary to the topic as part of this process rather than going through a separate one for it. GRAPPLE X 02:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Halo 4 is not part of the Good topic, so why does its status matter? You could argue that by 1d, Halo 4 should be added to the topic and therefore it would fail 3b, but I think you'd need to form a consensus to add Halo 4 to the topic before jumping to the fail step. It's not as though one of the already chosen articles lost its GA status at GAR. It does not seem necessary to me that the topic include Halo 4, and the topics that are included seem sufficient for good topic status. I oppose delisting the topic as it stands, and I oppose adding Halo 4 to the topic. But as an alternative, perhaps the topic could be limited to the "Halo trilogy" or the "Halo trilogy and related media"? --Odie5533 (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that Halo 4 should be part of the topic given its stated scope. The proposed "Halo trilogy" idea seems needlessly narrow, especially as the parent article for the topic, List of Halo media, includes the missing articles. GRAPPLE X 01:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is its stated scope? --Odie5533 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Halo media". GRAPPLE X 16:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delist The topic no longer contains all the articles that are within its scope, and therefore currently fails criterion 1.d. In addition to Halo 4, Halo 4 Original Soundtrack, and Halo: Combat Evolved Anniversary (although it's already a GA, so it's kind of a moot point), Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn (which is also included in List of Halo media) should also be in this topic, too. Since the topic's retention period recently expired, and with 3 articles left to get up to at least GA, I believe the topic should be delisted until after this happens.--十八 11:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Halo 4 is within the scope, as is its soundtrack and FUD. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - it no longer contains all the articles within its scope, especially Halo 4. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:29, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Halo 4 is certainly within the scope, if you were to add it this fails 1d. Domcarlo (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above. JJ98 (Talk) 21:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone? This should have been delisted two weeks ago, anyone prepared to do that? The Rambling Man (talk) 22:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with consensus to have the topic Delisted - GamerPro64 22:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]