Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Featured and good topics in Wikipedia

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

A good topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles) with a less stringent quality threshold than a featured topic.

This page is for the nomination of potential featured and good topics. See the featured and good topic criteria for criteria on both types of topic. If you would like to ask any questions about your topic and the featured/good topic process before submitting it, visit Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates.

Before nominating a topic, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Featured and good 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 and good topics coordinators Aza24, MaranoFan and Gog the Mild 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.

To contact the FTC coordinators, please leave a message on the

notification
template elsewhere.

You may want to check previous archived nominations first:
Purge the cache to refresh this page

Featured content:

Good content:

Featured and good topic tools:

Nomination procedure

To create a new nomination use the form below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured and good 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. For detailed instructions on how to nominate topics or add articles to existing topics, see Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Nomination procedure.


Supporting and objecting

Please review all the articles of the nominated topic with the featured and good 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. Supports that clearly evaluate the criteria will be weighted more than those that do not.
  • 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

archived
. Nominations will stay here for ten days if there is unanimous consent, or longer if warranted by debate.

Featured topic nominations

1991 Atlantic hurricane season (1st supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/1991 Atlantic hurricane season for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

  1. Timeline of the 1991 Atlantic hurricane season

This nomination replaces

Tropical Storm Fabian (1991) – a former GA which was merged and procedurally delisted in January 2023 – with the season timeline, which was created this past January and passed FLC yesterday. Dylan620 (he/him • talkedits) 00:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Primates

use tools, communicate with gestures and vocalizations, and have complex social systems
.

Primates is divided into two suborders:

Galagidae and the loris family Lorisidae. The exact organization of the species is not fixed, with many recent proposals made based on molecular phylogenetic analysis. No species have been recorded as going extinct since 1500 CE, but over 200 species, or more than 40 percent of all primates, are considered endangered or critically endangered
.

Contributor(s): PresN

For a few years now I've been working on creating lists of species in different mammal families, as well as parent lists of genera in mammal orders. (If you recall your biology class, the mammal class is divided into orders, are divided into families, are divided into genera, are divided into species. Roughly.) Although this would seemingly work out nicely for topics, the uneven distribution of species makes it difficult for most orders, but in 2022 I managed to get an FT on the animals in Lagomorpha, and now I have a set on the order Primates. This topic consists of the animals in the order Primates, itself containing six subdivision lists (4 superfamilies, 1 parvorder, 1 infraorder. There's no clear difference between these group types.) So, we have the lists of the monkey, ape, lemur, etc. species in the six groups, as well as a parent list "one level up" containing the genera in the overall Primates order. Thanks for reviewing! -- --PresN 21:12, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Note on naming/capitalization: order names, like Primates, are capitalized proper nouns. Normally this is not confusing, because e.g. for the order Lagomorpha, the English term for multiple members of the group is "lagomorphs". For orders ending in "es", like Primates, however, the English plural noun is... primates. So the animals in Primates are primates. I'm following the titling convention reviewers pushed for in the lagomorph FTC. --PresN 21:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • The topic title "Animals in Primates" is a bit confusing to me. May want to consider brainstorming a clearer topic title. "Primates", "Species in the Primate order", etc. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it's awkward (therefore my note), but I followed the pattern decided at the lagomorph FTC. I'd personally go with just "Primates" (and therefore "Lagomorphs"), if reviewers agree. --PresN 23:25, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think changing it to just Primates would be better. -- ZooBlazer 17:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, renamed to Primates. --PresN 15:18, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf planets

A dwarf planet is a small planetary-mass object that is in direct orbit around the Sun, massive enough to be gravitationally rounded, but insufficient to achieve orbital dominance like the eight classical planets of the Solar System. The prototypical dwarf planet is Pluto, which was regarded as a planet before the "dwarf" concept was adopted in 2006.

Contributor(s):
Nergaal, Nrco0e
,

Demoted in 2020 once Ceres lost its Featured status, that article getting its star back, along with how all the nine that appear atop the Dwarf planet article are Good or better, should be enough for this topic to be restored. --igordebraga 05:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Good to see this complete again. Maybe also consider renominating the Asteroid belt GT as well? It was demoted for the same reason as this one. -- ZooBlazer 20:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I brought this one up on the talk page a while back, but didn't feel up to re-nominating it. I'm a bit iffy about the inclusion of IAU definition of planet- it feels off-topic, to me. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverTiger12 (talkcontribs)
    • Kept that article simply because it was in the original topic. igordebraga 03:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest removing it as not really part of the topic. SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's relevant to include since the IAU established the concept of a dwarf planet in 2006. Reywas92Talk 23:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate comment: @ZooBlazer and Idiosincrático: do either of you have an opinion on whether IAU definition of planet should be included? Aza24 (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably not needed after all. It isn't exclusively about dwarf planets, so it may be outside the topic's scope, but if others feel it should remain, I won't fight it. -- ZooBlazer 07:37, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    All things considered, IAU definition of planet should not be included. I share Blazer's position. Idiosincrático (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Brilliant topic and work and I'd agree with the others that the IAU definition of a planet article probably doesn't need to be included. NapHit (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since four people have requested so, removed IAU definition of planet. igordebraga 19:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drive by support - I love the quality of planetary articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good topic nominations

Celebration (Madonna album)

Celebration is the third

Warner Bros. Records. The album features 34 songs spanning Madonna's career since signing up with the label in 1982. It also includes three new songs: "Celebration" which is included on all versions, "Revolver" which is included on the two-disc editions, and "It's So Cool" which is included as a bonus track on some digital two-disc editions. The compilation DVD Celebration: The Video Collection
was released alongside the album.

Contributor(s): 11JORN, IndianBio, Legolas2186, Chrishm21, Theknine2

WP:MADONNA long but the 34 (!) hits included in the compilation are now Good or Featured, and the Topic can earn the necessary Love Profusion to return to the GT. --igordebraga 05:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]



Green Bay Packers presidents

The Green Bay Packers are an American football team in the National Football League (NFL). Unlike all other teams in the NFL, the Packers are owned by a public, non-profit corporation made-up of over 500,000 shareholders. The shareholders elect a board of directors each year that is led my an executive committee. The head of that committee is the president of the team. Since the team's formation in 1923 as a public, non-profit entity, the Packers have had 11 presidents in their history. The current president, Mark Murphy, has led the team since 2008.

Contributor(s): Gonzo_fan2007

The topic covers the bios of all 11 presidents, as well as the overview list of presidents. These articles are linked by a navbox template. All other criteria are met. -- « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. All articles cover the topic. Wonderful work! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 05:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: List is promoted to featured list and all 11 people included in the list have been promoted to GA. Looks good and makes sense to me. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Everything looks good to me. -- ZooBlazer 17:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypericum sect. Androsaemum

This topic is a section of related species of flowering plants in the genus Hypericum. They are well-attested in literature, with a wide distribution and use as garden or ornamental plants. All four species and the one hybrid are Good Articles, as is the section itself, and I am nominated them for the first of (hopefully) several Good Topics on the genus Hypericum. Fritzmann (message me) 13:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Trauma Center

Trauma Center is a simulation video game series developed and published by Atlus between 2005 and 2010. Beginning with Trauma Center: Under the Knife for the Nintendo DS, the series continued for four more entries; a Wii remake Second Opinion, and three original titles for DS and Wii. While now a dormant series, each entry saw positive reception and sales, with many gaming journalists praising each entry's controls for utilising hardware-specific elements.

Contributor(s): ProtoDrake

I'm nominating this GT because I ended up doing a GA clean sweep of the series. I believe all of them cover each game in as much detail as is suitable for their quality level. While there would normally be a series article, there has been little to no commentary on the series as a whole despite its popularity during its period of release. Due to this, the series article has been redirected, and for this topic the lead article is the debut entry. The series is unlikely to see any additions in the near future, so the topic should remain stable. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Although the matter of a series article can't be helped in this scenario, the articles are all clearly related and linked together by a designated template, and since all the articles within are GA-class, the topic qualifies for promotion. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Meets all of the criteria. QuicoleJR (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support My second opinion is that this topic is in full health. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 23:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold Scratch that, I think there's some latent GUILT in the patient that needs to be treated. Er... I mean potential for another article. Specifically, the series article is quite viable and probably shouldn't have been redirected just to fast track a Good Topic. Hardcore Gaming 101 goes over the series as a whole as a decent chunk of their review of the original Trauma Center, besides this retrospective that was already mentioned in the article. Combined with this overview of the series in Nintendo Power, I think it's absolutely salvageable and GNG passing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 23:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I have to disagree. Again the commentary there seems too localized to specific titles over talking about the series as a whole. The main problem with the series article was it was parroting stuff from the articles. There was little to no overarching commentary, and the sources you've provided don't really solve that issue. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on these three sources, I must agree with ProtoDrake. Hardcore Gamer's two articles are specific-game reviews, as is the Nintendo Power article. They describe the series in order to give context to the item they are reviewing. Only the USGamer (VG247) article is about the series as a whole. These three sources suggest the potential for a series article, but they would not be enough. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGCOV states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Being specifically about the series as a whole has nothing to do with it really. So unless you are saying these are all trivial, that shouldn't apply. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 13:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I am just suggesting that all of the information in these sources are summarily covered in the respective game articles. Only one of them features reception for the franchise as a whole. We could put together a somewhat functional article to encompass the franchise, but there's not really any reason to do it with these sources. The Gameplay and Legacy sections on Under the Knife have it covered. This might change if more retrospectives on the franchise as a whole are found or written, though. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason would be ease of navigation and to give people a proper landing page for learning about the Trauma Center series. At
MOS:VG it is stated that as long as a series page "describe[s] the series as a whole in broader terms, such as what the games have in common. This could include general gameplay, and recurring elements such as characters and locations", and there are at least 3 entries, its existence is merited. The question should be why it shouldn't exist, and there appears to be no special reason in this case to inconvenience readers. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 20:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Are you joking? It also says "Avoid creating a series article that only repeats what sources say about the individual games, and instead base the article on what reliable sources say about the series as a whole.". Except that there aren't reliable sources that talk about the series as a whole, and you've been unable to produce them. --PresN 13:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To straight-up copy-paste my reply above, because it seems like it got ignored, Hardcore Gaming 101 goes over the series as a whole as a decent chunk of their review of the original Trauma Center, besides this retrospective that was already mentioned in the article. Combined with this overview of the series in Nintendo Power. These are the sources I have produced that prove a series page is possible and passes GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 19:11, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking bluntly, yes it's possible, but it'll also look like a giant echo chamber and that in my opinion is one of the worst kinds of Wikipedia articles. Speaking personally, and I may have to go back over some of my own contributions in light of these opinions, I dislike whole articles that just reproduce word for word, or with arbitrary variations. That's why I did the redirect. There was barely anything original, and even with those small bits you've found, they'll still be barely anything original. --ProtoDrake (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, if what you are saying is true, I am doubtful any franchise article would exist - it would be required to only have navboxes connecting them, because any blurb describing the game, film or other media would be classified as an "echo chamber" and "repetitive content". Sometimes repetition is required to describe something in another article in which it appears. I am a bit flummoxed as to how that is a bad thing as long as it's not just a straight copypaste of the entire article. Sometimes people want a quick summary, other times a long examination of the subject. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 09:08, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – After quickly looking through each of the articles, I can say this looks like a lovely Good Topic. Excellent work, ProtoDrake! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Solid topic, and I agree that a series article is not viable at this time. --PresN 13:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I am convinced that a series article to serve as the main topic is not viable, at least not based on what's been presented. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm gonna chime in a say that for the time being, it's best having all the series info in the article for the first game. Look at Knightmare on MSX for example. I condensed everything related to the trilogy into the legacy section, including the follow-ups, cameos, the unreleased stand-alone sequel, etc. I do feel that Trauma Center has potential to have its own series page more than Knightmare, not gonna lie, but i do agree with Drake's approach here. Roberth Martinez (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It makes sense to have the first game here. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 17:44, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mirror (1st supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Black Mirror for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

  1. Joan Is Awful
  2. Loch Henry
  3. Beyond the Sea (Black Mirror)
  4. Mazey Day (Black Mirror)
  5. Demon 79

Spy-cicle and 2pou have already been involved in directly adding the series 6 episodes to the template, but I figured this should go through the official supplementary process. Since the topic's promotion in 2021, five new episodes have been released, all of which are now GA. The main article, Black Mirror, as well as List of Black Mirror episodes and other articles have been updated as appropriate with information about series 6.

Thanks to the new GA reviewers, OlifanofmrTennant, BennyOnTheLoose, Premeditated Chaos and Sammi Brie. — Bilorv (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - meets the criteria. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support of course. Wonderful work, Bilorv. ♠PMC(talk) 22:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, well done on getting the 5 new articles up to GA so swiftly.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good work. -- ZooBlazer 07:39, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Good supplementary nomination. Idiosincrático (talk) 08:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as a straightforward addition of the latest episodes. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Meets all the criteria. Well done! -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support having edited some of those (specially Mazey Day) and wondering when the GA reviews would come, nice to see it's over. igordebraga 06:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Glorious! Well done! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 00:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelophthalmidae (1st supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Adelophthalmidae for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

  1. Pruemopterus

I've just found out there is a procedure for adding new articles to already existing good topics. Pruemopterus was promoted earlier this day, so I am nominating it for its addition. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 20:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I support the addition of this article to the group, but shouldn't Archopterus also be included? It was only created on January 31, so it's not been around for a long time, but I wanted to bring it up to make sure this topic ends up completed (or delisted eventually, hopefully not). Hey man im josh (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody that wishes to can nominate this GT for delisting. I am completely burnout on this topic area and will not try to get Archopterus to GA status. I just wanted to follow the bureaucratic process and include Pruemopterus. Also a very slim hope that maybe someone could see this and decide to work on Archopterus to prevent a delisting which is unlikely. If this leads to the inevitable delisting of this GT to take place, so be it. Most of these were promoted back in 2018. Super Ψ Dro 21:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Unionopterus be added to this as well? It's already GA. User:Super Dromaeosaurus, it seems [1] would be the only authoritative source available on Archopterus? Since it's such a new discovery I'm not sure how that could possibly become GA from a single publication, but I'd think it should qualify for criterion 3c for just a peer review. I'd hate to see this delisted over that so I'd be happy to help if you have ideas though I've never edited in the fossil space! Reywas92Talk 22:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had asked about Unionopterus on the original nomination of the whole GT [2]. One user said we probably should wait for new studies to bring certainty to know if the genus is a certain member of Adelophthalmidae. Such a study could take decades or more to come. I am in favor of including it though, as the genus is mostly discussed in the context of its relationship with Adelophthalmidae and its morphology would indicate it was indeed a member of it. I'd like the opinion of more users on this topic.
Yes, Archopterus could perfectly become a GA even though there's only one main source to draw information from. Pruemopterus is one such case, discovered recently in 2020. The reviewer also had this doubt and asked about it and it was fine [3]. Appreciate the help offer, it encourages me. A possibility could be to start a joint draft and write the article from stratch. I could coordinate it and give you some indications so that you can help despite being unexperienced. All eurypterid articles (so that you understand, if dogs and wolfs are canine mammals, Pruemopterus, Archopterus etc are eurypterid arthropods) follow a four-section model and I can tell Archopterus's article would end up similar to Pruemopterus's meaning it can be used as a model (as you can see, the article and all its sections are short). It is actually easier than it looks like. I wouldn't be willing to participate on this draft despite your generous offer if it is only the two of us because of reasons I realized were sounding very lazy and selfish as I tried to elaborate on them. I am willing though to do this is we are four, perhaps three. Super Ψ Dro 23:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – I think so long as Archopterus is a Wikipedia article, then it should be included because it is a member of the Adelophthalmidae family. Whether that is through a peer review per criterion 3c or as a GA/FA. As the nominator mentioned, even though there are very few sources it still can reach GA status like Pruemopterus has. But I think until someone can bring Archopterus to GA status or complete a peer review, then I have no choice but to oppose the nomination, which is a huge shame. Please ping me if someone has opted to have the article reviewed and I will happily change my vote. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:51, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better Call Saul (season 6)

The sixth and final season of the

Jimmy McGill (Odenkirk)'s increasing involvement with the illicit activities of meth cooks Walter White (Bryan Cranston) and Jesse Pinkman (Aaron Paul), and his transition into the eponymous persona "Saul Goodman" as he and his wife Kim Wexler (Seehorn) execute their plan to resolve the Sandpiper case by ruining Howard Hamlin's career (Fabian). Simultaneously, it also depicts Lalo Salamanca's (Dalton) attempts to disrupt Gus Fring's (Esposito) operations and expose his disloyalty to the drug cartel. The final three episodes take place after the events of Breaking Bad, showcasing Jimmy living in Omaha, Nebraska
under the alias of "Gene Takavic", hiding from the authorities after Walter's demise. It received critical acclaim among critics, being praised for the cast performances, writing, visuals, emotional weight, and connections to Breaking Bad.

Contributor(s):
Some Dude From North Carolina, Masem

I believe that topic meets all the criteria for numerous reasons. First, all the articles have been promoted to the GA status and the relation is clearly enough, considering that the articles are both the master Season 6 article for Better Call Saul and also encompassing each episode in the season. The episode articles have a consistent layout and the overall topic contains the entire scope of its intended subject, the sixth season of BCS. I also believe that Season 6 is among the best BCS content on Wikipedia, as the entire production process was covered extensively due to its popularity and success among audiences. --Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: Per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (I'm listed as a contributor but just reviewed some of these for GA). The articles meet the GA criteria and form a complete topic with a main article. They should serve as model articles for those who write episode articles. Excellent work! — Bilorv (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- ZooBlazer 20:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom -- Flowerkiller1692 (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has been Approved for promotion. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work. A bot will promote this topic within one hour. Please double check that {{Featured topic box |title= is exactly what you want the topic name to be, is short, and is unformatted. Aza24 (talk) 02:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nota bene* There was an issue that prevented the promotion bot from promoting this topic. Please solve the issue and run the bot again. The error description is: When figuring out what to write to Template:Featured topic log, unable to find the table row corresponding to today's month and year.
    talk) 03:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

This topic has been Approved for promotion. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work. A bot will promote this topic within one hour. Please double check that {{Featured topic box |title= is exactly what you want the topic name to be, is short, and is unformatted.Aza24 (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nota bene* There was an issue that prevented the promotion bot from promoting this topic. Please solve the issue and run the bot again. The error description is: When figuring out what to write to Template:Featured topic log, unable to find the table row corresponding to today's month and year.
    talk) 06:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

2004–05 Arsenal F.C. season

The 2004–05 season was Arsenal Football Club's 13th season in the Premier League and their 79th consecutive season in the top flight of English football. The club ended the campaign as FA Cup winners, but failed to retain their Premier League title as they finished second to Chelsea. In the UEFA Champions League, Arsenal made an exit in the knockout stages to Bayern Munich.

Contributor(s): Lemonade51, PeeJay

I am nominating this topic because I believe these articles now collectively constitute a complete topic. The topic was nominated in January 2019, but was not listed because the articles overlapped with another topic. However, this topic has since been delisted due to its incompleteness; it is also my opinion that that the rivalry topic should not have existed. Nonetheless, I think this should be a straightforward addition. See also: 1991–92 season & 2002–03 season --Idiosincrático (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asteroid belt

The asteroid belt is a torus-shaped region in the Solar System, centered on the Sun and roughly spanning the space between the orbits of the planets Jupiter and Mars. It contains a great many solid, irregularly shaped bodies called asteroids or minor planets. The identified objects are of many sizes, but much smaller than planets, and, on average, are about one million kilometers (or six hundred thousand miles) apart. The asteroid belt is the smallest and innermost known circumstellar disc in the Solar System. About 60% of the main belt mass is contained in the four largest asteroids: Ceres, Vesta, Pallas, and Hygiea. The total mass of the asteroid belt is estimated to be 3% that of the Moon.

Contributor(s):

Demoted in 2020 once Ceres lost FA status, the article has since gotten its star back, so there are no impediments for a restoration. --igordebraga 17:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Cup

The Emirates Cup is an annual

Paris Saint-Germain, Valencia and Inter Milan
; the two-day tournament brought in 110,000 spectators over the four matches. The tournament has been frequently cancelled and since 2019, the format has moved to a single exhibition friendly match between Arsenal and another team.

Contributor(s): Lemonade51

I am nominating this these articles as I believe together they constitute a complete good topic. This

2019 edition had not reached recognised status in time. However, this article has recently been redirected to the lead article per this discussion, thus restoring the topic. It was also noted here that single-match editions (which has been the format since 2019) were not noteworthy enough to constitute individual articles. --Idiosincrático (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

@AirshipJungleman29: I too was concerned about this. When the list originally passed as an FL, it was more "list-like" and no concerns were brought up then, nor in the previous GT nom. However, I agree with you and I think it should have an article rating. I'd be happy to nominate it for GA status if you'd be willing to review it? Just to help streamline both the GA and GT noms. It's a pretty straightforward article and should be a quick nomination as the article has already passed an FL nomination. I'll wait for your response before doing so :) Idiosincrático (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm going to change my stance on this; overtime I think as more editions of the tournament pass, the longer the list will grow. I believe the list will grow disproportionately to the commentary and expand into a more of a 'list-class' article. Thus, I think out of practicality, it should remain a list. I'd like to hear other people's opinion on this, but unless someone opposes the nomination, I will not change anything within the topic nomination. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:20, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 17:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No problem with the main article being a list (there are a lot of lists that are FLs with a decent history section.) Complete topic, good work. NapHit (talk) 21:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topic removal candidates

Procedural delisting. As one of the articles has been merged, this topic only has two articles, so it thus ineligible to be a good topic. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom Okmrman (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Problem that cant be solved.
AATalk 23:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Delist per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rosey and The Hurricane

Stacy Keibler was demoted from GA so it fails to meet 3b. Okmrman (talk) 23:08, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chrono titles

Chrono Cross was demoted from FA in November 2023, meaning that the topic now fails criteria 3b. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist Chrono Cross needs major work to regain FA status. Numerous Chrono series characters have now been shown to be notable as well, making this topic feel somewhat incomplete. At the very least, Crono should probably be a part of any newer Featured Topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 10:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Chronos Cross would either need to be promoted to GA or FA in order for it to be a complete featured topic again. Okmrman (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderers F.C.

The list of FA Cup-winning players is an obvious addition to this topic; without the inclusion of this list, the topic fails criteria 1d and 1e and the topic should be delisted. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd completely forgotten I had even created that. Should be possible to get it to FL status - I will start work right away! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now at FLC -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Support a supplementary nomination to include FA Cup-wining players per @Aza24:. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - it's looking likely that the list will get promoted to FL. If that does happen, would this GTRC need to be closed and then a supplementary nomination started to add the list to the topic, or can it all be resolved here? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that the list of winning players article is a FL the article should be kept and that list added in a supplementary nomination. NapHit (talk) 21:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of UEFA club competition winning clubs

The UEFA Europa Conference League is a relatively new competition and did not exist at the time of the 2008 FT nomination. Additionally, the Intercontinental Cup list did not exist at the time of the nomination either, it should be included as it was jointly administered by both UEFA and CONMEBOL, and the competition is included in the lead article tallies. Without these lists reaching recognised status, this topic fails criteria 1d and 1e, thus it should be delisted. The UEFA Women's Champions League list is not included as the lead article only outlines men's competitions. Idiosincrático (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try and get both of these lists up to featured standard in the coming weeks. Had forgot the Conference League list needed adding to the topic, likewise the Intercontinental Cup. NapHit (talk) 23:25, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hold – The UEFA Conference League list has since been nominated as an FL candidate. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of Katy Perry

The live performances constitute a gap when it comes to criteria 1d and 1e, as it is not an FL and is also not "within the scope of a non-lead article that is included in the topic".--NØ 07:02, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove: per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: per nom. Live performances has been tagged with "This article needs additional citations for verification" since January 2019 so I guess no real effort has been made to bring it up to FL standards since then. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom. -- ZooBlazer 07:42, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]