Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates

Featured and Good topics in Wikipedia A featured topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles). A good topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles) with a less stringent quality threshold than a featured topic. This page is for the nomination of potential featured and good topics. See the good and featured topic criteria for criteria on both types of topic. If you would like to ask any questions about your topic and the featured topic process before submitting it, visit Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates. Before nominating a topic, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Featured topic questions. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FTC/GTC process. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. The featured topic director, GamerPro64, or his delegate Juhachi, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FT or GT status, consensus must be reached for a group to be promoted to featured or good topic status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates topic and archived. You may want to check previous archived nominations first: Purge the cache to refresh this page	Featured content: Featured articles Featured lists Featured pictures Featured portals Featured topics ← Good content: Good articles Good topics ← Good and featured topic tools: Topic criteria Topic candidates Topic removal candidates Nomination procedure Topic log Topics on the Main Page Former topics Topic questions
Nomination procedure To create a new nomination use the form below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Saffron/archive1) and click the "Create new nomination" button. Once the nomination page is created, remember to transclude it in the appropriate section below, to leave nomination templates on the talk pages of the articles nominated for the topic, and to create appropriate books (see Book:Jupiter for a good example). For detailed instructions on how to nominate topics or add articles to existing topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure. Supporting and 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. Following the creation of the book, NoomBot will create a book report (see example) containing details about cleanup issues (only those that have been flagged with cleanup templates, so it may not pick up everything), and various tools to inspect external links or resolve disambiguation pages. It can be a good idea to check the report and inspect links to see if certain articles need some cleanup (doing this before the nomination is even better). 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.

Featured topic nominations

U.S. Highways in Michigan

Contributor(s): Imzadi1979

This is a high-quality, and so far the first of its kind, collection of articles encompassing a single state's components of the national United States Numbered Highway System along with the related business routes, and it follows with Wikipedia:Featured topics/Interstate Highways in Michigan (currently a GT, working on promotion to FT). Unlike that topic, this is already at FT-level content.

This is also the second of the three subtopics about the Michigan State Trunkline Highway System. The other subtopics on Michigan's "plain" state highways will be coming to GTC later this year after another FLC. Once these subtopics are promoted, I plan a FTC using the system article and the four lists of roads in the overall system. (Pure Michigan Byway won't have its own topic.) --Imzadi 1979 → 03:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support - Excellent collection of quality articles on the U.S. Highway System in Michigan that meets the criteria for FT. Dough4872 03:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Hits the mark for quality and it looks like it's comprehensive and all encompassing as far as I can tell.  MPJ-DK  21:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Overview of Lady Gaga

Contributor(s): Calvin999, Chasewc91, FrB.TG, GagaNutella, IndianBio, SNUGGUMS

Except for her biography (I contributed to the article to some extent) and discography, I have been working on all of the other lists for a year now, taking them to featured with other editors, primarily with GagaNutella. It is a comprehensive topic of the outlandish singer. --FrB.TG (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• The topic covers the major subjects, but I hope you guys consider creating a "Merchandise of LG" article too to cover things like Lady Gaga Fame, Eau de Gaga, Lady Gaga x Terry Richardson, and Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop and perhaps even Haus of Gaga and Born This Way Foundation. Really big celebrities like this should have an extra article on their "non-music" part of their fame/fortune. Nergaal (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• That's probably asking for too much. I don't even know any person with articles dedicated to merchandise. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Delegate comment Just a reminder that topics are judged for articles that exist now, not ones that could exist in the future (that's what FTC retention is for). Whether a new article should be created or not is outside the scope of this nomination.--十八 20:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Snuggums, there is no reason to create an article about it. Gaga already has a complete body of articles here on Wiki. GagaNutella^talk 20:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• Concur here, lets not go really really tangent here. (My personal opinion for a merchandise article is NO at this point anyways.). —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 08:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

• Just to clarify, I am not agains the topic, but I would really appreciate you guys taking a step into getting the topic 100% covering all the faces of being this famous. Lots of her money is made outside of music, but I weakli support the topic in the current form. Nergaal (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • And nobody here is against the idea, we are against it currently, because there is no real need for an article like that now. Later? Definitely as her business empire expands. Thanks for your support anyways. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 14:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Based on current articles this covers them all, they all have the expected level of quality etc.  MPJ-DK  20:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you very much :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Good topic nominations

Los Espantos

Contributors: MPJ-DK

I am nominating this groups of articles for Good Topic status as I believe they hit all the marks necessary. There are nine articles in total. All are Good Articles. It covers all possible Espanto Articles that can currently be created so no gaps. They are clearly covering a similar topic and inter-connected. There is a lead article. The only challenge is that I don't have a free use image of any of Espantos. This is my first ever "Good Article" nomination and the first Lucha libre potential Good Topic as well. Any and all comments and suggestions are welcome. Thanks in advance.  MPJ-DK  20:41, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

400-series highways

Contributor(s): Floydian

This extensive topic covers the 400-series highways of Ontario, the major freeway network of the province, which includes the busiest freeway in the world as well as the first divided highway in North America. Aside from one article on a highway under construction (which lacks crucial data until it is opened), every article is a GA at a minimum, and many are A or FA. (note that Highway 412 is undergoing a GAN as it was only completed on Monday) -- Floydian ^τ _¢ 15:51, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I thought the proper procedure was to wait until it's passed GA? There is no way of knowing how long it will be before it's passed for GA and all. MPJ-DK  20:36, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
• And a "future class"? has that been peer reviewed etc. to hit the mark for content that may not be able to get to GA/FA status yet?  MPJ-DK  20:37, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  The GAN for Highway 412 is done and only awaiting promoted. However, I did miss the ball on sending Highway 418 for a peer review. Doing that in a minute. Unless a fellow WP:HWY member takes it on in the next 24 hours (I'll deal with any issues quickly), I'll put this nomination on hold and remove it from the queue. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 22:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Russell family (Passions)

Contributor(s): Aoba47

This topic covers the seven members of the Russell family, a fictional family that appeared on the American television soap opera Passions, which aired on NBC (1999–2007) and later on DirecTV (2007–08). I have been working on this a lot since the beginning of January and all eight articles have recently been passed as GAs. I would love to have this be a good topic because it would be the first one for a soap opera (as far as I am aware) and would bring more attention to this particular show. Any comments would be greatly appreciated! Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Driveby comment: I have removed the image that was in use on this page. Non-free images should not be used outside of the mainspace. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Josh Milburn: Thank you for the correction! Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Star Trek: The Next Generation (season 1)

Contributor(s): Miyagawa

All episodes in the season are at GA, as is the season article. Some of the episodes were my earliest GA TV episode work, and were missing the rating information because they were written before I'd tracked down a reliable source for that. But I've just gone through after the season article was promoted and made sure that they were all brought up to speed. Miyagawa (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

• Support, agf. Nergaal (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Tremendous effort, complete and high quality, well done! Mattximus (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - A lot of great work here! Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Wonderful series, and a great achievement to get so many articles to GA status. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
• Support - Quite an accomplishment to get that quality and quantity done. Truely spectacular.  MPJ-DK  20:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Alasdair Cochrane

Contributor(s): J Milburn

A political theorist and his two books. I know that he has plans for another book, but I can't see it appearing for a while yet, and, even when it does (due to the "speed" of academic publishing) it won't have sufficient coverage to be considered notable for a while longer. --Josh Milburn (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Support Comment -- Tks for this series of articles, Josh. Just procedurally, I think we're supposed to put a link to the nomination on the article talk pages -- seem to recall it being in the instructions anyway... Content-wise, did you consider whether Centre for Animals and Social Justice should be part of the topic given Cochrane's a founder member? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Excellent work getting such an engaging photo of the subject! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)!

Thanks for the comments; I've added the talk page template. I'll have a muse on the CASJ... Josh Milburn (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Not saying it should. I mean if the topic is the guy and his works (i.e. his notable literary output) then CASJ isn't necessary and the topic is comprehensive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I had a think on this; a number of people are affiliated with the centre, and other founding members include Dan Lyons and Robert Garner. The centre could probably be a topic in its own right, but if the article was going to go into a particular person's topic, it would be Lyons's. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough -- happy to support now. Pls note, I fixed a harv error in the main article but there's a few in Animal Rights Without Liberation that I'd prefer you look at -- do you know about Ucucha's checker tool? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the support; I don't know about the tool, where would I find it? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Here you go. Once installed, it highlights things automatically -- unlike Ucucha's duplink checker/highlighter, you don't have to invoke it for a particular article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Great, thanks, I've fixed the errors. Josh Milburn (talk) 07:44, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

• Topic seems fine, but the 3 articles are not liked with a template. Nergaal (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  Is that necessary? The article on Cochrane is on the animal rights template, while one of the books is on another navbox; I'm not sure creating a new navbox with three articles (and three articles which all link to each other quite heavily) would be that beneficial. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Early history of video games

Contributor(s): PresN

It's long been annoying to me that the articles on the early history of video games and the foundational games therein were in pretty awful shape, and starting this past November I decided to do something about it. 6 months, several books, countless web searches and 12 articles later, I present to you a completed good topic on the early history of video games, covering the time span from the initial protogames of 1947-51 through to the first spark of commercial video games in 1971, ending just before 1972 when Pong showed that the commercial arcade game was a real thing, and the Magnavox Odyssey showed that playing games on your TV was a possible and profitable idea. Included in this topic is every article we have on a 1971 or earlier video game, with the from-scratch early mainframe games scooping up some of the smaller ones. It's a little-known area of video game history—most books breeze past the whole 25 year period on their way to the better-documented 1972—but an important starting point for a ton of game developers in the 70s and 80s. Special thanks to Indrian, who GA reviewed all but one of these, holding my feet to the fire on being clear and precise in my language when trying to simplify complex development histories and pointing me at great resources when the easy sources contradicted each other. --PresN 03:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Support - Once again, a topic pulled from total obscurity and shined to beautiful Green plus signs by @PresN:. Strong support for articles all of us video game readers and those interested in history should learn from. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Support - Don't know if my GA reviews preclude me from voting, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to express my admiration for all PresN has done to turn Wikipedia into perhaps the best source for early video game history not just on the Web, but in any media format. Indrian (talk) 22:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Really nice topic but I would like to clarify the delimitation of the topic a bit since it seems a bit fuzzy.

• Why not put Pong and MO in this topic?
• while 1st gen consoles is a well defined term, "early history" is a bit vague. Would the main article and this topic work better as "pre-console history of VG"? Or "History of first video games"?
• I think this topic might benefit from a list/table of all game entries before 1972.
• Early mainframe games seems to suffer from the same name/table issues.
• Also, should "Turochamp" be italicized?

Nergaal (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• The earlier in the history of video games you go, the fuzzier the borders get, but if you were going to put a marker and say "this is the start of the commercial video game industry", you'd say that Pong (landmark title, spawned tons of imitators, clones, home versions, etc., widely regarded as the first video game that the general public knew about) and the Odyssey (the first commercial home video game system, same time period, first time the majority of players had ever seen a video game) would be it (especially as they were released only a couple months apart). This is everything before that, so Pong and MO wouldn't fit.
• Consoles are great and all, but it does a disservice to the medium to pretend that computer/arcade/mainframe video games don't exist, and that they weren't at times the dominant form of the medium- including the entire time period covered here. There isn't an easy term for "before the explosive start of the commercial video game industry in 1972", but "early history" works pretty well without using a neologism like "protohistory" or something.
• Are you talking about the actual "early history" article, or the topic? Regardless, pretty much impossible- we're talking about a time period that covers when the global community of <1000 programmers might have one undergrad throw together a game over the course of a few weeks, physically mail off a letter with the plain-text source code to a volunteer-run newsletter that may have one issue still archived anywhere (50 years later), and have it be one of the most-played games of the year solely because only a few dozen text-based games were "released" that year. Such a table would be unsourcable, and either pointless or include hundreds of entries with nothing more than a name to demark them.
• To reiterate, none of these game were sold. Or really "published". You're asking for a table of hobby projects that were shared with other niche enthusiasts with access to computer systems that often cost more than US$1 million in 1960s money, 50 years after the fact. The data doesn't exist.
• Context would be helpful when talking about a 12-article topic, but I found what you meant. I don't think so- it's fuzzy, but you don't italicize the titles of software projects; you do italicize games as stand-alone releases, but an academic chess proof-of-concept that happens to be the first such academic project that covered a game isn't the same thing as Halo. --PresN 05:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

• I still thing "Early history" is an unnecessarily vague term. Why don't you think the topic and article should be "history of first VGs"? With the latter, Pong should be included as the first well known VG (Odyssey I guess also). Also, the topic is not clearly defined in an obvious way (if somebody sees the template they have no idea what say OXO could possibly be and how is it related to the topic), so try to cover in the intro para how all the entries are linked/ perhaps my mentioning some years too. Nergaal (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• I've tweaked the wording a bit, but I feel that talking about the time period covered as defined by the games produced on either end, and then having a list of games as sub-articles, pretty clearly indicates that it's the games released in the "early history of video games". A topic on an album doesn't list out what each song is in the lead paragraph. I also disagree with "history of first video games" - that doesn't actually mean anything, or cover what you say it does- the first games that could be called "video games"? The first video games that could be said to be the "first" of something? The topic is about the time period in video game history prior to the rise of the commercial video game industry; it doesn't make much sense to me to rename it to something that includes games that were the start of the commercial video game industry, because that's no longer "prior" to. I agree that the term "early history" doesn't explicitly tell you what that means- which is why there's an introductory paragraph. And an article on the subject. Sometimes articles (like, say, "List of nearest exoplanets") have to define what the terms like "nearest" or "early" mean, because titles can only be so long. --PresN 04:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The quivalent would be "History of the earliest VG", but I am happy to support the topic in the current format. Just reported the entries in the template a bit to be more balanced. Nergaal (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @PresN: on the need for broadness in the articles title because the subject itself is interpretive. What exactly is a video game, and what was considered the "first video game"? It is this kind of thing that is so hard to pin down, and to which there is no right answer. The subject as to the exact time period of games pre-Pong is delineated in the first article, and can't be explained in a an title without unnecessary complication. What constitutes early should be gone over in the article space, not the title. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

RAAF area commands

Contributor(s): Ian Rose

This topic covers the eight geographically based commands formed by the Royal Australian Air Force during World War II. Five of the formations survived into the early 1950s, when the whole shebang was superseded by a functional command-and-control system made up of Home (operational), Training and Maintenance Commands. I've had this on the boil for a couple of years, originally planning the parent RAAF area commands to be more like a list, with subsections on the individual commands following the overview, but in the end I decided that the commands all justified their own articles and that I might put them together in a GT nom/book when complete. As the last in the series has just passed GAN, here they are... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support, but how come you dint go for a topic on RAAF Command? Nergaal (talk) 01:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Tks. This one seemed a natural, almost like a ship class topic -- I think when you take it up to the RAAF Command level, you're into a a different type of topic, no longer area commands per se, but operational command of the RAAF in the South West Pacific, and just what should belong in such a topic becomes a little more problematic, even for those relatively familiar with the subject...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support: these are all quality articles which work well together as a topic in my opinion. The only thing that leapt out at me was the self pointing redirect for No. 1 Group on Southern Area Command (RAAF). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Tks Rupert, I probably did the same thing with No. 2 Group at Central Area Command -- will rectify both as needed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
• SUpport - Logical groupings, high quality, all related and actually a clearly defined topic.  MPJ-DK  21:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Tks MJP! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

The Culinary Institute of America

Contributor(s): Ɱ

This topic only includes Good Articles related to the CIA, all recently reviewed for GA criteria. This is my second Good Topic nomination, after Briarcliff Manor. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 17:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

• Copia is essentially not mentioned in the main article. Nergaal (talk) 19:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

That might usually be a good point, however the only thing carrying over is the building, and therefore the information about Copia as a museum would be well out of scope in the main CIA article being that it's an undeveloped sub-subcampus of the institution.

Once Copia is opened as a new campus, there will be aspects of its operation that will be relevant to note in the main article. ɱ (talk · vbm · coi) 21:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• I would agree, the Copia article almost seems like it falls outside the topic, a cursory connection at best. The fact that it might be relevant in the future is nice, but until it happens (may never happen) I don't see Copia as being part of the topic as such especiall in it's current form, which means it falls one short of the criteria.  MPJ-DK  21:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: Except that the CIA has already purchased and started moving into the Copia building. They've already hosted quite a few events there. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ɱ: - that seems to be the opposite as what you stated in April when the comment was that there was not a lot of commonality between the two CIA articles and Copia. It's either in and has more detail about the topic, or it's out - cannot have it both ways.  MPJ-DK  20:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@MPJ-DK: In April I don't even think the sale of Copia was even finalized, and the school had a limited idea of what they were going to do with it. I updated the Copia article yesterday to include that it is purchased and is going to host the Food Business School and a museum. It's already hosting events; it's virtually as much a campus of the CIA as Greystone is now, so it would be ridiculous not to include it in the CIA topic. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

• So let us not be ridiculous then, the Copia article has only a cursory mention about the CIA, general comments on future plans beyond hosting one event. It certainly does not express the fact that it is "virtually as much a campus as Greystone" from what I have read.  MPJ-DK  22:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Topic removal candidates

Gwen Stefani albums

Since the article for her most recent album, This Is What the Truth Feels Like, failed its GAN recently, I am nominating this topic for failing to meet criterion 3.b and 1.d. GamerPro64 02:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I will be working heavily on her newest album to bring it to GA–status within this week, but I've been really caught up with the GA Cup. Is there anyway you could allow me a little time to improve it? Thanks, Carbrera (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC).

Sure. If you're able to improve and nominate it soon. If it fails its next GAN, this topic is going to be demoted. GamerPro64 02:36, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Demote unless the new album can become GA, though I doubt that'll happen anytime soon given how many problems I saw with it while reviewing its GAN. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

James Bond films

I am nominating this topic for removal as it has passed its retention period for Spectre (2015 film), which has not achieved at least GA status more than three months after its release, so the topic is no longer complete, thus failing criteria 1(d). GamerPro64 16:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment: The article in question is currently at GAN. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Demote unless the Spectre article passes its GAN. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Just wait, even if the review is taking a while to start. igordebraga ≠ 01:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Remove (regretfully) The topic is incomplete, and the GAN nomination for Spectre (2015 film) became stale a month ago. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
• Director comment - While there is consensus to demote this topic, the GAN is still going on, albeit stale. Once the nomination is done with, then we can decide the fate of the topic. GamerPro64 01:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)