This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Key visual novels for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
I am nominating the recently promoted featured list List of video games developed by Key to take the place of Key (company) as the main article of the topic since it serves as a better definition of what should be the main article in a good/featured topic as is given at WP:FT? point 2: The topic has an introductory and summary lead article or list.. Also, there was some concern during the nomination process about having Key (company) as the main article, so I believe this will solve that problem. All of the other articles have not changed in status since this became a good topic, and no additional visual novels have been announced by Key. I also am proposing the topic name be changed from "Key visual novels" to "Video games developed by Key" to fit with the title of the proposed main article addition.--十八 01:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good thinking, rationale well explained, full endorsement from me - rst20xx (talk) 10:51, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is already featured. It is also being re-nominated to remove items which are no longer part of the topic. See Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Retired Pacific hurricanes for the archived discussion of the topic's successful nomination. The removed items are:
The tropical cyclone Wikiproject had a discussion link, and we came to the agreement that two articles in the topic (Fico and Fefa) should not be considered retired Pacific hurricane names. We got confirmation from the National Hurricane Center that they were likely not retired. I'm not sure how to remove items from a topic, but I hope I did this right. If there is a problem, then I can omit the two removals for this topic addition.
Also, this spring, the World Meteorological Organization retired Tropical Storm Alma, which the project quickly got to GA status. So, this is where the topic lies today. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note, the image has been updated. Hopefully there are no more concerns. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I note that both of the removed articles still say that they're names are retired and have the retired hurricanes template at the bottom. It should be consistent. --PresN 18:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, per the project agreement, I removed the template and info saying those two were retired. The data we have available do not confirm its retirement, rather that it was only removed, and the email we got from the NHC leans toward the names being removed, not retired. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I was waiting for someone to bring that up. I contacted the author earlier today, asking he remove Fefa and Fico, and add Alma. It is forthcoming, but I hope the image is not a major issue for this nomination. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this was an issue you were already aware of, then why didn't you point it out from the start? rst20xx (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TBH, I didn't think it would be an issue. It's an image that is in the process of being changed. The accompanying image isn't an FT requirement, so it shouldn't be much of a concern. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I can fix that one later since it would be a rather easy one. (Apparently no one else uses Macs...) Potapych (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed; uploaded over the previous version. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that my objection has been resolved. I'm glad that Fefa and Fico will be out, since that is what I wanted from the start:) Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 01:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A strong objection for something that is being taken care of? The above vote can't really be addressed, so I don't think it should be counted. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You should come up with another name for that section Lists of retired names. There are more than that, but that section just covers the ones retired due to damages. You should also note that in the template. Potapych (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified it to "Lists of retired names due to impact", as impact is more generic than damage. Does that work? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The nomination process can take a week or two, and by then the picture should be up (right?), and no one should have any further objections. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 18:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Picture will be up in a few days, and the topic meets criteria. Darren23 (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but defer updating the topic until the picture is updated. Nergaal (talk) 04:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - now that the image is updated, everyone is happy - rst20xx (talk) 10:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus College, Oxford (2nd supplementary nomination)[edit]
This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Jesus College, Oxford for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
The main alumni list has grown and spawned three sub-lists, all of which are now FLs in their own right, hence this supplementary topic nom. BencherliteTalk 06:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that there should be anything urgently needing my attention on this non-controversial supplementary nomination, but just to leave a note that I'm off Wikipedia for the next fortnight. BencherliteTalk 18:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support these additions somewhere but am going to throw out a suggestion. Because these 3 additional alumni FLs are so tightly connected with the main alumni list, might it be better to have a alumni subtopic of 4 lists. I know FTs should not be excessively subdivided, but I just thought I'd suggest it as those 4 lists clearly go together as a set. Good work on this! Rambo's Revenge(talk) 22:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While both topics would be comprehensive within themselves, the total number of articles here is 9, hence I think this would break the "needlessly small" recommendation -- the only reason to split would be that it's more impressive which isn't really a reason IMO. I suppose there is another alumni topic so in a sense it seems a bit unfair that this topic doesn't get to be broken in two when that topic is one half of the resultant break, but if a USNA topic is brought up to scratch, and the number of articles is such that one merged topic wouldn't be too big, I would advocate merging there, too - rst20xx (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Clergy