Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Featured and Good topics in Wikipedia

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

A good topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles) and that is of lesser quality 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.

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.

Purge the cache to refresh this page
Shortcuts:
WP:FTC
WP:GTC

Featured content:

Good content:

Good and featured topic tools:

Nomination procedure

For how to nominate topics or how to add articles to existing topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure.

Supporting and objecting

Please review all the articles of the nominated topic with the featured topic criteria in mind before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

  • To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the article nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link).
  • If you approve of a nomination, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write '''Oppose''' or '''Object''' followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored.
    • To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

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

Contents


[edit] Featured topic nominations

Please add new nominations to the top.

[edit] Towns in Trafford

There are five towns in the metropolitan borough of Trafford: Altrincham, Partington, Urmston, Sale, and Stretford. All have been assessed as being at least GA, (Altrincham, Sale, and Stretford are FAs, and with Trafford 67% of the articles within the topic are FAs). As such, these articles meet the Featured Topic criteria of being comprehensive in their topic (towns in Trafford). The lead article, Trafford, covers the subject of the borough all of these towns are in and summarises the topic. Nev1 (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

11 articles
Featured article Towns in Trafford
Featured article Altrincham
Featured article Stretford
Good article Partington
Good article Urmston
Featured article Sale


  • Support - very good. I do not think the lead is a perfect fit to the scope of the topic but I think the scope is a very natural one and cannot find a more appropriate lead. As a comment though, really nitpicky here but I think it should be "Towns of Trafford" rather than "Towns in Trafford" - rst20xx (talk) 21:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support, excellent work. If only we had such high-quality geography articles! –Juliancolton | Talk 18:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • It was a long hard struggle Julian, particularly with Sale, so thanks for your support. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Han Dynasty

Self-nom: I believe this group of articles meet the Featured Topic criteria. Two out of six are Featured Articles (i.e. Han Dynasty and Economy of the Han Dynasty), so that meets the 33% rule. The articles Government, History, Science and technology, and Society and culture are all currently Good Articles. Government of the Han Dynasty is a current featured article candidate, but the outcome of its candidacy for FA status will not affect these articles' candidacy for FT status (according to Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria). Besides, it's already got four supports! Lol. I hope you guys approve; this will be my second Chinese dynasty featured topic after Song Dynasty. Like the Song Dynasty FT, this one also has a cool template at the bottom!--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE! Government of the Han Dynasty is now a featured article!--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
6 articles
Featured article Han Dynasty

Featured article Economy
Featured articleGovernment

Good articleHistory
Good articleScience and technology

Good articleSociety and culture


  • Support - All very well-written and researched articles clearly linked under the topic. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Excellent! Thanks for the support.--Pericles of AthensTalk 03:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. I see your concern, but I would like to be consistent with the other featured topic on a Chinese dynasty here. If the Han emperor list article was absolutely essential for this topic, then the Song Dynasty featured topic should have never passed, since there is, after all, a List of Song Emperors. Is there a specific reason why you think it is an obvious gap for this topic?--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Getting List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty up to FL status may take a while as well. If you absolutely insist on the idea (which I hope you don't), I could begin research with this book at my local university library: Chronicle of the Chinese emperors: the reign-by-reign record of the rulers of Imperial China (1998), by Ann Paludan. I hope her book (or some other source I can find online) includes information and the exact Chinese characters for all the personal names, posthumous names, and era names in that article. Otherwise, it will never be featured.--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Paludan's book seems to be the only useful one at my library in regards to citing sources for List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty. I just checked JSTOR a moment ago and there are absolutely no helpful journal articles online in their database. It's the only scholarly online database with relevant history articles that I have access to.--Pericles of AthensTalk 04:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong. This IS a very nice topic, and I congratulate you for getting it together, but I think the emperors consists a fairly noticeable part of the topic. Nergaal (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty is now a Featured List candidate.--Pericles of AthensTalk 23:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - like Nergaal, I think List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty needs including. I also thing that the current Song Dynasty topic is lacking in exactly the same way, and have been considering raising my concerns for a while - I'm sorry I didn't do so before you nominated this topic. When the Song Dynasty topic was promoted, it was on the understanding that List of Song Emperors would be added to the topic as soon as possible. Well a year and a half later and that clearly didn't happen. I think it should happen and hence I oppose here, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 10:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I could use Paludan's source to cite both the list articles for Han and Song, but that's not going to cut it. A featured list needs more than one source, as you know. And there really isn't anything else available to me (do you know of any useful sources? I sure don't). Plus, I have to state the question one more time: why is a List of Emperors an obvious gap? I've yet to hear a convincing argument for this.--Pericles of AthensTalk 12:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
There are FLs with only one source for the whole list. And along with the sources used to write a lead, it should have n problem passing on that basis. I agree that the Lists of emperors should be included as FLs, or they should have been merged into the List of Chinese monarchs, which seems to redundantly cover the sub-tables completely. YobMod 12:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
At 128 KB pre-sourcing, List of Chinese monarchs is too big and more realistically needs splitting down into the (often already existent) articles on the rulers of each dynasty. (Ironically both List of Chinese monarchs and List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty transclude {{Han emperors}} and are hence near-identical on the Han Dynasty) I find it impossible to believe that there are no sources out there for this stuff, otherwise how were not only the list but also all the individual emperor articles written in the first place? Maybe these articles aren't sourced but this is not stuff people are going to make up so sources are surely out there - rst20xx (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Really? You can use only one source? Hmm. I assumed that would be unacceptable, since I figured someone would complain if I used only one source for my article List of Chinese inventions, which is featured. Fair enough. Sometime this weekend I will go to the library and pick up Paludan's book. I hope List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty passes very quickly, otherwise it will sabotage this featured topic.--Pericles of AthensTalk 14:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • UPDATE: I checked out Paludan's book from my library, and intend to cite it in List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty as well as List of Song Emperors. I will first submit the former article as a Featured List Candidate, followed by the latter. This may take a while, so hold on to your bootstraps, people. Over and out.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    Nice. You could also try asking Nat Krause for what source(s) (s)he used when (s)he originally wrote the Han list - rst20xx (talk) 23:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
My first guess would be the online Book of Han and Book of Later Han (in Chinese, no English translations yet), but I could be wrong. I've only been speaking and writing Chinese for three years now, so I'm not entirely fluent yet.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
It is now a candidate. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty/archive1. Regards.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Things are moving much slower than I had hoped for. So far there is only one support (and no oppositions) for List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty as a featured list candidate. I'm not sure how long this is going to take, but I should hope that it doesn't last longer than a week's time to get more supports and a pass for the list article.--Pericles of AthensTalk 00:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
So far it has three supports! Things are looking better. Plus, according to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, any candidate list has to wait at least 10 days before the administrators in charge consider passing or failing it based on supports and oppositions.--Pericles of AthensTalk 21:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Now the list article has five supports. It will certainly pass, and then I can add it to this topic.--Pericles of AthensTalk 06:16, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jesus College, Oxford (supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Jesus College, Oxford for the archived discussion of the topic's successful nomination. The additional items are:

  1. Featured list List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Clergy
  2. Featured list List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Law and government
  3. Featured list List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Mathematics, medicine and science
9 articles
Good article Jesus College, Oxford
Featured list List of founding Fellows, Scholars and Commissioners
Featured list List of Principals and Fellows
Featured list List of Honorary Fellows
Featured list List of alumni
Featured list List of alumni: Clergy
Featured list List of alumni: Law and government
Featured list List of alumni: Mathematics, medicine and science
Featured article Jesus College Boat Club


The main alumni list has grown and spawned three sub-lists, all of which are now FLs in their own right, hence this supplementary topic nom. BencherliteTalk 06:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Not that there should be anything urgently needing my attention on this non-controversial supplementary nomination, but just to leave a note that I'm off Wikipedia for the next fortnight. BencherliteTalk 18:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Meets all criteria. Good job on getting Jesus College Boat Club (Oxford) to FA; you are just one away from a fully featured topic! Dabomb87 (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I support these additions somewhere but am going to throw out a suggestion. Because these 3 additional alumni FLs are so tightly connected with the main alumni list, might it be better to have a alumni subtopic of 4 lists. I know FTs should not be excessively subdivided, but I just thought I'd suggest it as those 4 lists clearly go together as a set. Good work on this! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
    While both topics would be comprehensive within themselves, the total number of articles here is 9, hence I think this would break the "needlessly small" recommendation -- the only reason to split would be that it's more impressive which isn't really a reason IMO. I suppose there is another alumni topic so in a sense it seems a bit unfair that this topic doesn't get to be broken in two when that topic is one half of the resultant break, but if a USNA topic is brought up to scratch, and the number of articles is such that one merged topic wouldn't be too big, I would advocate merging there, too - rst20xx (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - rst20xx (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support –Juliancolton | Talk 19:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Guitar Hero (supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Guitar Hero for the archived discussion of the topic's successful nomination. The additional items are:

  1. List of songs in Guitar Hero: Metallica
  2. Guitar Hero On Tour series

Note that this also removes previous GA articles in the topic Guitar Hero: On Tour and Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades.

Main page Articles
Guitar Hero series Featured article Guitar Hero - Good article Guitar Hero II - Good article Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock - Good article Guitar Hero World Tour - Good article Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s - Good article Guitar Hero: Aerosmith - Good article Guitar Hero: Metallica - Peer reviewed Guitar Hero: On Tour series - Good article Guitar Hero III Mobile - Featured article List of songs in Guitar Hero - Featured article List of songs in Guitar Hero II - Featured article List of songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock - Featured article List of songs in Guitar Hero World Tour - Featured article List of songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s - Featured article List of songs in Guitar Hero: Aerosmith - Featured article List of songs in Guitar Hero: Metallica

There's two basic change here:

  • The GH: Metallica song list has been promoted to FL, so this is officially being added to the series.
  • Due to the nature of the articles with what is known for the upcoming Guitar Hero On Tour: Modern Hits which is highly similar to the other On Tour games, it was decided to merge the two existing GAs Guitar Hero: On Tour and Guitar Hero On Tour: Decades into one article to be able the series, and another for the list of songs, groupping them into one since they are cross-game compatible. Note that the content of these were both from GAs but I have not yet begun (but will be) working them up the quality ladder. There will be more information on Modern Hits in the next week or so to complete that for at least a PR level. The original articles are thus being removed from the topic. --MASEM (t) 04:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support but are you saying you reckon the 2 new articles can't get GA/FL til Modern Hits comes out? You may well be right but I just wanted to clarify that - rst20xx (talk) 11:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, though with a bit more information I can likely at least PR them. --MASEM (t) 11:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
      • OK, I've updated the retention period to reflect this. Just keeps getting more and more complicated with you, doesn't it? 9 retentions/future retentions, jeez! rst20xx (talk) 12:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment - would waiting for the peer review of the combined article be a good idea, so change can be done all at once (I assume PR will not be so drawn out if it is a combination of GAs). Otherwise, support Metallica addition, now or later.YobMod 07:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good point, if the two articles can't get included as GA/FL til Modern Hits is out, then you only need to include them as PR within the next 3 months. So maybe it would be simplest to list them both for PR now, and then add them and close this nom only once the PRs are finished? Will save another subsequent nom. Obviously this will only work if you want to do this, you have three months so... rst20xx (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I see you put the article up for PR and the list up for FLC - rst20xx (talk) 21:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The FLC failed. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, the article was created on 17 April, so doesn't need adding to the topic until 17 July, under the 3-month rule. (Although this does leave a temporary hole which is unfortunate but there you go) - rst20xx (talk) 23:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - what's going on here? The PR on Guitar Hero: On Tour series is completed so this article can be added now. List of songs in the Guitar Hero On Tour series failed its FLC but doesn't need adding until the 17th July - rst20xx (talk) 17:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I've updated to ask for inclusion of the GHOT Series article (it only just got through PR). Of course, if Activision wouldn't kill me by announcing three new GH games before the years end.... --MASEM (t) 17:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Good topic nominations

Please add new nominations to the top.

[edit] Discographies of the Final Fantasy series

17 articles
Good article Discographies of the Final Fantasy series
Good article Final Fantasy I and II
Good article Final Fantasy III
Good article Final Fantasy IV
Good article Final Fantasy V
Good article Final Fantasy VI
Good article Final Fantasy VII series
Good article Final Fantasy VIII
Good article Final Fantasy IX
Good article Final Fantasy X
Good article Final Fantasy X-2
Good article Final Fantasy XI
Good article Final Fantasy XII
Good article Final Fantasy Tactics series
Good article Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles series
Good article Chocobo series
Featured list Final Fantasy compilation albums


I'm nominating this as a good topic as I think it meets the criteria. Over the past year I've gotten every single article up there to GA/FL with the exception of FF8. The topic includes the music articles on all of the main series Final Fantasy games, as well as the spinoff series that have their own music/discography articles, which are linked together in a template. --PresN 15:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support impressive! igordebraga ≠ 03:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - fantastic work, I really appreciate how you've even got the spinoff series discographies up to scratch as well. However I do not think this topic has quite earned the moniker "Music of the Final Fantasy series", as it is lacking articles on concert tours such as Tour de Japon, Distant Worlds: Music from Final Fantasy and Dear Friends -Music from Final Fantasy-. However I think it would be acceptable to get around this by rescoping the topic by piping the lead to "Discographies of the Final Fantasy series" - rst20xx (talk) 10:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    Do the tours really add anything to the subject of the music itself however?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    I think so, yes. Certainly they are covered with their own section in the lead article - rst20xx (talk) 16:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    Alright, I can see where you're coming from. I'd prefer to leave it at "Music of FF", but I'm okay if we change the scope to "Discographies of FF". I'll go ahead and move the nom page and stuff. --PresN 17:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    Support - very well done, a labour of love and a really useful collection of information - rst20xx (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    If I got, say, a "Final Fantasy Concerts" page (combining the concert articles you state above) up to GA+ and added it to the topic, would you support renaming the topic back to "Music of"? --PresN 16:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    I think the three articles could probably be expanded to GAs individually, but with that said, my answer is still yes - rst20xx (talk) 18:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Well rounded and thorough.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support With it's current title of "Discographies of the Final Fantasy series", because it meets the featured topic criteria. Alex Douglas (talk) 11:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ring Line

4 articles
Good article Ring Line

Good article Nydalen

Good article Sinsen

Good article Storo


I am nominating the Ring Line of the Oslo Metro as a good article topic because I feel it meets the criteria. The line consists of three stations, which are the only features along the line with articles. Self-nom by Arsenikk (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - topic is complete—Chris! ct 06:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am not really familiar with train line articles on the Wiki but am slightly confused by {{Ring Line}}. What are all the other stops in that diagram and how do they relate to the Ring Line? rst20xx (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    ...nevermind, I'm being silly. It seems that the 3 stations listed form the Ring Line and then the ring in the name is formed by the fact that the trains go on from there in a loop. Is it standard practice for templates like {{Ring Line}} to show other train lines? It might be worth stating at the top of the template what stops belong to what lines because as it stands I think the template is confusing. Anyway, support - rst20xx (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
    Although actually the articles for the other stations suggest further involvement in the Ring Line... I think some clarification is needed throughout, I'm somewhat confused - rst20xx (talk) 16:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose - sorry to flip-flop so much but I'm changing my vote because I think my concerns about the inconsistencies in the family of articles need addressing - rst20xx (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
    Part of this confusion may have arisen because the Ring Line only connects to branches (the Grorud and Sognsvann Lines), that together with the Common Tunnel create a ring. Only the actual 5 km connection is called the Ring Line (making up about a third of the full circle). I have now rearranged the maps, so the map in the infobox only shows the Ring Line, while the old map has been moved to the service section to show how the trains running on the Ring Line connect to the Common Tunnel and other lines. I have also copyedited some of the other station articles on the Songsvann and Grorud Line to make it clear that they are not part of the Ring Line. This misleading information was probably added by editors in good faith, beliving that any station that makes up the circle is on the Ring Line.
    The Oslo Metro has a somewhat different naming scheme than many other metros: There are ten (named) lines, and each station is located only on one line. The Ring Line is by far the shortest and smallest of these. There are six services, 1 through 6, that operate on at least two lines plus the Common Tunnel. Therefore, a line is not the same as a service (unlike, for instance, the London Underground or the Paris Metro). Put another way, if all ten lines and all stations were brought up to GA, then each line could be a topic, and each station would be in only one topic, even though some stations are served by multiple services (train numbers). Arsenikk (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    OK, that's very helpful, thanks, but what about Carl Berners plass and Ullevål stadion? These two stations appear to be at the end of the Ring Line, connecting it with other lines, and indeed Carl Berners plass currently states this to be the case - rst20xx (talk) 12:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    Ullevål stadion and Carl Berners plass are located on the Sognsvann and Grorud Line, respectively. In both cases, the lines split north of (i.e. after) the stations, and they are therefore only on the one line. On the Sognsvann Line, the split happens just before reaching Berg (the next station), while I don't know the length on the Grorud Line. For instance, there were no modifications of either station when the new line was built. I have made all the line maps like this, showing the final station that is not on the line (see for instance Kolsås Line which contains one closed plus the current first station on the Røa Line). If other people find this very confusing, I can change it, but I felt that it helps orient the reader (of course, I know all this stuff, so how am I to know what the reader thinks). Arsenikk (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
    OK I think this change helps, it's somewhat clearer now. Support reinstated above, sorry to flip-flop so much - rst20xx (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Paul London and Brian Kendrick

4 articles
Good article Paul London and Brian Kendrick

Good article Paul London

Good article Brian Kendrick

Good article Ashley Massaro


NiciVampireHeart, Nikki311, and I are nominating Paul London and Brian Kendrick as a Good Topic. The group consisted of the tag team Paul London and Brian Kendrick, and their manager Ashley Massaro. The lead article (London and Kendrick), as well as the individual members' articles (Paul London, Brian Kendrick, and Ashley Massaro) are all Good articles. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 18:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support: Passes all the criteria.--WillC 16:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - topic is complete—Chris! ct 06:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - I can see a lot of this type of topic coming down the pipeline :S Keep it up! rst20xx (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tucker class destroyers

7 articles
Good article Tucker class destroyers
Good article Tucker
Good article Conyngham
Good article Porter
Good article Wadsworth
Good article Jacob Jones
Good article Wainwright


I believe that this topic meets all of the criteria to become a Good Topic. This is about a one of the United States Navy's classes of destroyers built prior to World War I. The class article is the main article and includes summaries of the articles covering all six ships of the class. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - meets all the criteria. Man, I wish I could write articles like you can ;) —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 19:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - topic is complete—Chris! ct 06:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Destroyers defeating the submarines at the moment. - DSachan (talk) 08:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - good stuff - rst20xx (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support - Nice work. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team

4 articles
Good article 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team
Good article John Beilein
Good article Manny Harris
Good article DeShawn Sims


I am nominating this topic because I feel it is a complete topic. There are only two notable players on the team by standard interpretation of notability. It is not uncommon for fanatical fans to create articles for most regular players (players in the regular rotation) or most starters for a college basketball team. However, I believe the standard for college athlete notability is approximately those players who might reasonably be expected to become professional athletes. In the Big Ten Conference and most "power conferences", I believe the borderline on notability is approximately those players who have been selected to the All-conference team. Only two Michigan players show up on lists of professional prospects. These two players and the coach make up the entirety of the list of subarticles at this time.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lights and Sounds

3 articles
Good article Lights and Sounds

Good article "Lights and Sounds"

Good article "Rough Landing, Holly"


Timmeh and I are nominating Lights and Sounds, which just so happens to be the fifth studio album by American pop punk band Yellowcard. Aside from the album, its two released singles are good articles. I believe it meets the GT criteria. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 14:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Support - rst20xx (talk) 11:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
  • support - Yup, all's good in Yellowcard-mania-land. ceranthor 21:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Zginder 2009-05-18T12:57Z (UTC)
  • Support - pile-on vote, can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn

3 articles
Featured list Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn

Good article Norton Priory

Good article Halton Castle


I consider that the articles satisfy the criteria for a Good Topic. They cover all the listed buildings in the town of Runcorn. Two of these are listed Grade I and both are GAs. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  • I reformated your nomination into a box and picked an image for now; hope you don't mind. I would have thought that the list should be the lead, not Runcorn (which I don't think should be in the topic, as it's outside its scope). I'm also wondering whether there's "cherry-picking" here: I know that the two articles are the two Grade I buildings (top grade of buildings of special architectural, historical or cultural significance, for non-UK editors), but many of the other 57 listed buildings mentioned in the list have articles that aren't included here. Perhaps the title of the topic should be "Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn" - or is that incompatible with the much wider scope of the list? BencherliteTalk 10:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the template, and the image - which is fine. This is my first nomination for a GT so perhaps I have not "got" the criteria yet. I included Runcorn to give some context to the topic, but I take your point. The cherries picked themselves, as it were. There are only two Grade I listed buildings in the town and none of the articles on the other buildings come anywhere near GA (yet). Anyway I would be happy with your suggestion to leave Runcorn out, make the list the lead, and change the title to the above. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose the topic as listed is clearly incomplete. Nergaal (talk) 14:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Re: while the overall topic looks much better now, I still oppose because to me this seems a somewhat forced topic and also one that has an extremely awkward name. Nergaal (talk) 05:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - IMO Bencherlite is right on all counts. Criteria 1.b) says that "The articles have a clear similarity with each other under a well-defined topical scope." This topic firstly runs into some trouble here in that the scope of the lead article (Runcorn) does not match the scope of the topic (Listed buildings in Runcorn). Changing the lead article to List of listed buildings in Runcorn (and removing Runcorn entirely) would alleviate this problem, but then the topic would secondly run afoul of criteria 1.d), "A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together." Sure, the grade 1 listed buildings are the most important of the listed buildings, but they are only 2 out of 59, and the scope of the topic as it stands is purportedly all the listed buildings. Therefore, the topic should include all the listed buildings that merit articles (which I suspect would be all of them?).
    Again, following Bencherlite's comment, one possible way round this problem would be to change the scope of the topic to "Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn". If you also changed the lead article to List of listed buildings in Runcorn, then this would somewhat fit - the scope of the lead article would still be much bigger than the scope of the topic, but doing this kind of scope-narrowing on lists is not unprecedented - look at the "Albums" "topics, for example Powderfinger albums, which has a similar scope narrowing from its lead, Powderfinger discography, an article which obviously also covers singles, EPs, etc., to just covering the albums for the topic.
    If you make these changes I think I would probably stay neutral the topic, because to narrow down to just the 2 grade I listed buildings seems a larger and more arbitrary narrowing than to narrow down to just albums. But if you did otherwise I'm afraid I'd definitely oppose here - rst20xx (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    PS I lived in Lymm til I was 3 years old ;) rst20xx (talk) 15:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I would will support a topic as outlined by Bencherlite and Rst20xx. I think Grade one listing is qualitatively different enough to merit topics containing only those rather than all graded buildings in an area. I don't think the number of grade-1 buildings is a problem, as an album topic of only 2 albums would pass, and any such listed building topic has to be split somehow due to the number of articles (which some discographies cannot claim).YobMod 15:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks folks for your comments and advice. I have changed the title and deleted Runcorn (but how do you get rid of that "Column3" thing?). Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
It's gone, just by leaving it as a blank parameter. BencherliteTalk 20:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as amended. Yobmod makes a good point (in fact, more than one): Grade I buildings are a natural and non-arbitrary subset of listed buildings, and a list plus two articles is enough to qualify for a topic. It is comparable to limiting a discography topic to albums only, so there is precedent for this restriction of the topic to an appropriate sub-set of the lead article/list. Looking at the list, many of the lower-level listed buildings are never going to get their own article anyway, let alone one of GA status (e.g "Walls, piers and railings, St Paul's Health Centre, High Street"(!)). BencherliteTalk 20:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
    (You sure? See current GANs Entranceways at Main Street at Lamarck Drive and Smallwood Drive and Entranceway at Main Street at Roycroft Boulevard, both of which are NRHPs. Similarly I suspect all graded buildings (objects?) might be in with a shot! They must have some history to them in order to get listed! For example, the walls, piers and railings "originally formed the entrance to a Methodist chapel" so I suspect they would actually be lumped together in an article about that chapel! rst20xx (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC))
  • Support - Actually I will support, I think Yobmod was right. The topic certainly needs to be split somehow and this is the best way to do it. (Also I have piped the lead to match the title, as is standard practice, hope you don't mind) - rst20xx (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks again everyone for advice, recommendations and amendments - all very much appreciated by a novice in this area. Incidentally does it now satisfy the criteria for FT rather than GT? Peter I. Vardy (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
No, because FTs require 2 featured items minimum, and this only has 1 - rst20xx (talk) 11:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Featured topic removal candidates

None at this time.

[edit] Good topic removal candidates

[edit] Wilco discography

8 articles
Featured list Wilco albums
Good article A.M.
Good article Being There
Good article Summerteeth
Good article Yankee Hotel Foxtrot
Good article A Ghost Is Born
Good article Kicking Television: Live in Chicago
Featured article Sky Blue Sky


I am nominating this topic for removal because it does not include all of Wilco's albums, with Mermaid Avenue and Mermaid Avenue Vol. II notably absent. These albums had previously unheard lyrics by Woody Guthrie, put to music written and performed by Billy Bragg and Wilco jointly. As such they are not standard studio albums, but they are still indisputably Wilco albums, and furthermore are listed as such at Wilco discography#Albums. Additionally the first of the pair outsold 4 of the 7 albums that are in the topic (there are no sales figures given for the second), so the albums are certainly notable as well. I expressed my concerns to Teemu08 about this gap almost a month ago, and got no response, so have now decided to bring the topic here - rst20xx (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Often times when one list albums, one only includes studio albums. Live and compilation albums are often considered "Other". I think if the topic includes all studio albums it is pretty complete. For most popular bands including all albums would blow up the album count beyond a reasonable topic size. Wilco is still young, but if we want to keep this topic manageable we should probably only include studio albums. This would be a good precedent for topics in general if it has not been brought up before.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, this topic already includes Wilco's live album. Secondly, this is a precedent that has been established before, the precedent being "include all albums", and this precedent is one that every other "albums" topic adheres to - note that M.I.A. albums includes a mixtape jointly credited to Diplo, and Powderfinger albums includes a live album and a best of album. Thirdly, in the band's first 15 years they have released 10 albums of any fashion. Topics are generally considered to be too big if they have over about 30 articles. At this rate of growth, this topic will not become too big until about 2039. I do not think we need to worry about this. (And at any rate, if we do come across a band/artist with too many albums, it can then be broken up into multiple topics at that stage, but there is no reason at all to do so otherwise) - rst20xx (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I was unfamiliar with the precedent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with Delisting. "Albums" should include any and all recordings larger than EPs. And since the topic's main article is Wilco discography one could argue that any EPs notable enough for articles should be included. (But I'm not making my !vote based on that.) —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 06:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Using a discograpgy FL for an albums topic, while exluding EPs and singles, is one thing; but all the studio albums should be included at minimum. Unforunately for this topic, i agree that this includes the collaborative albums, as they are important parts of Wilco's discography (not just a track donated to a compilation, or a guest appearance) so delistYobMod 13:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gwen Stefani albums

3 articles
Demoted article Gwen Stefani albums
Featured article Love. Angel. Music. Baby.(subtopic)
Good article The Sweet Escape


The list acting as the main article for this was delisted as a FL over 2 months ago. Waiting to see improvment seemed preferable to delisting, but very little improvment has been made, and no indications that anyone plans to work it back up to FL, so the topic no longer meets GT criteria.YobMod 12:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - erm the criteria say "If any of the criteria are no longer met, or any constituents lose quality status, such topics will be eligible for a topic removal nomination after a grace period. The grace period will be three months for a demotion of an article" so this topic actually has until June 18. You're right that nothing has been done and hence it looks unlikely that anything will be done but it's far from impossible that the article could get up to standard between then and now. So I think we should wait the 3 more weeks - rst20xx (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Oki. If you want to remove the nom and wait, it is fine with me. I am pretty certain that previous GTRs have been started with "by the time the GTR process finishes, the grace period will be over" (eg, here, which i think applies here too (many GTRs have run for more than 3 weeks, and FL take 2 weeks). Even the most simple fixes suggested by the FL delisting were not attempted, so it seemed an obvious case of not getting to FL in time - but i don't want people to complain it was out of process! Thanks for the reminder :-) 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
    Yeah that's a good point though round here processes should theoretically run for ten days... oh wait 2 weeks, if everyone's in agreement, as I would expect to be the case here. Having said that things have been a bit sluggish round here lately so I don't really know any more, just so long as it's not actually demoted before June 18 then I don't think anyone can complain and I suppose opening it earlier draws more attention to it whilst there is still time for someone to come along and decide to fix it up - rst20xx (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York

5 articles
Demoted article Numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York
Featured article New York State Route 22
Featured article New York State Route 343
Good article U.S. Route 44 in New York
Good article County Route 81 (Dutchess County, New York)


The main article of this topic, List of numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York, has lost its featured list status, and looks set to be deleted. This causes the featured topic to implode, and as a result it needs demoting - rst20xx (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates"
Personal tools