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

M.I.A. albums (4th supplementary nomination)

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

1. AIM (album)

AIM (album) needs to be added to the topic..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support retention/extension. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Current Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre championships

Contributor(s): MPJ-DK

This Feature Topic is about the professional wrestling championships currently promoted by Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL), Some of the articles with large tables have been split into an article about the championship and a list of champions. This topic covers all active championships that have articles on Wikipedia, 15 out of the 26 are Featured work, the remaining 11 are Good Articles and thus qualifies for Featured Topic. There is a navigation box that unites all subjects under one and I believe this hits all the marks for a Feature Topic.

Since the topic here is not about the champions but the championships the topic size is very stable, and does not change from year to year. There are currently three Good Topic sub topics for this feature topic, with 2 more close to being ready for GT nomination as well. This Feature Topic is the culmination of my Lucha Libre championship work that started Featured List in April 2009 and only eight short years later it's completed. I will be creating the book in the next day or two.

And yes I'll have a "Former CMLL Championship" Feature Topic candidate at some point in the future, hopefully in less than 8 years from now.  MPJ-DK  00:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

• Update March 4 - the CMLL World Heavyweight Championship article is now a Featured Article as well.  MPJ-DK  16:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Topic seems fine, but please expand the lead. Nergaal (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Nergaal: that is a fair point, I have expanded it with some detail from the main article. Better??  MPJ-DK  19:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
• @Nergaal: - I have expanded the lead, does that work for you? If so I'd love your support.  MPJ-DK  16:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Support in principle. Nergaal (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Overall, it looks good, however, there's a discrepancy in the summary. You said that the Mexican National Lightweight Championship was created in 1932, but the article says June 28, 1934, and then the Mexican National Welterweight Championship says it was created on June 17, 1934, which actually makes it older. The summary on the Welterweight title only says that it's the oldest in the U.S., Canada, and Japan, but nowhere else. That to me says that there's actually an older title that's still active, it's just not promoted in those 3 countries. The source on the article is from 2000, so that may or may not still be true. --JDC808 ♫ 21:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• @JDC808: You are right about the discrepancy and that the Welterweight is actually older, I'll check my sources to see if I can figure out where the 1932 figure comes from (unless it was a brainfart - which I freely admit can happen). I'll track down the US/Can/Japan claim but I that's just an unfortunately restrictive phrase used, the scope is world wide as far as I'm aware, but again I've got the book I'll check. Side note - if it's listed as "the oldest" in 2000 and still exists today then that is still the truth unless we invoke time travel.  MPJ-DK  21:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• It's listed as the oldest for those three countries, but not the world. For example, Europe or some other country may have an active pro-wrestling title that's still active, but not promoted in the US, Canada, or Japan. The other comment was that maybe it is in fact the oldest active title now. As in, maybe at that time (2000), there was an older active title in another country, but that older title has since been retired. --JDC808 ♫ 21:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• That is a big old D'oh on my part for misreading the magazine comment.  MPJ-DK  22:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Cannot find the 1932 date but I have adjusted for the Welterweight being the oldest, not just older than US/Canada/Japan but world wide as far as I can find.  MPJ-DK  22:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• I would suggest to say that it's "one of the oldest" until there's definitive evidence to support that it is in fact the oldest still active world wide. --JDC808 ♫ 22:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• So I actually did that research in the past, I just had the date for the Lightweight creation when I checked the Wrestling Titles history book a while back, not noticing that the Welterweight predated it by a little. Part of my search is also based on the age of promotions - with no other active promotins dating to 1934 I found no championships with unbroken lieage dating back that far.  MPJ-DK  22:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Good topic nominations

Marvel Cinematic Universe films (2nd supplementary nomination)

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

1. Doctor Strange (film)

Doctor Strange has just become a GA, allowing it to be added to this Good Topic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Jclemens (talk) 07:43, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support good job! - Brojam (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
• Support Kees08 (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wipeout

Contributor(s): Jaguar

It's finally done. This is a project I never really thought about doing till the last minute. It all started when I brought the first Wipeout to GA status back in autumn 2014, and then I got to doing them roughly in order throughout the next two years. With the final one given the green stamp yesterday, this should be good to go. It's been a pleasure. --JAGUAR  20:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment An article for Wipeout: Omega Collection also exists, so that should either be listed for peer review or redirected. Also the current scope of the topic would probably need the inclusion of the soundtracks. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot to mention that. There's virtually nothing on it yet, but I will of course get it promoted to GA once it comes out in the summer (although the release date is not yet confirmed). I don't know what the procedure is for upcoming titles—is it a grace period? The soundtracks shouldn't be included as they're not video games and could even be redirected themselves as I pondered bringing them to GA but found virtually no reliable sources to warrant an expansion. JAGUAR  11:14, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer Reviews are recommended for games or products that aren't released yet. I suggest checking out the criteria page. GamerPro64 14:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

2c of the criteria states ...must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed. I'm not sure how that applies here as the Omega Collection is a two sentence stub and is unlikely to be expanded until its release later in the year. I'm open to alternatives. JAGUAR  22:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment I'm not sure what the standard procedure is, but considering that Omega Collection hasn't even been released yet I don't think that should render this topic ineligible. If it's a problem just redirect it until it gets released. I'd redirect or even PROD two of those three soundtrack articles regardless of whether soundtracks fall under the scope of the topic or not. Wipeout 2097: The Soundtrack appears to have some notability due to the AllMusic review, but not enough to warrant its own article. Why don't you merge it as a sub-section of Wipeout 2097? That would satisfy any concern for this nomination, but regardless I think it would be more appropriate anyway. Also just a minor issue that should be easily fixed - there's an open citation request at Wipeout 2097. Freikorp (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the unsourced sentence. It was one of my very early GAs after all! I'll check out the soundtracks, but I wouldn't worry about including them in this topic as they're not relevant. Final Fantasy has its own topic for music for example. I think they might be better off as subsections of their respective articles, I'll check it out. JAGUAR  22:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy

This good topic candidate contains a lead article, Royal Yugoslav Navy, is led by List of ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy, and articles covering all the ship classes, and where they are individually notable, articles for all individual ships on the list. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Congrats on getting here Peacemaker. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Issues: why is Category:Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy full of other articles? If T1-8 exist, why not T9-12? Or any MT class ones? Also, I am wondering if any people in Category:Royal Yugoslav Navy personnel of World War II, at least the admiral(s) should be included? If yes, change lead with the ships list. Nergaal (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• What other articles? The reason for T9–12 not being included is that they are not independently notable, as I mentioned in a general sense in the nom statement. The 250t-class ones clearly are, which can be seen from the individual articles. That is clear if you look at the 250t-class and Kaiman-class articles, and is a function of how old they were when WWI commenced, the 250t-class were new and were very active, the Kaiman-class not so much. The MT-class is the same, they are PT-boats that served for less than a year in a war, given their size, very little has been written about any individual PT-boats (except the one JFK captained in the Pacific). It is also highly questionable whether any of the senior officers of the Royal Yugoslav Navy are themselves notable. Of course, I'd be interested in any sources you might have that call into question my statements about the notability of individual ships. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:04, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Don't understand me wrong. The topic you proposed is fine with ships as lead and removal of current lead. The overview topic (which you propose here) should contain also a list of admirals for example, Dragutin Prica, and even maybe a fork of Orders, decorations, and medals of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Nergaal (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think I understand what you are saying, remove Royal Yugoslav Navy from this topic and call it List of ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:15, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Until other articles relevant to the topic (but which are not ships) are also improved. Nergaal (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

About 1/3 of the articles are linked to different names than listed here. I am not sure what is the best procedure for this. Maybe put together a good introduction that details all this and others in short. Same for the book, which is a joke right now. Nergaal (talk) 10:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Nergaal Will fix that. This is the first time I've done a proper good-sized book. Do you have any suggestions on a possible structure? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:13, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Have worked on the book, dividing it up into chapters by ship type similar to other FT/GT on ships. Let me know what you think? Have also fixed the naming issue by piping to the Yugoslav names. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:30, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Now it is readable. I almost suggest leaving out names with boat types so this list is more readable. Also, you need a descriptive intro paragraph. Nergaal (talk) 08:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Trimmed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Added intro para. Let me know what you think? More? Less? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - I wrote a couple of the articles in this topic, so I'm probably too involved to vote, but I do have a question: why are the monitors written out with their full titles, but none of the other vessels are? Also, the columns should probably be as even as possible - I'd suggest swapping Beli Orao and the three minelayers/sweepers, which would give you columns of 12, 12, and 11, which balances much nicer. Parsecboy (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Music of the Final Fantasy series (5th supplementary nomination)

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

1. Music of Final Fantasy XV

Getting the process going as Music of Final Fantasy XV became a Good Article on March 8th. GamerPro64 01:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh right, forgot about this. Involved support, since I reviewed the latest article and wrote most of the others. --PresN 01:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)—

• Support Jclemens (talk) 03:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Topic looks complete, but no introductory paragraph? :D Nergaal (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support: Great work on this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Djibouti at the Olympics

Contributor(s): Kees08, Cameron11598

Meets all the criteria of a Good Topic. Comprehensive, covers every Olympics that Djibouti has competed in. --Kees08 (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment Shouldn't List of flag bearers for Djibouti at the Olympics also be part of the topic?--十八 22:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

  Yeah I can see that point of view. In my opinion, with how little information there would be for Djibouti flagbearers at the Olympics, I would recommend merging the two articles, but I am not sure how the person that made the flagbearers nav box would feel about that. I could always link to the appropriate section in the nav box. Kees08 (talk) 23:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• Or leave it as a redirect in the template, but yeah, the list is entirely included in the main article (and in a prettier way) and so should be redirected to there and not included in this topic. --PresN 23:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think that is best. I will start working on that. I have never done a merge before so I'll check it out. Kees08 (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• I would advise against merging or converting the flag bearer article to a redirect given that it is part of a series of articles of that type (see Category:Lists of Olympic flag bearers by country) designed to create consistency across all nations that have competed at the Games. At the very least try and get some opinions at WT:OLY first - Basement12 (T.C) 16:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• Can do, process initiated. Kees08 (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Juhachi, PresN, and Basement12: The merge is complete. Kees08 (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support even without the flagbearers list. To me that is a fork, that doesn't need to be split for a few decades. Plus it is just a meaningless stat to be the flagbearer. If anything I think having the lone medalist would be more important. Nergaal (talk) 12:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support without the flagbearers article, I see no reason for that to even exist -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support – Very good work on getting this topic to the state it has become. I concur with the views of the two other users over the issue concerning the flag bearers article. It is in no way useful to this topic. MWright96 (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support - complete collection of high-quality articles. Nice work. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: It has been almost 30 days, should be long enough to promote, per the guidelines on this page 'Nominations will stay here for ten days if there is unanimous consent, or longer if warranted by debate.' Kees08 (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

1896 Atlantic hurricane season

For consideration to become a good topic: a high-quality, complete, and relatively straightforward set of articles concerning the Atlantic hurricane season of 1896. The two well-documented storms of the season have standalone articles, while the rest are discussed within the season article. Note that although Tropical Storm Seven – which doesn't have its own article – was highly destructive, it struck an impoverished and remote island, and information about it is consequently scarce. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Support as one of the GA reviewers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Support Enough detailed articles for the season.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 04:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - If 5 can have an article, then 2 should have one too. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• @Nergaal: All of the notable info available for Hurricane Two is in the season article. Whilst I would love to have written standalone articles for each and every storm in the season, the sparse meteorological records of the 19th century don't allow us that luxury. I think you'll agree that splitting two paragraphs off into its own page would be pointless, especially since the season article is acceptably short as it is. It would be nice to do a little research or consult involved editors before opposing. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• I am sure info from back then is sparse, but same way you found info for 5 you should be able to get info for 2 also. Nergaal (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

• I just told you that information doesn't exist. In the US, Hurricane Two had a much lighter impact in a much smaller area than Five, and only a few precious nuggets of info are available from Puerto Rico. I consulted my fairly comprehensive library of weather books, along with three newspaper archives and all the other sources I've compiled from 10 years of writing tropical cyclone articles, and could not find anywhere near enough on the storm to support its own page. It would be a permanent stub. I think you'll find that you're objecting to the balance of historical records and not to Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Hi Nergaal, do you have any outstanding concerns? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support Well written and comprehensive. No issues from what I can see. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Main Fire Emblem series

Contributor(s): haha169

Many talented editors have brought all of these articles up to Good Article status. They are all quality articles and each one fits the GA criteria, so this topic fits the GT criteria. --haha169 (talk) 15:45, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Did you contact the editors who brought these articles to Good Article status about this nomination? GamerPro64 16:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

No I did not, and I didn't realize that it was a requirement until now. I've identified two who are still active, ProtoDrake and IDV, and leave a message on their talk page. --haha169 (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• I've said this before, but I still think it makes more sense to create a topic that includes all Fire Emblem games considering there are not that many of them. There are two remakes, both of which already are at GA, and two spin-offs (Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE and Fire Emblem Heroes), one of which is close to GA already.--IDV^talk 07:14, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Since you're one of the main contributors to making these articles, do you think the nomination should be closed? GamerPro64 16:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
    • ProtoDrake is the main contributor, I only helped with some copyediting etc and taking two of the articles through GAN. I think it makes sense to get Tokyo Mirage Sessions FE and Fire Emblem Heroes up to GA and including them in the topic, but I don't feel I have more say in this than any other editors.--IDV^talk 16:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• • • • I'm alright with it as it stands. These are the mainline titles, and they're all GA. Trying to bring all the games under a single banner will drag this nomination out indefinitely, particularly as there are three known Fire Emblem games that will release in the near future. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• 👏👏👏 ProtoDrake did much (almost all?) of this on his own, and deserves a ton of credit. I disagree with the scope of the topic. "Main Fire Emblem series" is not independently notable but the series is, hence why we have an article on the series but not on the "main games". Scope should include Heroes, Echoes, the remakes with their own articles, etc. I don't think Tokyo Mirage should be included—there's a difference between a spin-off that uses characters/elements from the series and a spin-off that is a minor release perhaps not in the main releases but still in the series overall. Consider closing this nom until the other articles are ready/reviewed, and please verify with the main contributor (ProtoDrake) before nominating on their behalf. (Also FT intro paragraph should be expanded.)  czar 17:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
  • @Czar: What are your thoughts on Marth (Fire Emblem)? It would be the only remaining FE article after FE Heroes and the remakes.--IDV^talk 22:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I would choose to cover him as Ness is covered in EarthBound#Ness, which is to say that the character was made popular by Super Smash Bros, is known for this association, but there is little to say about that in any depth. The Ness section puts succinctly the most important details about the character and its affiliations without descending into the in-universe (Wikia-style) detail that haunts the current Marth article. I think someone could make a case for keeping it, as it's in that gray area, but I would just ask what benefit there is to see in coat racking for the in-universe detail when everything that needs to be said can be said within the character/plot section from one of Marth's games or the series article. If the article is kept, I'd include it within the topic scope (all independently notable elements of the series). czar 23:15, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• The current intro does not explain how the articles are linked together. Nergaal (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Wording may be better, but I've changed it to say: "...the series consists of twelve games plus two remakes and a spin-off game across multiple game systems." --haha169 (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Alesta

Contributor(s): Cartoon network freak

All article were promoted to GA status, so I think this should be promoted... ;) --Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Game of Thrones (season 1)

Contributor(s): jclemens

With the season summary article recently promoted to FL, the 10 GAs for each episode of the first season of the international hit HBO series now together meet GT criteria. --Jclemens (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

• As per standard formatting and precedent at Wikipedia:Good topics/Media and drama, episode titles should be in quotes- now done for you. --PresN 12:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support I've been waiting for this topic for a long time and it's finally here. Great job. :) Nickag989^talk 14:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support the soundtrak seems minimal. Nergaal (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I did not include Game of Thrones Theme or Music of Game of Thrones in this topic because while they started with season 1, each of them has continued and the articles cover music throughout all six seasons to date. I think they would be properly included in a series overview topic, which this does not strive to be. Jclemens (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Digging a bit deeper into this, I was not even aware there was a separate music article for each season's soundtrack--music's not really my thing. I am in the process of working that article up to GA status, but note that other similar GTs, like Book:Doctor Who (series 5) 1) have a soundtrack album for the season in question, but 2) don't include it in the season topic, and 3) the soundtrack isn't GA either, and none of that seems to matter. Jclemens (talk) 22:20, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support if Game of Thrones: Season 1 (soundtrack) is promoted to GA, otherwise oppose as without it the topic is incomplete. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Can you cite any other GT/FT television season which 1) has a soundtrack album and 2) in which the soundtrack is included in the GT/FT? I've pointed out Book:Doctor Who (series 5), above, does not, and I do not see anything anywhere listed in Wikipedia:Good topics/Media and drama which has a similar composition: None of the other television season GTs delve into music at all, and the film GTs (Book:Pirates of the Caribbean films, List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films) don't touch on soundtracks, either. Let's look at featured topics: Book:Seasons of Avatar: The Last Airbender has a soundtrack album and it is not included in that topic, either. Even more egregiously, several show season FTs (Smallville (season 1), Supernatural (season 1), and Supernatural (season 2) don't even have articles for every episode! More to the point, a soundtrack article cannot be similar to an episode article, as suggested by WP:WIAGT, so it's unclear that any topic with both episodes AND soundtracks included meets the current GT criteria. I respectfully request that this request be struck, or that the criteria be clarified and applied consistently to other similar topics. Jclemens (talk) 07:39, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • That's (mostly) like comparing oranges and apples.

      Wikipedia:Featured topics/Pirates of the Caribbean films and Wikipedia:Featured topics/Marvel Cinematic Universe films have a restricted scope to films only. Also the Marvel Cinematic Universe, AFAICS, doesn't a have soundtrack article for all the films combined.

      Likewise, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of Avatar: The Last Airbender is restricted to only seasons, and I don't see a soundtrack article.

      "don't even have articles for every episode" Well, that doesn't matter, because at a good/featured topic nomination only existing articles are considered. If one of the missing articles is created, and it doesn't attains GA/FA status within three months (retention period), than the topic becomes eligible for delisting.

      I think it's highly relevant, because if I am being dinged on incompleteness in a GT for not having an article that's not even part of the season per se, but other Featured topics could have articles on other episodes created, but don't, that's an entirely consistent perverse incentive against creation of articles, or for the deletion of other articles, in order to get better bling. Jclemens (talk) 06:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

    • You're right about Wikipedia:Featured topics/Doctor Who (series 5), that should contain Doctor Who: Series 5 (soundtrack), so I will think about nominating it for delisting. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
      • So if the topic were to be renamed "Episodes of Game of Thrones Season 1" then you would support? Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
        • Yeah, although I would prefer the "Game of Thrones (season 1) episodes" title for the topic. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Director Comment - Not seeing much of a consensus for this topic. There needs to be more discussion here before a consensus can be made. GamerPro64 14:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
• Conditional Support - based on the concerns above, I will support this topic if the scope and name is changed to cover Season 1 episodes only. --haha169 (talk) 15:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  And again... 1) That's not particularly fair as no other season GT/FT includes music and thus my contention is that a 'season X' topic is inherently limited to the episodes, and 2) I've nominated the S1 soundtrack for GA based on the feedback here, but no one has seen fit to pick it up yet. If someone here wants to do a GA review on that article, I can address those concerns.

  Alternatively, do haha169 and Armbrust agree that this can be promoted as 'Game of Thrones (season 1) episodes' and then speedily renamed to 'Game of Thrones (season 1)' without having to go through GTC again, once the soundtrack article is brought to GA? Jclemens (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

  Jclemens What you propose seems fair; however, I'm not familiar with what the process is to rename a topic. Perhaps someone with more familiarity could chime in on the subject? --haha169 (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

  I think that's up to GamerPro64 and company. There's no particular encyclopedic limitation on renaming a topic, as they exist primarily within the GT/FT framework. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support renamed topic 'Game of Thrones (season 1) episodes', to be speedily renamed to 'Game of Thrones (season 1)' if and when the soundtrack is brought to GA. --haha169 (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

  Note that the Soundtrack GA review has been picked up and I will be addressing the identified issues over the next few days. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

  And the Soundtrack has been promoted to GA, so I am including it mid-nomination to resolve a couple of the objections noted above. Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support all articles look good and with the soundtrack now included the topic is complete. Great job! (small note: there's actually 12 articles now not 11) - Brojam (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

  Fixed, thanks. Jclemens (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

• Support with the inclusion of the soundtrack! --haha169 (talk) 07:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
• Support everything looks good and ready to go with this. Congrats to everyone who worked on these articles. Aoba47 (talk) 15:30, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Topic removal candidates

X&Y

No longer meets GT criteria: one article "White Shadows" is not a GA. It seems that people keep re-creating the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Shadows. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delist per nominator's comment. Topic can be re-nominated if "White Shadows" is brought up to a GA or it is redirected/deleted through an AfD again. Aoba47 (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
• Delist as the article in question has been present and properly referenced (meets GNG, not an unambiguous merge candidate) since 2010. Again, no prejudice against re-nomination for GT if this issues is remedied. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Final Fantasy series

I am nominating this topic due to Final Fantasy XV not being at least be at Good Article status after its retention period ended, thus failing to meet criterion 3.b of the Featured Topic criteria. GamerPro64 14:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

• Delist per nominator's comment. The article for Final Fantasy XV could still use some work, specifically the expansion of the "Reception" section, and does not appear to be ready to be put up for GAN. When the article does pass as a good article, this could be made a topic again, but for now, it should be delisted. Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
• Delist per GamerPro64's comment. When Final Fantasy XV is a GA or higher, it can be renominated. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2017 (UTC)