Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates

From 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 FTC talk page, or use the {{@FTC}} 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 promoted to featured or good topic status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The FGTC coordinators are usually the ones to assess this consensus and close FGTC discussions. If there is a consensus to promote, the promote instructions are located here. 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.

Featured topic nominations[edit]

Latin Grammy Award for Album of the Year[edit]

The Latin Grammy Awards are presented by the Latin Recording Academy to recognize outstanding achievement in the Latin music industry. The Album of the Year is one of the four accolades included in the General Field.

Contributor(s): Jaespinoza

The Latin Grammy Award for Album of the Year is part of the General Field of the Latin Grammy Awards. During 24 years handing those awards, 2 featured articles and 8 good articles have been written for winning and nominated albums, and this would make a good topic. --Javier Espinoza (talk) 00:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


1991 Atlantic hurricane season (1st supplementary nomination)[edit]

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]

Dwarf planets[edit]

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): Ruslik0, Ckatz, Serendipodous, 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]
  • Support. Glad to know people can read high-quality articles about dwarf planets. TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 19:30, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per nom. It's always nice seeing the littler members of the Solar System receive due recognition! I will point out that there was a recent debate over whether Orcus should be listed as a "consensus dwarf planet" or not, with a tentative conclusion that it is better treated as a borderline object like 120347 Salacia, so Orcus may have to be removed from the topic. ArkHyena (talk) 06:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, though I feel this is one that'll have to be changed a lot in the coming decades! Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 17:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; good work and, FWIW, I agree with removing IAU definition of planet. QueenofHearts 19:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good topic nominations[edit]

Midnights[edit]

Midnights is the tenth studio album by the American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift. With an understated synth-pop and electropop sound, Midnights is a concept album about nocturnal ruminations. Released on October 21, 2022, the album was Swift's fifth to sell over one million US first-week copies, and its songs made her the first artist to monopolize the entire top ten of the US Billboard Hot 100.

Contributor(s): Ippantekina, Ronherry, Gained, PassedDown, Infsai

This topic cover the album Midnights and its songs, and all articles have been promoted to GA. --Ippantekina (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support WP:SWIFT has already been noted as a busy bunch, good to see a neat demonstration. igordebraga 16:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Damita Jo[edit]

Damita Jo is the eighth studio album by American singer Janet Jackson. EMI Music Japan released it first in Japan on March 22, 2004. Damita Jo debuted at number two on the US Billboard 200 and was considered a disappointment by the media compared to Jackson's previous efforts. To promote it, three singles were released: "Just a Little While", "I Want You" and "All Nite (Don't Stop)", while "R&B Junkie" was issued as a promotional single. Jackson's performance at the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show prior to the album's release, which ended in Jackson's breast being accidentally exposed by surprise guest Justin Timberlake, had a major effect on the album's commercial performance.

Contributor(s): Alex reach me!

I am nominating this since the lead article was recently promoted to GA. --Alex reach me! 20:54, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support no dearth of pop albums to become topics, it seems. igordebraga 16:29, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Great work on this topic. "All Nite (Don't Stop)" to this day is such a banger. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avengers films[edit]

The Avengers are a team of fictional superheroes and the protagonists of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) media franchise, based on the Marvel Comics team of the same name created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby in 1963. Founded by S.H.I.E.L.D. Director Nick Fury, the team is a United States-based organization composed primarily of superpowered and gifted individuals, described as "Earth's Mightiest Heroes", who are committed to the world's protection from a variety of threats. Initially arranged as an ensemble of core MCU characters consisting of Tony Stark / Iron Man, Steve Rogers / Captain America, Thor, Bruce Banner / Hulk, Natasha Romanoff / Black Widow, and Clint Barton / Hawkeye, and later expanding to 16 members. The Avengers are central to the MCU's first 23 films, collectively known as the "Infinity Saga", which included four Avengers films: The Avengers (2012), Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015), Avengers: Infinity War (2018), and Avengers: Endgame (2019). The franchise is the sixth highest-grossing film series of all-time, grossing more than US$7.7 billion at the worldwide box office. The Avengers are set to return in Avengers 5 (2026) and Avengers: Secret Wars (2027). Both will be part of the MCU's Phase Six, concluding the "Multiverse Saga".

Contributor(s): ZooBlazer, Adamstom.97, Favre1fan93, Trailblazer101, Facu-el Millo, InfiniteNexus, Chompy Ace, TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, Dcdiehardfan, among others

The Avengers is the biggest franchise within the MCU, so it felt like after four films, and two more announced, it was past time to make a GT of some sort. Due to there not being an article dedicated only to the Avengers franchise, making Avengers the lead article was the next best option. As a result, the accolades are included as they encompass the films and the actors/individual characters. -- ZooBlazer 00:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • CommentAvengers (Marvel Cinematic Universe) should be a topic because it is a notable franchise. However, I think the collection of articles is incomplete; for example, there are articles covering the soundtracks and box office records which aren't included and are fundamental to the completeness of the films mentioned. Instead, I'd like to suggest that this topic include only the four current Avengers films, and that each film have a respective subtopic. For example, the Avengers: Infinity War subtopic would include its accolades, box office records, soundtrack and production. These subtopics can also be noted on the phase topics as well. This way, every article concerning the topic is covered and we still get an Avengers topic. Let me know if this doesn't make sense. Idiosincrático (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The soundtracks wouldn't make sense here as the scope is more about the team (which is what the lead article is) since it can't be entirely about the films without a dedicated article. The soundtracks have nothing to do with the team/characters. Subtopics could maybe work, but just an FYI, from what I've heard, the box office records lists are frowned upon at FLC, so they could likely ruin some topics since they probably will never get promoted. -- ZooBlazer 05:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the Avengers (MCU) article is about the fictional superheroes and protagonists (like the lead says), should this topic not instead list the roster of characters within the team; ie. Tony Stark, Thor etc? I get that "the Avengers is the biggest franchise within the MCU", but there is no article about the 'Avengers film franchise'; Avengers (film series) redirects to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films. Topics like Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One films, in my opinion, are more than enough coverage for the film series alone. Instead, sub-topics for each individual film is more appropriate. These said sub-topics should include both the soundtracks and any respective box office list/article; a topic constitutes a complete grouping of every article/list related to the lead article (so long as the article/list exists). The reason why the box office records lists are unpopular is because they're not encyclopaedic and content-forking, this was discussed here with no consensus to delete in 2018. This was done at the time of film release, a nomination to delete or merge now would be probably be more successful. Idiosincrático (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I will narrow this down to just the films as you suggested above. -- ZooBlazer 07:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Idiosincrático is right that the Avengers character article should probably by part of a character topic with the individual character articles. I don't think it makes sense to treat it like an Avengers film franchise topic. These films all fit well in the Phase topics that we are already planning. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nice effort. And given that somehow there are a lot of separate articles for the MCU incarnations of the characters, the top article can even be used if there's ever an "MCU Avengers members" topic. igordebraga 18:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the narrowed down GT of including the Avengers films only. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I see the above suggestions have been implemented and it meets all the necessary criteria for inclusion. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Cinematic Universe Phase One films[edit]

Phase One of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is a group of American superhero films produced by Marvel Studios based on characters that appear in publications by Marvel Comics. The films include Iron Man (2008) with Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark / Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk (2008) from Universal Pictures with Edward Norton as Bruce Banner / Hulk, the sequel Iron Man 2 (2010), Thor (2011) with Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) with Chris Evans as Steve Rogers / Captain America, and the ensemble The Avengers (2012) with Downey, Hemsworth, Evans, Scarlett Johansson, and Jeremy Renner reprising their roles and Mark Ruffalo replacing Norton. Samuel L. Jackson has the most appearances in the Phase, starring or making cameo appearances as Nick Fury in five of the films. The six films grossed over US$3.8 billion at the global box office. Phase One, along with Phase Two and Phase Three, constitutes the MCU's "Infinity Saga".

Contributor(s): ZooBlazer, Adamstom.97, Favre1fan93, Richiekim, TriiipleThreat, among others

After the MCU films GT was demoted a while back, it was suggested to instead make the individual Phases their own GTs. Now that Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One is a GA, it's time to set that plan into motion. For now I just have the films, but wasn't sure if List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga) should be included or not. I just know that the old topic included it. -- ZooBlazer 16:24, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors (The Infinity Saga) should be excluded as it includes more than just Phase One. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good job on the nomination. Okmrman (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As per the nom, all the films are GAs, good work overall :) Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Great work on MCU as always! Pseud 14 (talk) 01:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to see the Phase articles are getting good enough to make proper topics out of them. igordebraga 02:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support – per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great work. NapHit (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This will be the first step out of many... TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 01:11, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great work all involved! Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1989 (Taylor's Version)[edit]

1989 (Taylor's Version) by the American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift is a re-recording of her 2014 studio album. Released on October 27, 2023, 1989 (Taylor's Version) includes re-recorded versions of all songs on the original album and five unreleased "From the Vault" tracks. The re-recorded album became Swift's sixth release to sell over one million first-week US copies.

Contributor(s): Ippantekina, Ronherry, Gained

All articles within scope are GA. If promoted, this will be a subtopic to 1989 (album). --Ippantekina (talk) 13:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support – The topic only includes the new "from the vault" songs released with the album; because this is a subtopic on 1989, the exclusion of the original songs shouldn't be a problem. I assume there's some legitimate reason why there's no "Suburban Legends" article as WP:SWIFT is usually quite thorough. Idiosincrático (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a draft for Suburban Legends in the works... might have to promote it to GA status as soon as possible (should it go into the outside mainspace) Brachy08 (Talk) 00:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As the editor who is expanding the draft, I don't think I'm gonna work on it until "Mr. Perfectly Fine", the article I'm currently working on, is GA-ready. Gained (talk) 14:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understandable... (be sure to make Suburban Legends GA-ready for it). Brachy08 (Talk) 00:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Djibouti at the Olympics[edit]

Djibouti has participated in nine Summer Olympic Games as of the completion of the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo (held in 2021). Djibouti has never competed in the Winter Olympic Games. Only one Djiboutian athlete has ever won a medal at the Olympics, marathon runner Hussein Ahmed Salah, who won a bronze medal in the 1988 marathon.

Contributor(s): Kees08, Cameron11598, NickGibson3900, EN-Jungwon

This was delisted in 2022 as the 2020 edition was not brought to GA status fast enough. However, this has recently changed and all articles are now GA status. It includes all nine articles which outline Djibouti's progress the the Summer Olympics, the country has never participated in the Winter Olympics. I should also note that the 2024 edition article exists, however the event obviously is yet to have taken place. --Idiosincrático (talk) 09:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot! @WP:FTC coordinators: could I please have this nomination removed. Idiosincrático (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celebration (Madonna album)[edit]

Celebration is the third greatest hits album by American singer-songwriter Madonna, released on September 18, 2009, by 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

Back in 2010, this topic was promoted with just the album, the new songs, and the DVD, leading to a demotion for the obvious gap that it's the rest of the tracklist. Well, took 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]

  • Support – I never quite realised how impressive WP:MADONNA was. Having the songs and DVD listed instead of the individual albums is much better. For some songs such as Everybody, this would be their third topic; I'm supporting under the assumption that it is okay, despite not knowing of any other similar cases. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for a job well done Kekkomereq1 (talk) 08:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hypericum sect. Androsaemum[edit]

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[edit]

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]
  • Hold until a series article is made per Zxcvbnm.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Mirror (1st supplementary nomination)[edit]

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]

Adelophthalmidae (1st supplementary nomination)[edit]

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]
  • Archopterus needs to be a GA or PR if it is to remain as an article. Pruemopterus should be added to the topic. But there needs to a solution to Archopterus otherwise the topic should be removed (Biology is my typical subject matter so let me know if I got something wrong).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist unfortunately per above. QueenofHearts 22:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, with respect to all those who have contributed to these articles, as Archopterus is not a good article. If the topic is notable then its inclusion and GA status is necessary under the good topic rules. I notice that Unionopterus and Wiedopterus are GAs so any changes to their classification would not be a barrier to this topic being re-promoted. — Bilorv (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah no worries. I am the author of most of these and I clarify that I am not mad or anything to people here. I started this nomination to continue the normal bureaucratic process knowing well this could be the outcome. I am really done with this topic area and in fact this is going to be my very last involvement into it after many years. Which means a delist was going to happen eventually.
By the way, I talked with the author of Wiedopterus and sought a third opinion, and it was decided academia was not clear on whether the genus should be included in this family, so it wouldn't be part of this GT. Super Ψ Dro 20:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However they are categorised, the articles are high-quality and a valuable resource to readers. Thanks for your work in this field and I hope you find a new topic that interests you. — Bilorv (talk) 16:08, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for now, but I would be more than happy to help bring Archopterus to the quality needed. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 15:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Cup[edit]

The Emirates Cup is an annual pre-season friendly association football competition hosted by Arsenal F.C. at their home stadium, the Emirates Stadium. Arsenal won the first edition in 2007, which featured 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 former good topic was delisted in 2020 as the 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]
  • Support -- Phikia (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous consensus: complete with respect to notable articles. The main page being a list makes sense to me. — Bilorv (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Topic removal candidates[edit]

Wanderers F.C.[edit]

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]
  • @WP:FTC coordinators: ^^ Idiosincrático (talk) 11:11, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Delegate comment: Technically, I suppose delisting here and then re-promotion would be fitting, but that all seems like too much of a fuss. Lets just get everything taken care of here; I'll update the template if the FLC passes and say that the topic was kept and a page was added in the process. Aza24 (talk) 20:14, 5 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]
  • Keep GT and support supplementary nomination per above. Pseud 14 (talk) 12:50, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now that FA Cup-winning players is a FL.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; good work. QueenofHearts 03:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep.  750h+ | Talk  03:13, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of UEFA club competition winning clubs[edit]

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]
  • Wait UEFA Europa Conference League is at FLC and there is desire to do the same thing for the Intercontinental Cup.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overview of Katy Perry[edit]

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]
  • Remove per nom.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove unfortunately per nom. QueenofHearts 03:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]