Featured and Good topics in Wikipedia A featured topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles).A good topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles) with a less stringent quality threshold than a featured topic. This page is for the nomination of potential featured and good topics. See the good and featured topic criteria for criteria on both types of topic. If you would like to ask any questions about your topic and the featured topic process before submitting it, visit Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates. Before nominating a topic, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Featured topic questions. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FTC/GTC process. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. The featured topic director, GamerPro64, or his delegate Juhachi, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FT or GT status, consensus must be reached for a group to be promoted to featured or good topic status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates topic and archived. You may want to check previous archived nominations first: |
Good content: Good and featured topic tools: |
Nomination procedureTo create a new nomination use the form below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Saffron/archive1) and click the "Create new nomination" button. Once the nomination page is created, remember to transclude it in the appropriate section below, to leave nomination templates on the talk pages of the articles nominated for the topic, and to create appropriate books (see Book:Jupiter for a good example). For detailed instructions on how to nominate topics or add articles to existing topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure. Supporting and objectingPlease review all the articles of the nominated topic with the featured topic criteria in mind before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. Following the creation of the book, NoomBot will create a book report (see example) containing details about cleanup issues (only those that have been flagged with cleanup templates, so it may not pick up everything), and various tools to inspect external links or resolve disambiguation pages. It can be a good idea to check the report and inspect links to see if certain articles need some cleanup (doing this before the nomination is even better).
For a topic to be promoted to featured topic status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. If enough time passes without objections being resolved (at least one week), nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived. Nominations will stay here for ten days if there is unanimous consent, or longer if warranted by debate. |
Contents
Featured topic nominations
Good topic nominations
NWA World Historic Middleweight Champions
8 articles
NWA World Historic Middleweight Champions |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
This topic is about the Lucha Libre, professional wrestling championship, the NWA World Historic Middleweight Championship and include Good Articles for all wrestlers to hold the championship to create a complete topic here. There is a navigation box that unites all subjects under one and I believe this hits all the marks for a Good Topic. Note: The image is of one of the champions, there is no free image of the championship itself, I did consider a CMLL logo (the company that promotes it) but thought a picture of one of the champions would be better. In Mexico the championships usually do not change hands very often (four champions in six years) so it's not an impossible task to keep the topic up. I am confident I can bring any new championship article to GAN in a week or two after the change.
I will create the book in the next day or so. MPJ-DK 23:01, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Seems ok, but maybe the topic should be "champions" instead of championship. Nergaal (talk) 15:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Nergaal that is already the topic name?? MPJ-DK 18:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- I just noticed that there are 2 more "NWA World Historic Light ???weight Championship". Is there a sensible way to have this 3 titles within a single topic? I can't find right away how are these 3 linked together. Nergaal (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- I see what you meant now, got it. Actually they fit into a higher level topic I am working on that inudes all current CMLL championships, for that each group of champions would be sub topics to keep the topic size managable. i have not nominated that yet, I want to.go straight to Feature Topic with thst nomination since I am close to that criteria now. MPJ-DK 14:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Rockingham 500
3 articles
Rockingham 500 |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
-
- Contributor(s): MWright96
All of the articles are at GA level and am confident that they satisfy the GAT guidelines. MWright96 (talk) 20:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support Looking the articles it looks like it includes all related articles, they are GAs and all. Happy to support. MPJ-DK 22:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Considering the scope of the topic, Rockingham Motor Speedway need to be included. It was build specifically for this event, and it just happens that instead of demolishing it, they refurbished it for other (minor) events. Nergaal (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Manhattan Project
Set of articles about the Manhattan Project, covering the articles in its NavBox
-
- Contributor(s): Hawkeye7
All the articles in the topic have passed GA or FA --Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Wouldn't an overview topic be more applicable for this subject? There are simply too many articles that could have something to do with the Manhattan Project, and a delist on any one of them would delist the topic. For instance, if you're going to include Uranium, then it doesn't make sense to keep out enriched uranium (which links to the Manhattan Project in its lead) since that was what was actually used in Little Boy. --十八 06:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's already an overview topic. It represents only the most significant 100 articles in the Manhattan Project category. And enriched uranium is not in the category. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose This is not a good way to have an overview topic. Even of it is right, it looks like a mish-mash of articles. The first step I would suggest is create a FL on "People ivolved in the Manhattan Project". Maybe even a Sites of GA/FA. Nergaal (talk) 09:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Same way you listed here ~50 people you can have an overview FL on people with only 50 of the 361 articles. Nergaal (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Or just three. Per Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria:
-
- There will be no lead article
- There will be no common template, common category or super-category.
- Every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic will not also be within the scope of a non-lead article that is included in the topic
-
- In other words, it will never form a featured topic. Whereas the proposed topic does. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Or just three. Per Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria:
- Same way you listed here ~50 people you can have an overview FL on people with only 50 of the 361 articles. Nergaal (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Oppose - This seems to fail 1d of the criteria (There are no obvious gaps (missing or low quality articles) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together). Category:Manhattan Project has 84 pages in it with another nine subcats, I fail to see why some articles have been selected for this topic, whilst others haven't. Of course, I'm happy to proven wrong, but I don't think this meets the criteria. Maybe, some of the articles could be nominated as smaller subtopics if they are complete. Sorry Hawkeye, I realise the huge amount of effort you've put into this, and I thank you a lot for that. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 04:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I just want to pipe in and say what incredible work has been done on these articles. It is an amazing amount of effort to bring these articles up to such high standard. I do agree with the previous comment, it seem some of the articles from Category:Manhattan Project seem to be left out arbitrarily. Maybe this can be renominated in the future? There are not that many missing pages. Again great work! Mattximus (talk) 03:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Having read over the navigation box, it does seem like nearly everything important is included on this list. I did find S-1 Uranium Committee to not be included, but it seems very important as the precursor to the Manhattan Project? As an aside that science fiction story doesn't belong in that nav box. Mattximus (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- The science fiction story isn't in the NavBox (Template:Manhattan Project). I will upgrade the S-1 Uranium Committee article. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Having read over the navigation box, it does seem like nearly everything important is included on this list. I did find S-1 Uranium Committee to not be included, but it seems very important as the precursor to the Manhattan Project? As an aside that science fiction story doesn't belong in that nav box. Mattximus (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
- Again, the topic follows the navigation box, which was determined by consensus as the most important articles. Let's have a look at them. Articles in bold are in the set:
Extended content |
---|
|
- The category is unimportant and can be ignored. The set follows the NavBox. So, which article do you think warrants inclusion, and which one should be removed? Note that there is no possibility of some of them ever being brought to GA standard. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
- Let me try this again. The current proposed topic is very cluncky to say the least. EVEN if it was 100% the correct form, say somebody opens the topic, what do they see? A bunch of names together. The only large topic that comes into my mind is some German ship topic where 90 articles are obviously name of the ships. In this list, there is a ton of stuff that you have no idea what they are, and maybe the only way to find out is to actually read the entire article. The point of the topic is to quickly introduce a reader to the topic with a menu, not to give him a soup to begin with. That is why, an overview topic should have a few sensible subtopics (i.e. People involved in MP, Timeline of MP, Locations of MP, etc) plus a few obvious ones like Fat Man, maybe Oppenhauer, etc. Even the template presented right above my reply is more clear that the proposed topic, and it kinda alludes that there are some gaps in the topic. Please try again to reorganize the topic and come up with some bare-bone ideas for article names and then let's start the discussion from there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nergaal (talk • contribs) 21:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Cliché (Hush Hush)
Alexandra Stan, a Romanian singer, has released a Japan-only reissue of her debut studio album in 2013, which was also her last activity with her old management due to a scandal between the singer and her then-manager over compensation and physical abuse.
4 articles
Cliché (Hush Hush) |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
-
- Contributor(s): Cartoon network freak
All the articles of this topic passed the GA process, lately the main one. I think this should be promoted to GAT ;) --Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support – Meets all the required criteria. This might be a stretch, but should it include any songs from Saxobeats? Carbrera (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support - Album and all song articles are included, complete topic and stable to boot too. Looks good to me. MPJ-DK 22:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Support: Looks good, meets WP:WIAGT. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- This nom needs an intro blurb. Nergaal (talk) 08:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
NWA World Historic Light Heavyweight Champions
6 articles
NWA World Historic Light Heavyweight Championship |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
This topic is about the Lucha Libre, professional wrestling championship, the NWA World Historic Light Heavyweight Championship and include Good Articles for all wrestlers to hold the championship to create a complete topic here. There is a navigation box that unites all subjects under one and I believe this hits all the marks for a Good Topic. Note: The image is of one of the champions, there is no free image of the championship itself, I did consider a CMLL logo (the company that promotes it) but thought a picture of one of the champions would be better. In Mexico the championships usually do not change hands very often (four champions in six years) so it's not an impossible task to keep the topic up. I am confident I can bring any new championship article to GAN in a week or two after the change. MPJ-DK 19:52, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
- Well it just changed hands three days ago. The newest champion is Hechicero. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are right it did, and I actually forgot I already nominated this for Good Topic so thank you for posting here to bring it up on my watch list. Hechicero is a GA nominate now. I don't know what the process is now? it was a surprise addition to the topic while nominated. Do I withdraw it for now and renominate when Hechicero is a GA? MPJ-DK 13:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- @GamerPro64: Ping FTC director. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- Already made a response here. GamerPro64 19:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- @GamerPro64: Ping FTC director. Armbrust The Homunculus 19:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
- You are right it did, and I actually forgot I already nominated this for Good Topic so thank you for posting here to bring it up on my watch list. Hechicero is a GA nominate now. I don't know what the process is now? it was a surprise addition to the topic while nominated. Do I withdraw it for now and renominate when Hechicero is a GA? MPJ-DK 13:12, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- So the direction I was given is that with Hechicero being a GAN now, this topic should be evaluated for GT and supported/opposed as if Hechicero is a GA right now. if the nom fails then I will immediately withdraw this current nomination myself and not renominate unless I get it passed for GA prior to. MPJ-DK 17:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Update - the Hechicero article is now a Good Article as well,making it fully a Good Topic. MPJ-DK 22:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Marvel Cinematic Universe films (1st supplementary nomination)
This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Marvel Cinematic Universe films for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
16 articles
Marvel Cinematic Universe films |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Captain America: Civil War has just become a GA, allowing it to be added to this Good Topic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support Looks good. Nickag989talk 19:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support my favorite 2016 movie and a worthy addition to the topic. MPJ-DK 18:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Director comment - With the Doctor Strange movie out now I think that it should be worth bringing up in this sup nom too. GamerPro64 19:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- Doctor Strange cannot be nominated for GA until it is no longer playing in theaters. It will have until one month after its physical home media release to be nominated for a Good Article, at which point, should it pass, it will be added to this topic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- I know that. But it can be nominated for Peer Review to be included into the topic. 3.c in the criteria clears that up. GamerPro64 02:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm sorry, but what is the point of doing that, if we're still gong to have to wait until they are GAs anyways. Especially at this point, the peer review would essentially be the GA review, considering the state of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- It was just a suggestion so that another sup nom wouldn't be needed so soon. GamerPro64 14:06, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Why not add PR of the post-production movies? Having a nomination come out every 3 months seems a bit excessive. Nergaal (talk) 07:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- Doctor Strange won't be nominated for at least 6 months, which would be the next one. But I can talk with other regular editors of these articles about PR-ing the post-production movies, so come May 2017, when Doctor Strange should be ready for GA nom, and before Guardians 2 releases, we could make one large nomination for those two, plus Spider-Man: Homecoming and Thor: Ragnarok. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Alkali metals
8 articles
Alkali metals |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
-
- Contributor(s): WikiProject Elements
Not enough chemistry topics! (Partial self nom, as I worked on two of these articles: alkali metal and ununennium.) --Double sharp (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Support, pending assurances that 119 will be expanded when it's discovered within the next few years :D - one can hope the table will go past 118! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Box includes 8 articles but says 7 at the top. Something weird going on with Ununennius? I noticed ot was not in the table on the alkali metals artcle like the rest? MPJ-DK 16:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, my mistake, I miscounted. Ununennium is not on the table in the main article because it hasn't been discovered yet. Hopefully it will be in the next few years, upon which we will make the necessary updates! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Intro blurb should list the order from lightest to heaviest - for those without chem background. Nergaal (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
- Done Didn't include element 119, since it's not yet been discovered (and chemical investigation after that will probably have to wait another decade or so). Double sharp (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Topic removal candidates
Metroid titles
13 articles
Metroid titles |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
I am nominating this topic as it fails criterion 3.b due to Metroid Prime: Federation Force not being at least GA status after its grace period. GamerPro64 20:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
- Demote for the reasons stated above. Since the grace period for [Metroid Prime: Federation Force]] has passed, this topic unfortunately must be demoted. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Para-skiing classification
16 articles
Para-alpine skiing classification |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
This topic was promoted in this form. On November 4, Fram performed this edit removing 13 articles that were delisted from GA status. If those 13 articles were thought to be in the topic when promoted, I don't see how this topic is complete and it therefore is not compliant with the criteria, specifically 3. (b) (ii). I know there is normally a grace period, but with 13 articles not up to standard, I don't think it is required. Note that two of the three current articles are also GARs. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable to me. We need to get someone assigned to re-submit the articles. I'll raise the issue in Perth. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Director comment - If a topic loses Good Articles they're not supposed to be removed from the topic unless the article was deleted or merged into another article. I restored the topic to normal with obvious icon differences. GamerPro64 14:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
-
- The lead article and the other article that had been on the same GAR have both been delisted as GAs today. I have updated the topic accordingly. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Delist - pretty clear, almost all were demoted. Mattximus (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delist: Almost all of the articles were demoted so it should be delisted. Aoba47 (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)