Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Featured and good topic questions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Islands of Scotland

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

I am hoping this may be a suitable featured topic. There ~~are two~~ is one article to get to GA status or better. It would be helpful to know if I am missing something.

Current status:

Ben Mac Dui 08:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

~~One to go now - in process.~~ Done. Ben Mac Dui 10:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a specific question. This would seem to be an overview topic and criterion 1e states: "every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic should also be within the scope of a non-lead article that is included in the topic." I am not quite sure how to interpret this, because there are numerous overlapping collective nouns involved. This is essentially a geography topic and every single island is included in one or other of the articles. However collective terms such as Hebrides, Northern Isles, Mann and the Isles, "North Isles" (an historical term that referred to the Outer Hebrides and some northern Inner Hebrides), the Earldom of Orkney, the "isles" that were under the purview of the Lord of the Isles etc. are referred to within the topic but are not necessarily "within the scope of" any single "non-lead article", depending on how one might precisely define what this is intended to mean. There are other issues of a similar nature. For example, you could define (part of ) the life of Lady Grange as being "within the scope of the topic" in its broadest sense, but there is no "non-lead article" that includes her tragic affairs within its specific scope. I don't want to waste everyone's time with a nomination if this kind of problem is going to preclude a successful outcome. Ben Mac Dui 08:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Cornish cuisine

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi all. Good topics aren't really an area I'm strong in... In fact I've never really read up about them until today, but I was wondering if I could get an opinion on the following?

Cornish cuisine

5 articles

Pasty

Clotted Cream

Stargazy pie

Squab pie

Assuming I could get Cornish cuisine up to Good status, and Pasty passes it's review, is there anything more I need to do? Worm^TT 15:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking down at the Culture of Cornwall box, I'm seeing a lot more articles under Cuisine- you're missing Cornish cream tea, Cornish fairings, Cornish fudge, Cornish Gilliflower, Cornish ice cream, Hevva cake, Hog's pudding, Hoggan, Saffron bun, and Yarg. You need a good reason why those aren't in your topic. --Pres N 17:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, Cornish fudge is just fudge made with Cornish clotted cream, similarly for Cornish ice cream. Hoggan is a precursor to the pasty, very little to write about there. The Cornish Gilliflower is an apple variety that does not affect the Cornish cuisine. Cream tea, Fairings, Hevva cake, Hog's pudding, Saffron bun and Yarg are gaps. I didn't realise the topic had to be quite so comprehensive, so assuming my rational for removing the initial 4 I'll need to see what I can do. What if there's just simply insufficient information on the topic to make a good article though? are gaps permitted?Worm^TT 18:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

For topics (good or featured) every article that exists in the topic's scope needs to be in the topic. You don't need to have an article on every single Cornish Cuisine item- but if you have an article, it has to be in the topic. If it's notable enough to have an article, it's notable enough to be in the topic. I'm of the opinion that if you can't find enough information to make an article GA or better, you might want to merge it into another article if it makes sense. I hadn't noticed that Cornish fudge and Ice cream didn't have articles- should they really be in the "Culture of Cornwall" template then? Hoggan can probably be merged to pasty, as you say, and the apple type isn't really "Cuisine", I agree.

If you have an article that you can't find the information on to get to GA, and don't have anywhere good to merge it to (like, say, Cuisine of Cornwall) then you are allowed to get it peer reviewed and left in the topic as an "audited article". In theory. In practice, however, you need to prove not that you can't find the information but that it doesn't exist in the first place. This pretty much historically has limited it to media items that haven't been released yet or lists that are too short to pass FLC. For you, if you have food items that are native to Cornwall and can't be made longer than a couple of paragraphs, I'd just merge it to the Cuisine article. You'd have an uphill battle convicing people that, say, Hoggan deserves an article on it's own but there isn't enough information to make it longer than a stub. --Pres N 20:03, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the advice, I'll see what I can do. looks like it might take me a little longer than I first thought! Worm^TT 10:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Armero tragedy

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would a topic of just three rather specific articles - Armero tragedy, Nevado del Ruiz, and Omayra Sanchez - be too focused to be an FT? Also, are FTs required to have associated books? ceranthor 22:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Being a neophyte here I can't pass an educated opinion about the FT prospects. I don't see anything about books in the criteria, but you will get grumbled at if you don't create one. Ben Mac Dui 18:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

National Treasures of Japan

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Since it is my first topic, I wanted to confirm whether the above topic is featurable after the two outstanding lists (Writings: Chinese books and Writings: Japanese books) become featured lists. One of them is currently a featured list candidate and in need of a few more reviews. I'd be happy if somebody could have a look at it, check the list against featured list criteria and leave comments/questions/suggestions and possibly a vote at the nomination page. Thanks. bamse (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me, go ahead an nominate it once the last two FLs are done. --Pres N 15:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

James Bond topic

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Given an attempt of a Batman GT failed for not having the 1966 film with Adam West, a James Bond topic needs to be like this:

Or we can exclude the three movies (Casino Royale 54/67 and NSNA) not made by Eon Productions? igordebraga ≠ 17:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say that you need everything listed there, unless you had an article for the lead that was just EON Bond films. Doubly-so as NSNA is commonly considered a "Bond" film, even if Casino Royale 54/67 are more gray areas. --Pres N 18:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Four Freedoms

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I am trying to determine the components of a Four Freedoms topic. I am guessing that the following might be the components. Feel free to comment.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 03:45, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Eleanor Roosevelt

Four Freedoms

Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)

Four Freedoms Award

Four Freedoms Monument

Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park

Franklin D. Roosevelt

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Four Freedoms Flag

File:FDR's 1941 State of the Union (Four Freedoms speech) Edit 1.ogg

Potentially, the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial may also belong since it has a Four Freedoms Wall.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, is it possible that the topic can be promoted before Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park opens. Maybe that should be answered by whether WP:GAC will consider promoting it before then.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you need the articles on FDR, Eleanor, and the UDHR; those are related topics that I think fall outside this narrower topic. Certainly the speech shouldn't be included, since FTs don't include sounds or pictures, only articles.

Why doesn't the topic include articles about the actual four freedoms? That would make the topic more about the real topic and less about the more trivial articles you list. Ucucha (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

You mean Freedom of speech, Freedom of worship, Freedom from fear and Freedom from want, but not the Freedom of Speech (painting), Freedom of Worship (painting), Freedom from Want (painting) & Freedom from Fear (painting)?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Texas Tech Red Raiders football

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Texas Tech Red Raiders football

articles

List of players in the NFL Draft

List of head coaches

After seeing the FT Aston Villa F.C., I'm curious if Texas Tech Red Raiders football could become a FT with the articles listed above. Just as the Second City derby is considered peripheral to the main topic, would Chancellor's Spurs and Texas A&M – Texas Tech football rivalry also be considered peripheral? NThomas (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, can't think of anything off the top of my head that would be missing. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Having trouble defining the scope of a topic

Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Reposting this from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games.

The featured topic I'm working toward is "Looking Glass Studios games". This naturally excludes the company's main article and the ones for its employees. The articles I plan to include are:

But I still don't know if this scope is appropriate. Looking Glass's history was very messy. They went through at least three name changes, one or two mergers, and the attribution nightmare that was Jane's Attack Squadron, a game canceled because of the company's 2000 bankruptcy and finished/released by a different company.

The problems start at the beginning of the company's life. Paul Neurath and Ned Lerner went to college together in the early '80s, worked together on an Elite knockoff called Deep Space, and then separated. Lerner worked on a few flight games, including the then-acclaimed Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer (1987); Neurath joined Origin Systems and made Space Rogue (1989). At some point during this time (sources get foggy through here), Lerner founded a company called Lerner Research. Again at some point, his company began developing a game called Car & Driver. In 1990, Neurath founded Blue Sky Productions to make what would become Ultima Underworld. The team used code from Lerner Research programmers, including assembly code straight out of Car & Driver, to create a prototype of Underworld. During the game's development, Lerner helped to fund the team and Lerner Research programmer Chris Green created the all-important texture mapping algorithm for it.

Car & Driver and Underworld were both released in 1992; the latter in March, the former at an undefined time. Underworld's opening credits identify Blue Sky Productions as the developer. That year, the two companies merged to form Looking Glass Technologies. The Lerner Research part of the team was the one that moved. There's rough evidence that Car & Driver was in the final stages of development after the merge. When it was released, the box attributed it to Lerner Research. The opening screen reads "Looking Glass Technologies".

Now for the questions. Since Looking Glass was the result of a merger, should games from both halves of the company count as "Looking Glass games"? That's not the standard practice of video game history writers. Normally, Blue Sky is considered to be just an early name for Looking Glass. It's kind of understandable, since the vast majority of the employees from this time who went on to be counted as "Looking Glass employees" were from the Blue Sky part of the company. But in a 1992 post-merger interview, Neurath estimates that only half of the company's employees were originally Blue Sky people. Perhaps all pre-merger games should be left out? Again, it's not in the sources. Standard practice is to place Underworld at the beginning of Looking Glass's history. Even when we consider these factors, the placement of Car & Driver does not become clearer. Was it a Lerner Research game or a Looking Glass game? How do we decide when the sources almost never discuss it? In short, I have no idea what to do.

Next up we have the ports. LG created several ports for other companies' games during its lifetime. These include Madden '93 for the Genesis, Command & Conquer for the N64 and Destruction Derby 64. None of these appear to be viable for splitting. But what do I do? Consider them unconnected and leave them as they are? Fix up these articles that are only slightly connected to my topic scope? Again, I'm at a loss.

Then we have Jane's Attack Squadron. Last time I asked about it here, I was told to include it. I'd like a few more opinions, though. To avoid having to write another massive paragraph of history, I'll just direct you here. The game's absurdly convoluted development cycle is briefly addressed in that section.

Thanks for having the patience to read this giant text-wall. I look forward to resolving these problems, as they've been worrying me for quite awhile. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see the ports added as well, since they were at least involved in the development. That'd make 16/17 articles. That being said, would the main article be Looking Glass Technologies or List of video games developed by Looking Glass Studios? It seems that it's the former above, but if you're doing a topic on the company itself then you may have to add in people who were a major part of the company as well. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning of the post, the scope is "Looking Glass Studios games", meaning that the company article and employee articles are excluded. As for the ports, wouldn't placing Command & Conquer in this topic clearly overlap with a much more obvious topic? That is, "Command & Conquer series"? This applies for all three ports, and none of them seem notable enough to warrant separate articles. It seems counter-intuitive to heavily improve the article for Command & Conquer (or the other two) just for a brief mention of the port. Particularly when Looking Glass clearly isn't the primary topic. Also, do you have an opinion on the other two big points? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure that Genesis version of Madden '93 is a port? Both versions were released at the same time. --Mika1h (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Both versions were released at the same time, but the Genesis version (or port) was developed by Looking Glass. That's my understanding, at least. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

More discussion on this is going on between me and GamerPro64. I made my case on the ports a bit more clearly on his talk page (diff). JimmyBlackwing (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

User:ButOnMethItIs explained on the WPVG talk page that I've been misinterpreting the featured topic criteria, and that, in fact, topic overlaps are okay. The ports are included, then. Going from there, it only seems logical that Jane's would be included as well. Thanks for the help, guys. I'm still not clear on Car & Driver, though. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Speaking as a programmer, I say no on Car & Driver. Reusing code from an entirely different game doesn't pull that game into the scope- software projects reuse code from other projects all the time, it doesn't make them related; the actual ideas of the game, the parts that made it Ultima and not Ultimate Car, were not part of any assembly code they copied from another game. As to the other thing, that Lerner Research merged with Blue Sky Productions before the game was released- your call. I'd still say no. The game was made by Lerner, even if anecdotally it was not actually released until the merger- LGS did not develop the game, so it should not be in the scope. Your lead article is "List of video games developed by Looking Glass Studios", and LGS did not develop the game, Lerner did. --Pres N 23:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis. I have one final question, though. Using that logic, should Ultima Underworld 1, which was released before the merger, be included in the topic? It was technically developed by Blue Sky, not Looking Glass. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Above you say that Blue Sky is generally considered to be LGS part 1; if that's what sources go with (and therefore say that UU1 was a Looking Glass game) then I'd say yes. It's the same kind of thing as my Thatgamecompany topic- I included Cloud even though it wasn't actually made by TGC, because it was the same main people and TGC seems to own the copyright on it, the same way that LGS clearly had the copyright on UU1, as they made UU2. Way less than half of the people who started up TGC worked on Cloud, the same way that less than half of the employees of LGS were originally from Blue Sky, but from what you say it seems like commentators still consider Blue Sky's game to be an LGS game, just as Cloud is connected to TGC. --Pres N 20:37, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Many thanks for the explanation. That answers all of my questions, so thanks to everyone for the help. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Topic idea

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

So, I'm with the hurricane crew, and I was wondering about a topic. There are 160 years in the official Atlantic hurricane database (and a few articles on some earlier seasons). Now, a "List of Atlantic hurricane seasons" would be almost unbearably large, and it would take years to do. Would it be appropriate to have a topic on, say, "List of Atlantic hurricane seasons (1970-1979)" (with List of Atlantic hurricane seasons as the main topic)? Would that be cherry-picking? If not, would such a topic be able to be expanded to "List of Atlantic hurricane seasons (1960-1989)"? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, iff a "list of Atlantic hurricane seasons (y–y)" is also GA; should we create a new WPTC standard on how such articles are formatted? HurricaneFan 25 — 15:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm talking if there was just "list of Atlantic hurricane seasons" as an FL (and not the sub-lists). I see what you're saying, but I don't see a need for an article of that type. Is it no a legitimate topic to have a decade of hurricane seasons as a GT? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone else have any feedback? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mario topic idea.

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Below is an idea of a good topic. I would like someone to work on my idea and if you have any complaints/comments put them under the table. Darrman1 (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Super Mario World 2 should very much be included. Based on the FT rules, I think you should retitle it to something like "Mario console games". That seems to bring most of them together, with the exception of New SMB and SM3D. At least they're all linked near other on the template. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:04, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

If I have promoted 10 out of 11 articles within a topic to GA, can I still nominate for Good Topic? Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 01:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, they have to all be done. Only exception is if the article can't make it to GA/FL, like an unreleased videogame or something. --Pres N 01:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Although, if you meant that you got 10 articles to GA and someone else got the other one to GA, then the answer is yes, but you should probably let them know beforehand. --Pres N 07:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I have currently re-written and promoted 8 articles within the topic, two are about to the c/e for GAN, and one other person re-wrote and promoted one article from the topic. Calvin • ^{Watch n' Learn} 01:50, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Question/Idea

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've entirely new to the Good/Featured Topic area. I'm working on promoting several Supreme Court cases to GA. Would the following work as a Good topic, once all are at GA-status?

Compulsory Process Clause

4 articles

Washington v. Texas

Taylor v. Illinois

United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal

Thanks and regards, Lord Roem (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Malmö FF

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I'm currently working on improving the articles and list to FA and FL status for Malmö FF to reach FT status. I am wondering if all topics above are essential for Malmö FF to become FT? For example, the list of chairman is rare as the only other example I've seen is List of FC Barcelona presidents. However I think I might have some problem promoting it to FL since I'm not sure about the notability of the chairman and the fact that I have very limited referencing for it. --Reckless182 (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I would vote against the chairmen list to be a stand-alone FL. My best suggestion is to try to merge the managers and chairmen articles since they are somewhat similar in scope. Nergaal (talk) 19:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, it is not clear to me that the 1-24 appearances is a notable enough list to exist altogether. Nergaal (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've worked on the list of chairmen today and see some potential. I've expanded the list and added a history section much like the manager list. There are a couple of FL's that compile players with 1-24 appearances, see List of Liverpool F.C. players (fewer than 25 appearances) for example. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I know but Malmo does not compare to Liverpool or Barcelona. Nergaal (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In terms of European success of perhaps, but it is still the most successful club in Sweden. If I find enough references then the list should definitely be notable enough. --Reckless182 (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'd be very keen on making a good topic with the Marvel Cinematic Universe as the main article, provided that only the films have to be included in the topic as below. I'd be happy enough to include the films' cast members list and the short film series Marvel One-Shots if necessary. I'd also like to clarify that each of the film's soundtracks and video games articles (12 total.. there'll be 24+ soon enough) and the original character Phil Coulson do not have to be included in the topic though since the main article is about the film franchise, right? Also, would the title of the topic and/or lead be written as be "Marvel Cinematic Universe films"? Thanks! Alex Douglas (talk) 07:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe films

9 articles

Iron Man (film)

The Incredible Hulk (film)

Iron Man 2

Thor (film)

Captain America: The First Avenger

The Avengers (film)

Iron Man 3

Thor: The Dark World

I think that if you include the shots, the cast list as well as an overview of the soundtracks throughout the films (this might need to be created, and would look similar to the cast list) nobody will oppose the topic. Nergaal (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Command in the South West Pacific theatre of World War II

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have a proposed Good Topic on the commanders in the South West Pacific theatre of World War II. (The picture is a featured picture.) Would this work as a topic? Do I need to run the a class articles through GA? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

In answer to the second question: yes. A-class is a project-specific demarcation, not a wikipedia-wide one like GA or FA, so even though the military project has a strong A-class review process they do still all need to be GAs or FAs (or FLs). I doubt you'll have much trouble, though, it'll just take a bit of time. --Pres N 02:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The topic would work, but would probably need a slightly better title, such as "Military command of ..."; and yes, the A-class articles need to be submitted to GAN, which I think would be almost an auto-pass. Nergaal (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I currently have Stanley Savige at FAC, and Sydney Rowell and Vernon Sturdee at GA (they are both FAC-ready, but you can only do one FAC at a time). I will send Krueger to GA as soon as the A class review is finished. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking Glass Studios video games

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I'm looking to double-check the scope of a possible future good topic.

Does this seem right? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I swear to you that I stumbled onto this while I was reading this. Talk about a blast from the past. But anyway. Are you making a topic on articles that were developed by Looking Glass? If that's the case, do you plan on including games developed by Lerner Research or just sticking with Blue Sky Productions as well as Looking Glass? Because since Lerner and Blue Sky merged to create Looking Glass, then Lerner developed games should be added. Unless of course there's a reason for it not to be part of it. GamerPro64 09:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a crazy coincidence. Anyway, there are a couple of problems with that. First, people who write histories of Looking Glass generally place Ultima Underworld as their first game, and they don't really talk about Lerner Research. Second, sources are vague to silent about what exactly Lerner Research was, when it was founded, etc. From what I can tell, their game Car and Driver was in development by 1990, because the Underworld team used code from it to create a CES 1990 demo. However, the 1991 game F-22 Interceptor, which some quasi-reliable sources credit as a Lerner Research game, has no sign of the Lerner Research label on its box or in its intro. Both of these merely credit Edward Lerner, the company's founder. How Car and Driver (in development in 1990) can be a Lerner Research game, when F-22 Interceptor (a year later) is not, is a mystery. Chuck Yeager's Advanced Flight Trainer, which some sources claim is a Lerner Research game, has a similar problem: there's no evidence that it was anything more than another Edward Lerner project. So, aside from Car and Driver, the games developed by Lerner Research are a mystery (if they even exist). I don't think games developed by Edward Lerner without his company qualify for the topic—otherwise, I'd have to include every game the co-founder Paul Neurath worked on in the 1980s, even though these are irrelevant to the topic.

And Car and Driver is pretty messy, too. PresN told me in August 2011 that it probably didn't qualify for the topic, for a variety of reasons. You can check out his logic here. I'm inclined to agree with him, but you can see what you think. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Reading this through, this topic could hold out on its own as it is. Though there may be some questioning to the like of mine. GamerPro64 18:28, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hooray, logic! I still agree with what I said last year, I think this topic is fine. --Pres N 19:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Just wanted to make sure—it'd be a pain to find out that the topic was incomplete during a nomination. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Volcanoes of Hawaii

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

7 articles

Hualālai

Kīlauea

(For GT, for now): Good, yes?

Mauna Loa is currently undergoing rehabilitation, I'll ship it off to FAR come time.
Technically, Volcanism of Hawaii island would be a better front topic, but that would first require a Volcanism of the United States article first (like Volcanism of Canada), and second, it would conflict with the topic as covered under the more expansive hotspot article.
There are three definitions of "Volcanoes of Hawaii", this topic will use the most common one: the five mainland volcanoes with special mention to Loihi Seamount. There's also Māhukona, but it's rarely mentioned.
There's also the question of List of volcanoes in the Hawaiian – Emperor seamount chain, an FL that could potentially be added as well. ResMar 16:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The list would be a better lead, while the hotspot would the lead of the overview topic including stuff like the evolution article. Nergaal (talk) 17:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a larger group alternative on my workpage, but that's a long term thing. Hey, I'm all for replacing the hotspot with the list, it would mean I would pass the 50% FA barrier and move it up to an FT. I think they're both applicable. ResMar 21:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

iPad

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

iPad

5 articles

iPad (1st generation)

iPad 2

iPad (3rd generation)

iPad (4th generation)

I'm currently trying to promote the iPad articles to Good Topic status, would I need to include the iPad mini article as well or can that be classified as a different type of device that belongs in a separate topic? According to the latest tech rumours, Apple is scheduled to release the next iPad mini in March or so, hence it seems like the iPad mini is in a separate product series to the regular iPad. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 03:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Until more generations come out, iPad Mini should also be included. Furthermore, iPad accessories also need to be included. Nergaal (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The iPad accessories article will probably be difficult to promote as an article, I'll try converting it into a list and see what others think. Thanks for the advice. YuMa NuMa ^Contrib 05:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

James Bond films

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Could I ask about an existing topic: Wikipedia:Featured topics/James Bond films. The topic was passed with Skyfall not released into cinemas (and was therefore ineligible for GA status). Could I check to see when we have to have the film at GA? With the film still in cinemas (it was only released in December in some countries) the article is still inherently unstable, especially with the additions and alterations necessitated by the various awards ceremonies at the moment. A thread on the article talk page was in agreement to wait for a little longer before going for GA. Could you give me an indication as to what sort of timeframe we have to get to GA before the GT is removed? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Could you check to see when we have to have the film at GA? Do you mean the Retention section where we it states that an article has three months after they are released to the public or they lose GA or FA status and before the grace period ends to reach at least the status of Good Article? But the matter at hand is that you're asking for an extention. This may seem necessary considering the key factors at hand as this article is not only one of tthe most popular films of 2012, it is part of a franchise that has been a staple in pop culture for 50 years. So as such, I'm offering that the article has until the end of Feburary before a FTRC is enacted. Does that fair well? GamerPro64 15:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

That would be great - post Academy Awards (where there is Bond tribute planned at the ceremony) so there will be a bit of chopping and changing needed, but we should be good to go by then. Many thanks - much appreciated! - SchroCat (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

We've managed to get Skyfall promoted to GA, so the topic is safe for the moment! Many thanks - SchroCat (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Amphibians

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I know little about featured topics. Could Amphibian and Frog be the basis for a featured topic to include various species of frogs such as Common toad, Green and golden bell frog and Cane toad? It is not realistic to include all the hundreds of species of frog for which we have articles.

Alternatively, could those two articles be the basis for a featured topic to include the articles Salamander and Caecilian if I brought these up to at least GA standard. The topic would then comprise all the orders of Amphibians? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

IMO, for the current amphibians, Lissamphibia should be the lead, although some other articles might also be needed there such as Archaeobatrachia, Mesobatrachia and Neobatrachia. For an overview of amphibians, List of amphibians, Decline in amphibian populations, Lissamphibia , and List of prehistoric amphibians should be included, and possibly Herpetoculture. Nergaal (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

U.S. counties and county-equivalents, Lists of

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Does the above appear to be the right format and the right articles/lists to include in such a featured topic candidate? Myself, and User:Coal town guy are thinking of doing some work on this. Any help is appreciated. Jujutacular (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd title the topic as just "United States counties and county-equivalents", or maybe just "United States counties", and I'm not sold that DC counts as a "county-equivalent", but looks good overall. --Pres N 02:42, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I tweaked the title. DC is a special case. There are several other "independent cities" in other states (St. Louis being one) that are outside of the boundaries of any county as far as the state is concerned. As far as the federal government is concerned, these independent cities are "county-equivalents". Also, Louisiana and Alaska have parishes and boroughs, respectively, which the federal government considers "county-equivalents". DC is similar to independent cities in many ways but different in some ways (it has a non-voting member of the House of Representatives, but no Senatorial representation). Jujutacular (talk) 02:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Dan Leno

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Having just seen through the final list to FL on the above subject, I would now like to see the Leno subject be considered a featured topic. All are now featured and comprise of:

Dan Leno

Endemic Birds of the Sulu Archipelago

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Is it possible for a topic's lead article to be broader in scope than the topic itself? For example, I've been eyeing doing the topic Endemic Birds of the Sulu Archipelago, which would include 4 articles. However, it would be a bit ridiculous to have a List of Endemic Birds of the Sulu Archipelago as it would be so small. Possible, but sort of pointless. Would I be able to count a List of Birds of the Sulu Archipelago with a section detailing the endemics and count that as the lead article for my hypothetical Endemic Birds of the Sulu Archipelago topic? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible for you to show what you mean by making a topic box? GamerPro64 14:22, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly, as I haven't made a List of Birds of the Sulu Archipelago yet. But, if I replace that list with the existing List of birds of the Philippines and make up statuses...

List of birds of the Philippines

5 articles

Sulu Bleeding-heart

Sulu Hornbill

Tawitawi Brown Dove

Blue-winged Racket-tail

If the List of birds of the Philippines were the lead article, every bird on the list marked (E) for endemic would be part of the topic. The list would also have a section detailing endemism of birds in the Philippines. Endemic birds are a distinctive category of their own and are not cherry-picking; however, the Sulu Archipelago only has four of them, and I would be a bit reluctant to make a separate list from List of Birds of the Sulu Archipelago that says the same thing only more narrowly. Does that make more sense? Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You'd need to pipe it like [[List of Birds of the Sulu Archipelago|Endemic Birds of the Sulu Archipelago]]. --Pres N 21:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

For example, the Bloc Party featured topic says that it is "Bloc Party albums", but actually links to [[Bloc Party discography|Bloc Party albums]], as the albums don't need an article separate from the discography as a whole. --Pres N 21:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Cool cool. Thank you very much. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 21:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

articles

Fyodor Dostoyevsky bibliography

Novels and novellas

Poor Folk

The Double

The Landlady

Netochka Nezvanova

Uncle's Dream

The Village of Stepanchikovo

Humiliated and Insulted

The House of the Dead

Notes from Underground

Crime and Punishment

The Gambler

The Idiot

The Eternal Husband

Demons

The Raw Youth

The Brothers Karamazov

Short stories and novelettes

"Mr. Prokharchin"

"Novel in Nine Letters"

"The Jealous Husband"

"A Weak Heart"

"Polzunkov"

"An Honest Thief"

"A Christmas Tree and a Wedding"

"White Nights"

"A Little Hero"

"A Nasty Story"

"The Crocodile"

"Bobok"

"The Heavenly Christmas Tree"

"A Gentle Creature"

"The Peasant Marey"

"The Dream of a Ridiculous Man"

Non-fiction

Winter Notes on Summer Impressions

A Writer's Diary

Hello,

I am working on getting all of Dostoyevsky's novels and novellas to GA or FA status. Is it possible to exclude Dostoyevsky's short story articles? Most of his stories are not well-known and a low amount of sources for information exist. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 10:56, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I think having the bibliography list as a topic header for non-short stories would work best. Nergaal (talk) 03:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Mario topic

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I'm trying to get the Mario series articles to GA, so I can submit this to GT. If you have any questions, please say so under the table.

As well, the main is under peer review, and Mario Galaxy and New Mario Bros. Wii are GANs. Darrman (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Why the exclusion of 4 of the games that are listed in the timeline? Super Mario Land, Super Mario Land 2: 6 Golden Coins, Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3 and Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island. I believe I can think of reasons why (at least for the Wario and Yoshi one, but if they are in the timeline logic dictates to me they should be in the topic. --Lightlowemon (talk) 06:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, you got me on Mario Land 1 and 2, but Yoshi's Island stars Yoshi, with only Baby Mario appearing, and I think Mario only cameos in Wario Land! I don't consider those Mario games, and never say the Mario Land/World part of the title. When I list Mario games, I just say the games in the table, nothing else. So, if I submitted this to GT, I'd probably fail? Darrman (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, spinoffs count too- you'd need a better reason than "I don't consider them part of the series" to exclude them. They do have Super Mario in the full title. --Pres N 19:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, you're right about that, but if you counted all games starting with Super Mario, that would count games out of this topic's scope. As a title, what about platforming games featuring Mario? It's a bit long, but does anyone have a better title for the just the games in the table? Darrman (talk) 20:01, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"Super Mario platformers" seems OK, specially as you're not restricting to console games given NSMB and 3D Land are there. But this would probably require the two Land games for a set complete enough. igordebraga ≠ 17:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Recreational Roads in Texas

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Recreational Roads in Texas

5 articles

Texas Recreational Road 2

Texas Recreational Road 8

Texas Recreational Road 11

Texas Recreational Road 255

I'm currently working on my first Good Topic, Recreational Roads in Texas. Recreational Roads 11 and 255 are Good Articles, and 2 and 8 are at GAN, and I've opened a Peer Review before I try to take the main list to FLC. Are there any comments or concerns anyone has with the topic or any of the articles before I try to get everything promoted? Thanks, - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 23:11, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Why are the 4 listed here sufficiently notable to have articles, why the others don't? I also strongly suggest creating maps showing the routes fo the roads. Nergaal (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Recreational Road 2 has its own article because it was designated over a road which has existed since at least 1940, so a large amount of information is available from historic maps. Recreational Road 8 was first designated as a replacement for Farm to Market Road 99, which gives it greater notability and available info, and was redesignated over a road which had existed since the early 20s. RE 11 is similar to RE 8, except with a slightly different and more unique story, and RE 255 is unusually long for a secondary highway, completely replaced FM 255, and holds most of the records for the Recreational Road system. Each route formerly had a very short good article for them (RE 9 example here), but per this discussion, wide consensus was to merge all of them to the main list. I expanded out 2, 8, and 11, with none of the other routes having enough info about them to become a stand-alone article. I requested a map for RE 11, but rules state that I can only request one map at a time. I have no clue how to make them, and it appears that there are very few people who can. It also appears to take a great deal of time and dedication to make each map. I agree that there need to be maps for each article, but I hope that in the probably 1 1/2 to 2 months (minimum) it will take to get the list up to FL, all the maps will have been completed. Thanks for commenting so quickly, I hope this satisfies. - Awardgive. Help out with Project Fillmore County 04:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Harry Potter

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Harry Potter books

8 articles

Philosopher's Stone

Chamber of Secrets

Prisoner of Azkaban

Goblet of Fire

Order of the Phoenix

Half-Blood Prince

Deathly Hallows

Matty.007 and I are working on getting this series to GT. Is there anything missing/any improvements that could be made? ~Hue Sat Lum 18:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me, lead is about the book series and the subarticles are about the books. I don't believe that the characters/universe articles are required for the topic, though they would be a nice addition. --Pres N 19:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Goblet of Fire is now a GA, is this now a Featured Topic? Mat ty.007 17:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It would actually be a Good Topic; Featured topics require at least half of the members to be FA. It can be nominated after doing a check-up the other articles, which have been good articles for several years, as Glimmer721 pointed out. ~Hue Sat Lum 22:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh I didn't even see this discussion! Sorry. Yeah, I'd recommend going over the other articles, but otherwise it should be fine. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've done dead links for books 1–5; I will try to get to the rest tomorrow. ~Hue Sat Lum 01:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

For referencing, I would also check to make sure all the fields are filled out properly and that there is minimal use of fansites. On a larger scale, the "Editions" sections might need updating with the new US and UK releases. Glimmer721 ^talk 02:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 6)

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Doctor Who (series 6)

17 articles

"A Christmas Carol"

"The Impossible Astronaut"

"Day of the Moon"

"The Curse of the Black Spot"

"The Doctor's Wife"

"The Rebel Flesh"

"The Almost People"

"A Good Man Goes to War"

"Let's Kill Hitler"

"Night Terrors"

"The Girl Who Waited"

"The God Complex"

"Closing Time"

"The Wedding of River Song"

"Space / Time"

Night and the Doctor

Well now that I know this page exists, I can ask this question. Unlike the fifth series (which I promoted last year), this collection includes some mini-episodes. I was able to promote "Space / Time" to GA, but I have done all that is probably possible on Night and the Doctor aside from the lead and further plot trimming, and I'm not sure it could be comprehensive enough for GA. My other question is whether the prequel listing should be in Doctor Who (series 6), as it's covered in the article under "Promotion" and I don't believe the individual summaries add anything (and the summaries are on the individual episode articles). Thanks. Glimmer721 ^talk 23:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking at the series page and it seems you left out Death Is the Only Answer out of the topic. Are you planning on getting that to Good Article status or was that an oversight? GamerPro64 15:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Oh yes I was curious about this too, as it's not present on the DVD set. That one is the winner of a competition launched by BBC Learning and was aired on Doctor Who Confidential. I've also done all that I could on that article and I feel it's pretty good, but there's no reception and I can't find any from anything reliable. I was once considering merging it and "Good as Gold" into an article about the Script to Screen contest. Glimmer721 ^talk 20:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

1960 Atlantic hurricane season

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

1960 Atlantic hurricane season

6 articles

Texas tropical storm

Hurricane Abby

Tropical Storm Brenda

Hurricane Donna

Hurricane Ethel

I will ask this question since I have nominated it - Can you nominate a good or featured topic if you have only made a couple edits across the entire topic? I have not really contributed significantly to the topic I have just nominated, but it meets all of the good topic criteria. Hurricane Andrew (444) 14:20, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Actors and criterion 1c

Latest comment: 11 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I'm contemplating starting an extremely ambitious long-term project with a GT (or FT, if unicorns are real...) as the end goal. However, before I get things underway, it occurs to me that it may not be eligible for GT/FT because of criterion 1c. Does an actor, and the list of film articles that constitute their filmography constitute a valid topic? We do not generally categorize films-by-actor, nor are there typically navbox templates for actors and their works (although there are a handful of ... well, exceptional exceptions). Thoughts? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:57, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think instead, going for a topic that covered all the films directed by a director would not only be more manageable, but would satisfy criterion 1c. It's common for film directors to have navboxes containing the films they directed, in addition to a "Films directed by NAME" category.--十八 06:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably a reasonable approach. Ironically, more work in this case, but, hey, I need something to keep me busy for the next couple of years, right? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why you couldn't build a topic around an actor and his films. You'd have to build a navbox to link them, but that's not hard, just tedious because of the size of your topic.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, upon further reading, it seems there's pretty longstanding consensus against doing that to avoid navbox proliferation. That's understandable, lest something like It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World collapse under the weight of its navboxes! But, since we've got 1c as a criterion, that does sort of foreclose on "actor" topics. That's fine though; I've got a director in mind now, and am starting to acquire the small library of sourcing this'll take. But the topic's historically important and painfully under-represented in the project, so ... all's good. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

How to add a Fully Featured Symbol to a topic?

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

United States Bicentennial coinage

Evaluation of a topic for completeness

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Sega Genesis

10 articles

Sega CD

Sega 32X

Sega Nomad

List of Sega Genesis games

List of Sega CD games

List of Sega 32X games

Sega Meganet

Sega Channel

I brought this up at the Video games WikiProject, and at their suggestion I've brought this here. I'm looking at a potential featured topic on Sega Genesis, but there's been a pretty significant question to me on where we draw the line for completeness on this topic. Unique about it, in the articles listed here, is that the Genesis console had two add-ons (CD and 32X), individual game libraries for each add-on as well as its own, and two separate Internet-based services, Meganet and Sega Channel. However, there are a lot of associated topics, such as Videogame Rating Council, the accessory Menacer (which I've tried to merge away and been reverted), the court case Sega v. Accolade, and Sonic the Hedgehog (character), not to mention all of the individual video game articles for the system. I'd like to bring this to candidacy after I finish up with List of Sega Genesis games and everything else passes, but is that enough? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 02:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

At a first glance, the biggest omission seems to be List of Japanese Sega Mega Drive games. The controller seems important but I would be fine without it. The same for the trial and the VRC. I think that Sonic though seems such an important part of the success of the console (much more than the controller for example) that it should be included. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Forgot to note, I'll be merging away List of Japanese Sega Mega Drive games into List of Sega Genesis games as part of the rewrite of that list. It's all duplicated anyway. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 20:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Next question: if Sonic needs to be included, would that be Sonic the Hedgehog (character) or Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game)? Or both? Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 14:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
  - Since the latter will be included as part of the list of games, I would say you would not have to add it in. However, I'm not sure about the character. Would a topic on Nintendo have to include Mario? Or a topic on the Xbox have to include Master Chief? I would say a topic on the Sonic franchise would have to include the character, but for a console, it seems pretty superfluous.--十八 22:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
    - I implied this at the WP:VG thread as well, but to reiterate here- I don't think the topic needs to have the Sonic character article. It's connected to the console, sure, but I don't think it's so intrinsically tied up with what the Genesis is/was that it needs to be in the topic- I think that the Sonic game(s) are covered under the list of games, and that the character article is covered under them. I'm also in agreement with Nergaal that the controller article is optional- if it was an article on the main Genesis gamepad, that would be one thing, but for an optional lightgun that only 8 (out of hundreds) of games used, I don't think it's required. --Pres N 23:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
      - And if I may be honest, I really would love to get rid of Menacer anyway for notability concerns and undue weight for the peripheral, but I don't see that being allowed to happen. If this is really all that would be needed for a featured topic, I could see this coming to WP:FTC within a couple of months as the FACs and FLCs finish up—I took Sega CD to FAC just yesterday and will likely work on Sega 32X to take it there right when the FAC for Sega CD passes. Red Phoenix ^{build the future...}_{remember the past...} 13:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell)

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Would it be sufficient for a Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) GT to promote Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell), Freedom of Speech (painting), Freedom from Fear (painting), Freedom to Worship (painting), and Freedom from Want (painting) or would I also have to promote Four Freedoms and Norman Rockwell?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:24, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It would be sufficient with Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) and the four paintings that encompass it. This would be exactly like the case of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Four Quartets.--十八 12:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with 十八. --Pres N 19:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

A 5-article topic would be the correct format here. Nergaal (talk) 10:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Topic talk pages

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates/Timothy Blackstone/archive1 and Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates/Washington Park, Chicago exist? Why didn't Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Millennium Park have project tags before I just added them?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

For the first question, those are candidate talk pages, so they shouldn't exist. For your second question, it may not always have been common practice to add project banners to topic talk pages.--十八 20:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Delist

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am not motivated to nominate my own topic, but now Wikipedia:Featured topics/2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team should be an 8-article topic given 3 additional player articles and an assistant coach. It looks quite pitiful being included as a GT.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up Tony. I'll start a GTRC for it soon. GamerPro64 21:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Potential good topic

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

G'day all, this is my first foray into good topics, so I would appreciate some guidance from the veterans. Is there anything about this topic that raises eyebrows or begs questions?

1st Army Group

3 articles

4th Army

7th Army

Any and all feedback appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. A small suggestion - Make the 4th Army and 7th Army articles to be part of two different columns so they appear side by side. Also, are these two the only articles related to the main article (1st Army Group)? The number of articles is not an issue, but just make sure that all articles/lists connected to this topic are included. I will definitely support this once you formally nominate it. Just fix that red link that appears on 1st Army Group's lead (in fact red links seem to plague all the articles) --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 18:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Editor with two nominations

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I was wondering whether an editor can have two GT nominations at the same time? Right now I have a GT nomination for Sale el Sol. I think, or rather I am hoping, that I'll have another GT candidate ready soon. Then can I have two nominations at the same time? Is it possible or is it prohibited? --WonderBoy1998 (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

That would be fine.--十八 20:34, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

GT->FT promotion

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Now that Freedom from Want (painting) was passed, 3 of the 5 topics in the Four Freedoms (Norman Rockwell) topic are featured. What is the protocol for FT promotion?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Once the article officially becomes a Featured Article, and the topic is at least 50% featured, the topic automatically goes from Good Topic to Featured Topic. Rather simple, really. GamerPro64 03:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The FAC has been closed by the delegate, but not officially updated and closed procedurally.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Now, everything is official. What should happen now?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully more Featured Topics be made? :-) GamerPro64 01:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Greg Wohlwend topic

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Greg Wohlwend

7 articles

Solipskier

Puzzlejuice

Gasketball

Hundreds

Ridiculous Fishing

Threes!

I'm preparing this topic for candidacy and am curious how I should handle it. Wohlwend is an indie developer and the topic scope was meant to be the things he has worked on, and the above topic would comprise all of them. He was one part of a two-person team, Mikengreg (also a GA), that worked on his first two full titles (as well as some smaller stuff) but I didn't think that it fit the scope unless perhaps it was the parent for Solipskier and Gasketball within the topic. Thoughts? czar ♔ 00:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, it's up: Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Greg Wohlwend/archive1 czar ♔ 00:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Mother series topic

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Mother series

16 articles

Mother

EarthBound

fandom

Marcus Lindblom

Ness

Mother 3

development

Looking for some feedback on this. Thoughts on whether I need to include (all of) the individuals and the characters? czar ♔ 00:47, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you need any of the people. Mother/Earthbound is a part of their body of work, they are not a part of the games. Just like how in an album topic, you don't include the artist- unless this is the only thing they ever did, and it's not. I do think you need Ness/Giygas/Mr. Saturn, though, since those are all components of the games. --Pres N 00:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That said, you can always cut it down to essentials with just the series page and the three games, and name it "Mother titles", but I doubt you want that. --Pres N 00:57, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Live at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Mother series/archive1 czar ⨹ 00:25, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

audited article of limited subject matter

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Can I ask what "audited article of limited subject matter or inherent instability."means?

I have this vague (and probably very silly) idea of getting all EH properties in Somerset to be a Good Topic: )see below with current status)

List of English Heritage properties in Somerset

13 articles

Cleeve Abbey

Dunster Butter Cross

Farleigh Hungerford Castle

Gallox Bridge, Dunster

Muchelney Abbey

Nunney Castle

Sir Bevil Grenville's Monument

Stanton Drew stone circles

Stoney Littleton Long Barrow

The Abbot's Fish House, Meare

The Tribunal, Glastonbury

Yarn Market, Dunster

Looking at Dunster Butter Cross & Gallox Bridge, Dunster (and having searched books, web sites etc for ideas) I'm not sure there is enough content to turn them into GAs - Therefore what would be needed to get them to qualify as "audited article of limited subject matter"? Do I just put them up for peer review and what does "Such items do not count towards criteria 1(a), 3(a)(ii), or 3(b)(i)." mean?— Rod ^talk 16:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, first of all, criterion 3(c) states that "limited subject matter" is in the case of lists only, and means that if a list is currently not long enough to pass an WP:FLC due to its short length, it should have "a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed." Also, "inherent instability" in that criterion refers to an article or list which is constantly changing, usually due to being in the process of being rewritten to comply with GA/FA/FL criteria or be the subject of a current event. In other words, the article is expected to grow in time. In such cases, you should wait until the article has attained a certain level of stability when it doesn't change dramatically from day to day. Regarding "Such items do not count towards criteria 1(a), 3(a)(ii), or 3(b)(i).", it means that for such an article that hasn't attained a GA/FA/FL status yet, it's okay to nominate a topic including such an article, but that's assuming the article will eventually get up to GA/FA/FL, but is currently unable to due to its "limited subject matter" or "inherent instability".

As for Dunster Butter Cross and Gallox Bridge, Dunster, the "limited subject matter" doesn't apply to them since they're not lists, so they would both need to get up to GA before the topic could be nominated. There have been very short GAs and FAs in the past, so I wouldn't be too discouraged if there is little to write about the subject, as long as it's comprehensive of the information that does exist. Looking at the other articles in the topic, many of them are very short but also GAs, such as The Abbot's Fish House, Meare and Muchelney Abbey.--十八 23:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. It's not spelled out exactly, but the intended purpose of AAs is either lists that are too short to be FLs but either will be longer one day or have a good reason not to get merged into a parent article, or for unreleased media (films, video games, books) that will be GA'd within 3 months after release. GAN does not have a minimum length requirement (unlike FLC's informal "10 items" requirement), so as long as you can prove that you exhausted all sources, there's no reason you can't GA extremely short articles- and if you can't, you'd have to prove it by attempting to get them to GA first, and then justify why they shouldn't just be a mention in List of English Heritage properties in Somerset. --Pres N 04:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and explanations. I will continue to work on them for GAN and may come back here later.— Rod ^talk 08:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Actor Featured topics

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Should a FT/GT on a film actor include all of his films? Would the actor's biography, filmography and accolades page be sufficient to have a FT/GT?--Skr15081997 (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, there is at least one precedent with Wikipedia:Featured topics/Maya Angelou which only had Angelou's lists of her works, themes in her autobiographies, and honors as an overview topic (see WIAFT criterion 1(e)).--十八 22:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The actor also owns 2 production companies. Should they also be included in FT/GT?--Skr15081997 (talk) 05:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say yes, but I'm not entirely sure. I would think that a topic on Jimmy Wales would have Wikimedia Foundation in it, for instance.--十八 07:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's the topic

Akshay Kumar

3 articles

Akshay Kumar filmography

List of awards and nominations received by Akshay Kumar

Should Hari Om Entertainment and Grazing Goat Pictures be also included?--Skr15081997 (talk) 08:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Having those 2 would be nice, but not really necessary IMO. This guy seems to be established well before these companies, while Wales is not well known for work unrelated to WF. Nergaal (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Spanish conquest of the Maya

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Spanish conquest of the Maya

5 articles

Spanish conquest of Chiapas

Spanish conquest of Guatemala

Spanish conquest of Petén

Spanish conquest of Yucatán

I've not nominated a Good Topic before, and am wondering if the above group is suitable for nomination. Any feedback appreciated. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Topic seems to be fine. Nergaal (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, you're good; though you should create a book for the topic and pick a (free-use) image to represent it before you nominate. --Pres N 19:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's great, many thanks. Simon Burchell (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

William Burges

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I was wondering if somebody could tell me what would be required for a featured article topic on Burges. Would it have to include all of his buildings with articles and furniture pieces?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

A topic needs a minimum of 3 articles. List of buildings by William Burges would be the second one. Unless there is another separate, stand-alone article or list on his life or awards, the only way to have a topic about him is to include a good chunk of his work, presumably at least the most important works like the grade-1 ones. Nergaal (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

FT criteria clarification

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For anybody watching this page I would appreciate some further input at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_criteria#Intro_para_as_requirement_for_FT. Nergaal (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hrabri-class submarines

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

G'day all, I have not previously nominated a Good Topic, but was hoping for some feedback on this:

Hrabri-class submarine

3 articles

Hrabri

Nebojša

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peacemaker67 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Everything seems to be in order. If you nominate it, it would probably pass.--十八 02:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I nominated it here. Hopefully I got everything right. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Election of 1880

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I hopa to create a featured topic on the United States presidential election, 1880 some time in the next few months. I've been kind of puzzled over the parameters, though. I had been going forward under the formula that the topic would include articles on: the election itself, candidates who received more than 1% of the popular vote, the party conventions that nominated those candidates, and any other contenders at those conventions who polled more than 10% of the delegates' votes for the nomination (there's a chart on my user page that lists them all). Is this a reasonable list of articles? The last group, the also-rans, was particularly hard to quantify, and 10% is kind of an arbitrary figure. I'd be grateful for any advice. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the 5 candidates, 2 conventions (maybe the 3rd too), the results breakdown list, and possibly the 2 VP nominees that got votes. Nergaal (talk) 20:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

- Hmm. It's going to be difficult to make even a GA for the obscure candidate who got all of 700 votes. I guess I'll concentrate on something else. Thanks for the feedback. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  - I did not realize he got only 100 votes. You can probably skip him. 3 candidates (not 100% sure about the 4th), 2 conventions, and results breakdown should suffice (maybe also the winning VP?). Nergaal (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
    - Yeah, the 4th (Dow) is borderline for me, too, but he's fairly well-known. A GA shouldn't be too difficult to put together. Same goes for the results breakdown, I guess. Thanks again. --Coemgenus (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas II You

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Would every linked article in the track listing have to ba a GA for a Good Article Topic, or just the ones that Mariah has an article for? (One Child, When Christmas Comes, Oh Santa, Christmas Time Is in the Air Again, Auld Lang Syne New Years Anthem)? — Calvin999 19:44, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I say just the songs that are hers, rather than covers of classics that don't have an article about her version. Though, I'd add "All I Want for Christmas Is You"; even though that article isn't primarily about the specific version that's on this album but instead the one on her first Christmas album, it was still a Mariah Carey song and the article does discuss the remix from this album. --Pres N 21:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

In the past, all the songs that have articles were required. That is, if she has a cover of a song famous enough to have its own article, that one needs to be GA too. However, only singles and particularly notable songs require separate articles, not all the songs on the album. Nergaal (talk) 22:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

So the 5 I mentioned above + AIWFCIY is what I can submit? The others are either songs which have been covered by a hell of a lot of people, or Christmas carols, one is actually a TV show. — Calvin999 08:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Based on the previous successful noms I've seen, the topic would include all 12 articles. Nergaal (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Manhattan Project

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Moving the discussion here from Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Manhattan Project/archive1, I am considering whether we could create some subtopics of the Manhattan Project eg.

Good to see that you're breaking down your massive topic like I suggested a few years ago. There is a problem here in that you haven't yet done the last two directors of the Met Lab. And are you sure that these are all of the notable people from the Met Lab?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:25, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Would you mind creating a book for it? I.e. click on the redlink here or the nom page. In a book you have the chance to organize the article better. Nergaal (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

New topic idea?

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I am not sure where to go with this idea. The Topic pages have postings with the most recent date five years ago. There are “topics” with as few as two articles in Good Topic Nominations and Featured Topic Nominations, but I have an idea for just a Topic. I have tried searching both in the Search Wikipedia and Google Search. Any suggestion for help would be appreciated.

Proposed Topic: Virginia Constitutional Conventions

Articles:

Virginia Conventions

Fifth Virginia Convention

Virginia Ratifying Convention

Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829-1830

Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1850

Virginia Secession Convention of 1861

Wheeling Convention

Virginia Loyalist Convention of 1864

Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1868

Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1902

Format included in each article:

Introduction with image of presiding officer

Background and composition with image of meeting place

Meeting and debate with images of representative participants

Outcomes

Chart of delegates and counties or districts sometimes with significant votes

Byzantine Empire

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This would be my first attempt on nominating a Featured/Good topic. I would like to see your feedback on this:

Would it be nicer if I focus on the military aspect and avoid such a broad topic? --Mhhossein ^talk 07:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

As I see almost all articles except the mail one (Byzantine Empire) relate to the "military history of Byzantine Empire". Thus, the title of the topic is not suitable. In addition, I suggest to add few more articles including: Byzantine Empire under the Komnenos dynasty and Battle of Manzikert.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Before starting a detailed discussion on large topics it is better to create a detailed book. That helps a lot clarifying what ought to be within the topic. Nergaal (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Never Let Me Down

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Never Let Me Down

6 articles

Never Let Me Down

"Day-In Day-Out"

"Time Will Crawl"

"Never Let Me Down"

Glass Spider Tour

Glass Spider

Howdy everyone. I'm close to getting the last of 6 articles about this album promoted to GA status (it's in the nomination queue now). Since this is my first good topic, I thought I'd put out a call here first for feedback:

Is anything missing?
Anything else I need to know/do other than getting "Glass Spider" to GA quality?

Thanks! 87Fan (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Don't relink Never Let Me Down (album) in the box, just have it in the lead

Thanks, I will do this. I also need to add some sort of overview/lede, right?

Current consensus seems to be that you don't need to include cover songs unless this version is the most well-known; I'm a little on the fence here since the Bowie version was released as a single so you might have some trouble there.

You're referring to "Bang Bang", right? As it wasn't an official single release (just a promotional single) I wasn't sure if it had to be a GA article or not. What's the best way to get an answer here?

You've got the tour and the tour video, so I think everything else is fine (oh, you'll need to make a book befe you actually nominate- click the red book link and make something that looks like the books for other topics). --Pres N 17:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I will add that. Thank you, 87Fan (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

London Monopoly places

Latest comment: 7 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

This is a project I've been working on for about two years (see User:Ritchie333/Monopoly). This is basically improving our articles on every property that is a square on the standard British Monopoly board (see Category:London Monopoly places) to GA. It's not too far off being done, and I plan to put this all for a Good Topic nomination as and when all are GAs. The current state is as follows:

All I really want to know is - have I missed anything off? (If somebody says I have to get Free parking to GA I will bang my head against a desk...) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a really interesting and major project! So I really hate to say this... Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria, point 2: "The topic has an introductory and summary lead article or list". Not only is there not an article/list on the London Monopoly places, there isn't even one on the UK Monopoly game version itself. I'd personally be hesitant to support this topic with a lead article of Monopoly (game)#U.K. version, though maybe others wouldn't have an issue. --Pres N 15:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@PresN: I can probably "hack" that by creating List of London Monopoly places and passing it through FLC. The choice of locations by Victor Watson was a bit off-the-wall, and there is a story to tell (particularly Vine Street, which went to AfD once before somebody shouted "Monopoly!") - Monopoly (game)#U.K. version has got the gist of this. Tim Moore's book has got a lengthy introduction, and the topic has got some news sources, so we can probably create something that withstands the standard inclusion policies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think if you have that, or a "London Monopoly" article, then it should be all good to go. --Pres N 16:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to break the bubble but I see 2 problems:

1) needs a strong lead; I am wondering if any lead article not existent yet would ever pass an AfD

2) there is a serious discrepancy between any such possible lead and real-life places. All these 20+ places only have a footnote related to Monopoly, which makes it not seem like a natural subcomponent of a topic. Nergaal (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nergaal: As a manager once said, "I don't see challenges, I see opportunities". (I'm the guy who looks at this and thinks, "right, I like a challenge!") I have created List of London Monopoly places; as far as notability goes the related topic of the Monopoly pub crawl was sent to AfD back in 2009 and closed as "merge". The specific London set is well-known enough to be documented in several sources, particularly the pub crawl element; it is also mentioned in various promotions such as a current MacDonalds Monopoly "instant win" game that has posters up all over the place, using Mayfair as the jackpot. (All of the mentions I can find are in tabloids, so it can't go in the article). It does help that there is a critically successful book that is entirely dedicated to this very specific topic. (Sample review : "Growing up in Australia my knowledge of London was all-but restricted to the Monopoly board.") Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

"London Monopoly" is not an actual term if you google it. See wp:FORK. If you want to have a real chance at getting this, I STRONGLY suggest creating "Localization of Monopoly game in the UK". That way you can cover all the versions sold around an actual notable market, and you can discuss sales too and books such as the one you listed. With such a lead, a topic could work. I am 99% sure the current version of the article you presented will be AfDed and/or rejected at WP:FLC. Nergaal (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I did google it. If I type "london monopoly" into Google, the first hit is http://londonist.com/2016/07/the-geographic-monopoly-board whose opening sentence is "The London Monopoly board is one of the many icons of our city, familiar to millions", the second is http://www.runnersguidetolondon.co.uk/monopoly-challenge.html - a challenge to run every street, the third is a Google Maps overlay with all the streets. As the article says (and backed up by multiple reliable sources), the London version is orders of magnitude more significant than any other as it was sold to the rest of the Commonwealth (eg: Australia and New Zealand). None of the other boards are notable at all so there is no point in doing anything with them. If you don't live outside the US and are under 35 (so won't remember when the London set was the only one you could buy full stop) then too bad. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't get those links when I google it. Anyways, I doubt that minor references like these two are sufficient to pass wp:FORK. Again, List_of_licensed_and_localized_editions_of_Monopoly:_Europe#United_Kingdom seems like a more natural topic for a new article that would pass AfD. Nergaal (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't get those links when I google it So you think I'm a liar? I'm out of this conversation, have a nice life. (and don't take it out on me just because you got your rollback privileges dinged...) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Neah, nuanced jokes don't translate very well in writing. :) I was trying to say that the localization probably gives you those search results (those links might appear if I go down the results), which makes me think that those links are not of wider impact (I am assuming outside of London). I don't think the list you have now will likely pass FLC, so, at least in my head, it would make sense to expand the scope of such a list to something more easily palpable. Something like "Monopoly in the UK" would make for a sensible, split article, since, I think, should be one of the largest markets for the game. PS: the rollback think has nothing to do with it; if anything, this project helps me relax away from contentious ones :). Nergaal (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I have phoned a friend. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Marvel vs. Capcom

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Marvel vs. Capcom

9 articles

X-Men vs. Street Fighter

Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter

Marvel vs. Capcom: Clash of Super Heroes

Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes

Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds

Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3

Marvel vs. Capcom Origins

Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite

I've been working on getting these articles up to GAs for the past couple years, and this will be my first attempt at a GT nomination. Before I proceed, I'd greatly appreciate any feedback/constructive criticism about the articles or the topic as a whole. Thank you! Wani (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Infinite has to be included in the topic, since it's a part of this series; as it's unreleased, per WP:FT? it has to be an "audited article", which means a completed PR and as solid as it can get without the game being released. It also needs to get bumped up to GA+ within 3 months of release. --Pres N 16:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. I already have a completed peer review for Infinite. Which icon do I use for it in the topic box? Wani (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

--Pres N 17:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Wani (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@PresN: Should I just go ahead and list the nomination, or should I wait a week or so for more feedback? Wani (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

@Wani: You'll need to make a Book (sorry, forgot about that- just check any other VG topic for an example) but then I think you're good to go for nominating. --Pres N 14:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Spanish conquest of the Maya

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Spanish conquest of the Maya

5 articles

Chiapas

Guatemala

Petén

Yucatán

This became a Good Topic just over two years ago, and I have since then been steadily increasing the geographical area covered by Spanish Conquest articles. Honduras and El Salvador both had a "Maya fringe", although the majority of the territory now included in these countries was non-Maya. The Spanish conquest of Honduras article in particular details the conquest of Maya parts of the country, with named Maya leaders, battles etc. The Spanish conquest of El Salvador article mentions the presence of Maya groups in the conquered area, but without any detail. Both of these articles have passed GA. Should either (or both) of these articles be included in the topic? Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

17th century papal conclaves

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Never done this before, so the template syntax is causing problems here, but I created a book at Book:17th century papal conclaves, which lists all of the articles that would be a part of the proposed topic. I've done 4/12 of the 17th century ones to GA, and I should have two ready for GAN within the week, bringing it up to 50% that are at GA or in progress.

Realizing that, I supposed its about time to ask questions on the technical nature of the criteria. My main question here is re: the lead article. Papal conclave is already at GA status, and seems like a good lead for the topic. In terms of feedback, do people think that would be a good lead or would it be necessary to make a featured list of the 17th century ones? @Ritchie333 and PresN: pinging the two of you since you seem to be the most active on this board. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Having reviewed the Papal conclave article, I think that a list article of 17th century papal conclaves (hence implying that a per-century division is appropriate for other papal conclaves) would really clean up and sharpen Template:Papal elections and conclaves from 1061. Seems like 10-15ish per (completed) century is a really good number per sub-topic. On the other hand, List of papal conclaves already exists and is already FL, so that might be a good parent article as well, even though it extends well beyond this specific century. Do we have precedent of one "list" article ever being used for two or more, potential or actual, constituent, discrete and non-overlapping featured/good topics? Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Just using an expanded list as the lead is not uncommon; starting from the top of WP:FT I see Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn, whose lead list is actually about all of the listed buildings in the area, not just Grade I ones; it potentially could also be used for e.g. a topic on Grade II buildings in the area. I couldn't find anywhere where two topics actually used the same list as the lead, though that's likely just an artifact of how few areas actually have multiple topics. I believe prior "precedent", as far as it stretches, would be that you could use List of papal conclaves as the lead list for multiple single-century topics, though if you actually ever got every conclave promoted the topics would all get merged into a single mega-topic, as happened to the German Battleships FT. --Pres N 02:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest using List of papal elections, rather than creating a by-century sub-list, which is perhaps unlikely to pass FL as it risks being regarded as an unnecessary content fork. Bencherlite ^Talk 07:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks all for the advice. Never done this before, so the help is appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Group 3 elements

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I haven't looked too much into the process, but could Group 3 elements become a good topic? The main issue I see is that there is no consistent definition. It could include Scandium, Yttrium, Lanthanum, and Actinium, or Scandium, Yttrium, Lutetium, and Lawrencium. Or all of them? What about Unbiunium? --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 18:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Central Link light rail stations

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've been working on getting these station articles up to GA for just over three years now, and will soon be ready to nominate the topic. I chose to go with the line article as the lead, rather than the list of stations, since the other stations are basically streetcar stops and are a long distance away from the closest Central Link station. Would that be able to pass GTC? Sounder Bruce 07:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: I think so, as its more narrowly focused on just this line, though I'd also pipe the articles like so:

--Pres N 14:01, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Pink Floyd

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Pink Floyd

36 articles

Syd Barrett

The Piper at the Gates of Dawn

A Saucerful of Secrets

More

Ummagumma

Atom Heart Mother

Now, I like a challenge, and one Good Topic that has been on my radar for years is Pink Floyd. A lot of articles have been taken to GA and FA already, but there's plenty more to do and a lot of the remainder can be tackled by the same core 4-5 book sources. The articles above are the ones I think we could not possibly meet the GT criteria without - the core article itself, the band members, all the major albums (I've left off a few compilations like A Collection of Great Dance Songs but that might be a mistake), songs that were either major hits or have achieved major critical acclaim, and essential lists. My question really is, what else are we missing? The book has a lot more content, but to be frank some of the individual song articles on the lesser known albums don't really meet WP:NSONG and could be reduced to redirects (though doubtless somebody will moan). Paging the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd regulars @Parrot of Doom:, @Pigsonthewing:, @John:, @Yeepsi: for comment. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Does anyone have any ideas about this? @The Rambling Man:, @FlightTime:, @Dr. Blofeld:? Does anyone even like Pink Floyd these days? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Mabbett does! :-)♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: Are you asking if we should create article's of their less notable works ? - FlightTime (open channel) 23:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Not so much that as - is the list above going to be suitable for a good topic ie: if I took every article (that's not at least already there) to GA / FL, and then nominated the lot for GT, would somebody say "aha, what about 'x'"? Everything in Category:Top-importance Pink Floyd articles absolutely has to go in, but for Category:High-importance Pink Floyd articles we've got Pink Floyd World Tour 1968 which isn't particularly important, and Bob Klose who is only a footnote in Floyd's history. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

It would be easier if you just focused on their studio albums like other topics have done at Wikipedia:Good topics/Music#Discographies. That removes any possibility of any articles missing, and gives you less articles to work with, improving the chance of the topic passing its nomination.--十八 21:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

They've been—naturally—extensively bootlegged; that article should probably be in there (or is it a list?—if so and IRC then it should be beefed up). >SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 12:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Dhammakaya movement series

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I'd like to consult about submitting the articles about the Dhammakaya movement as a good series. There's a template with all the articles here. There are four articles which aren't GA yet, and I'd like to ask your opinion as to whether it'd be required to bring them all to GA level. Specifically, I'm in doubt whether the articles Luang Por Dhammajayo and Dhammakaya Movement UK have GA potential. If i don't include these two articles, do you think the series can still be submitted?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:13, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Any thoughts, PresN?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Sonic Gems Collection

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Sonic Gems Collection

4 articles

Sonic CD

Sonic the Fighters

Sonic R

This topic would comprise articles about games that were featured in the 2005 video game compilation Sonic Gems Collection. The compilation's three "featured" games are all GAs. However, there are nine other bonus games in the compilation, but the only one that is beyond B-class is Sonic Spinball (an FA). My question is, would this not be able to become a good topic unless the other articles are worked up to standards? JOE BRO 64 00:54, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Every single game in the collection would have to be included, including the unlockabables and the Japanese exclusive games to satisfy the criteria for completeness, 1(d). 1(c) would also be an issue at present, as there is no navbox or category that includes all of them.--十八 01:22, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Sounder commuter rail stations

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Quick question about this topic I'm working on: the last two stations aren't scheduled to open until 2036, and have extremely limited information available. Would they still need to go through peer review? Sounder Bruce 05:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why those would need their own article, could be wrapped up into Sound commuter rail article for 15 years or so until there is enough coverage to fork? Kees08 (Talk) 06:30, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've constructed this Good Topic from Category:Nuclear history of the United Kingdom. All the articles in it are GA of FA. It would be nice to include the articles on Category:British nuclear weapons testing, but the categories are not organised that way. Could I include them? Or should they have a separate topic? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Nashville Sounds

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nashville Sounds

14 articles

History

Herschel Greer Stadium

First Tennessee Park

Seasons

Records

No-hitters

Awards, All-Stars, and league leaders

All-time roster

Managers

Coaches

Owners and executives

Broadcasters

Opening Day starting pitchers

I plan on self-nominating this topic within the next month after the conclusion of their season. I'd like to know if anyone sees anything major that should be addressed before nomination. In particular, I'm unsure about List of Nashville Sounds no-hitters. Too short for a FL, it has been peer reviewed, but has since been significantly expanded and reformatted. I currently have it submitted for a new PR. Should I wait for a new PR or is it good as is? NatureBoyMD (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ten Principal Disciples

Latest comment: 4 years ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Just pasting this here to show the development of the topic, and to ask some people for their opinion on developing this set into a Good Topic:

Ten Principal Disciples of the Buddha

11 articles

Śāriputra

Maudgalyāyana

Mahākāśyapa

Subhuti

Purna Maitrayaniputra

Kātyāyana

Aniruddha

Upāli

Rāhula

Ānanda

@Wikiman5676, Vami IV, Paul 012, Joshua Jonathan, Javierfv1212, Chiswick Chap, and JimRenge:, comments are welcome.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:53, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, why not. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Chiswick Chap! I am having doubts about the main title index article, Ten Principal Disciples. Not sure if it is notable enough.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"... of Buddha"? Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham, good idea. Like Chiswick Chap I prefer Ten Principal Disciples of Buddha. JimRenge (talk) 17:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Still, the question remains as to whether Ten Principal Disciples is a sufficiently notable topic.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 23:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Absolutely. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 01:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I have done my own assessment of the start-class biographies listed and found all but one to be C-class. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 12:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Vami_IV!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Vami_IV How about the main index article, Ten Principal Disciples? Is that still at start level, you think?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Oop, hadn't thought to check that one. C-class. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 20:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Great, Vami_IV, thanks!--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 10:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

v t e Mother series
Nintendo Ape HAL Laboratory
Games	Mother (EarthBound Beginnings) Mother 2 (EarthBound) Mother 3 development fan translation
People	Shigesato Itoi Satoru Iwata Keiichi Suzuki Hirokazu Tanaka Nobuyuki Inoue Marcus Lindblom
Characters	Giygas Ness Porky Minch
Related	Fandom Megalovania Music Super Smash Bros.
Category