Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Failed log/2021

Berlin Trilogy[edit]

The Berlin Trilogy consists of three consecutively released studio albums by English musician David Bowie: Low, "Heroes" (both 1977) and Lodger (1979). Recorded in collaboration with English musician Brian Eno and American producer Tony Visconti, the trilogy originated following Bowie's move from Los Angeles, California, to Europe to rid himself of worsening drug addiction. "Heroes" was the only instalment recorded completely in Berlin; Low was recorded mostly in France, while Lodger was recorded in Switzerland and New York City. Primarily art rock and taking influences from the German music genre of krautrock, both Low and "Heroes" experiment with electronic and ambient music, while Lodger features a wider variety of musical styles, including new wave and reggae. Although the trilogy received mixed reviews on release, over time, it has garnered massive acclaim and proven highly influential on genres such as post-punk and world music.

Berlin Trilogy

4 articles

Low

"Heroes"

Lodger

Contributor(s): zmbro

I have built these articles extensively from the ground up using numerous biographies and online sources. All feature adequate sourcing that I believe meets the criteria for good topic. --– zmbro _(talk) 17:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Wonderful job on all of these articles, zmbro. Do you think that The Idiot and Lust for Life ought to included on this list? Douglas Adams and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy notwithstanding, I understand that "trilogy" usually doesn't mean "five", but in reading and reviewing the Berlin Trilogy page, I came to understand that those two Iggy Pop projects loom large in discussions of the trilogy. They also have the added benefit of already being at FA and GA status, respectively. The Isolar II – The 1978 World Tour article is in a much sorrier state, however, and I'm wondering why it hasn't been included here. What do you think? Tkbrett (✉) 19:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tkbrett That's exactly why I didn't want to nominate this because I thought the same thing. Nevertheless, if we just focus on the "Berlin Trilogy" itself, which is widely accepted to just be Low, "Heroes", and Lodger, then we should be fine. However, if the title was something like "David Bowie's Berlin era" then it would be appropriate to include those imo. But now that I think about it, if Isolar II – The 1978 World Tour would be included, then Stage would have to as well and that's nowhere near done either. Maybe I should just withdraw this. – zmbro _(talk) 19:43, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the Featured Topic nomination for the Beatles failed earlier this year because many peripheral articles were not up to standard. That gave me a sense that it isn't enough to just have the fundamental articles included (in this case, the three LPs that make up the trilogy), but I'm not especially familiar with the Featured/Good Topic criteria, so I'd like to hear the thoughts of someone with more experience than me. Tkbrett (✉) 20:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tkbrett I knew it wouldn't be. I'm not either but the more I think about it I'm not ok with not having those four articles a part of this, as they are very much a part of the Berlin period as the main three. I'd rather just withdraw this. – zmbro _(talk) 20:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Artnet should be cited as publisher instead in the "Heroes" article, where I have doubts about the reliability of Acclaimed Music. Elsewise, good job on these extensive articles, two of which I had the pleasure of reviewing! --K. Peake 07:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GamerPro64 Sturmvogel 66 Aza24 Please withdraw this. Thank you. – zmbro _(talk) 15:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed – Withdrawn by nominator Aza24 (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sex (The 1975 EP)[edit]

Sex

3 articles

"Sex"

"Milk"

Contributor(s): Giacobbe

"Let's talk about Sex (The 1975 EP), baby" – Salt-N-Pepa. Nominating this collection for Good Topic status, as the main article—Sex—and two of its tracks—"Sex" and "Milk" have been promoted to GAs. Giacobbe ^talk 14:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Album and notable tracks at GA, all linked by a navbox and in a common super-category, as is common for album topics. I wish that "Milk" were linked in the lead section of the album article; other than that, it looks good! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments in the lead of Sex, I would suggest changing "the record" to "it" in the last sentence since the term was used more recently than the title of the EP. Also, Idolator should be italicised both in prose and citation within "Sex", where I have my doubts about the reliability of the source Hit the Floor Magazine. These are all the issues I see; I was proud to review "Milk" not long ago and these articles are well-written and properly researched, great work! --K. Peake 20:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I also have some doubts regarding the Hit the Floor Magazine source, which is present across all the articles. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 12:43, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support all three articles are GA-class, so as far as I'm concerned, we're good to go! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Chocolate (The 1975 song), which was part of the album’s US version, isn’t a lt least good article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Director comment @(CA)Giacobbe: Is there plans to improve Chocolate because otherwise the article is incomplete and I'll have to fail the nomination. GamerPro64 16:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination has stalled long enough. The nominator hasn't responded to me or the opposer so I will have to fail this nomination. This can always be renominated in the future. GamerPro64 17:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Beatles[edit]

The Beatles were an English rock band formed in Liverpool in 1960. The group, whose best-known line-up comprised John Lennon, Paul McCartney, George Harrison and Ringo Starr, are regarded as the most influential band of all time. They were integral to the development of 1960s counterculture and popular music's recognition as an art form. Rooted in skiffle, beat and 1950s rock and roll, their sound incorporated elements of classical music and traditional pop in innovative ways; the band later explored music styles ranging from ballads and Indian music to psychedelia and hard rock. As pioneers in recording, songwriting and artistic presentation, the Beatles revolutionised many aspects of the music industry and were often publicised as leaders of the era's youth and sociocultural movements.

5 articles

Contributor(s): AllegedlyHuman, PL290, GabeMc, and evanh2008

A ton of work has clearly gone into getting these all to FA, and as such I was surprised to see there wasn't an associated topic. Suffice it to say, there's a clear connection in the articles, and they are all linked to each other by category and template. --AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Support~~: All FAs, all Beatles, with navbox and category. Definitely satisfies all the criteria; be sure to notify the editors who got the articles to FA and get their blessing (and involvement?). -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Weak Oppose: I suppose the scope could be defined as just covering the band members, but it would certainly be better for the topic to also include all of the lists mentioned by Spy-cicle. Also, the consensus from the previous nomination tips me to oppose. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The entire scope the topic for the rock band "The Beatles" would have to encompass far more than just the four people in the main line up like Discography, Songs, Awards and nominations, Live performances, In film, Recording sessions among other articles in the template. See also the previous nomination. There also does not appear to be the {{FTC|ExampleTopicName|X}} or main templates on the talk pages of each article as noted in the nomination procedure. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 04:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose like the above user, I definitely believe more articles are needed than just the band and members. --K. Peake 11:57, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a good start but its missing the articles Spy-cicle mentioned above. However, the editors who got this to FA should be notified and their names added. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with consensus not to promote — Aza24 (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mario series[edit]

Paper Mario is a video game sub-series of the Mario franchise. The series combines elements from the role-playing and action-adventure genres with other puzzle game aspects. The games follow a paper cutout version of Mario, sometimes aided by other allies, on a quest to defeat the primary antagonist, Bowser as well as other antagonists.

Paper Mario series

7 articles

Paper Mario

Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door

Super Paper Mario

Paper Mario: Sticker Star

Paper Mario: Color Splash

Paper Mario: The Origami King

Contributor(s): Panini!

I am nominating this topic as a good topic because it meets the criteria for good topic status per WP:GT?. Although I was not able to contribute as much to each article in this topic as I wanted to, it is suffice to say that @Panini!'s work on all these articles is extremely impressive and very good. --KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:32, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you ask Panini! about nominating this? It doesn't look like it... It's generally considered rude at best to nominate someone else's work for GT/FT, and since the capstone article is still at FAC it seem premature to assume they're done. --Pres N 04:03, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PresN: No, but I should've. I will immediately withdraw this nomination. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Looks all good, except that this proposal is missing Mario & Luigi: Paper Jam. It's another game in Category:Paper Mario, and it seems odd to leave it out here, though I get that it's a "crossover" spin-off and not exactly part of the series proper. It'd be an easy support with the last game included, but I'm not sure I can support without. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bryanrutherford0: Paper Jam, despite being a crossover, is more considered to be part of the Mario & Luigi series than Paper Mario, but I see where you are coming from. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and withdraw AHHH! I WASN'T DONE YET! I wanted to freshen up the first two games before nominating. And to comment above, most instances where I've seen a video game good topic only include main articles in the series, not crossovers. And yes, as PresN mentioned above, and by you putting this nomination on your userpage, it does come off as you taking credit for other people's work. And in this case, it is; 0 edits to the first two games, two edits to Super Paper Mario, one of which was reverted, 0 edits in Sticker Star, Color Splash, The Origami King, and the series article. Panini^🥪 12:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- @Panini!: Sorry about that. I will withdraw this nomination immediately because of your statement. I was being too hasty. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - GamerPro64 00:28, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1946 California's 12th congressional district election[edit]

The 1946 election for California's 12th congressional district was an election to the U.S. House of Representatives held on November 5, 1946, in which the Republican candidate and future president Richard Nixon defeated the incumbent five-term U.S. Representative, Democratic nominee Jerry Voorhis. Nixon was elected with 56% of the vote, defeating Voorhis's 43%, as well as third-party Prohibition Party candidate and former Representative John H. Hoeppel, who received 1%. After failing to recruit former U.S. Army General George Patton to run for the seat, the Republicans decided on then-Lieutenant Commander Nixon as their candidate, who would go on to become a Senator, Vice President, and eventually President of the United States.

1946 California's 12th congressional district election

5 articles

Contributor(s): Politicsfan4

I believe that this topic fully meets the featured topic criteria: it is a set of 5 featured articles, that cover one related event. It would go well in the "Politics and government" content tab in the featured topics page. --Politicsfan4 (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is very strangely constructed. Patton is only mentioned twice in passing in that he didn't run in the election, and Pat Nixon is mentioned once in passing as one of the candidates' wives. Under this level of inclusion you conveniently left out Stanley Barnes who was also asked about running and additional candidate John H. Hoeppel. Maybe this could be a topic with just the two people actually nominated in the election. You did not consult with the primary author of the three main articles here, Wehwalt, as recommended at Wikipedia:Featured and good topic criteria; you should not list yourself as the contributor. Reywas92^Talk 02:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Apologies. Is there a way to rescind the nomination? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: no criticism to any of these excellent articles, but the scope doesn't make sense. Patton's article doesn't once mention any attempt to involve him in this election, and Pat Nixon's name only appears once in the main article, as part of a compound noun ("he and his wife..."). Neither of those articles belongs in this proposal. If we pare it down to the remaining three, then it seems to me that the topic would also need the other candidate in the election, John H. Hoeppel. More fundamentally, this just doesn't strike me as a coherent topic; neither of these men is mainly notable for this event, and the proposal would have to really strain to satisfy FTC 1(c): "All articles or lists in the topic are linked together, preferably using a template, and share a common category or super-category." To be clear, it's not that someone needs to *make* a category or a navbox for this event, and then the proposal would be all good; rather, the fact that it never previously occurred to anyone to make such a category or navbox is a clue that the articles don't really form a well-defined topic together. I could probably be talked into it if the third candidate were included, but for now I have to oppose. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with consensus not to promote - GamerPro64 04:03, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Cinematic Universe films[edit]

The Marvel Cinematic Universe films are an American series of superhero films, based on characters that appear in publications by Marvel Comics. The films have been in production since 2007, and in that time Marvel Studios has released 20 films, with 11 more in various stages of production. The series has collectively grossed over $17.5 billion at the global box office, making it the highest-grossing film franchise. The first film was 2008's Iron Man, which began the franchise's Phase One and concluded with the 2012 crossover film Marvel's The Avengers. Phase Two began with Iron Man 3 (2013) and concluded with Ant-Man (2015). Marvel began Phase Three in 2016 with Captain America: Civil War and concluded with Spider-Man: Far From Home in 2019. Kevin Feige has produced every film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, while the films are written and directed by a variety of individuals and feature large, often ensemble, casts. Many of the actors, including Robert Downey Jr., Chris Hemsworth, Chris Evans, and Samuel L. Jackson signed contracts to star in numerous films.

Comment: Considering that there are lots (and lots) more films coming, I think it would be wiser to nominate this as "MCU Infinity Saga" or something along those lines, so that it could be a complete, finished topic; then, when further films come out, this topic won't keep becoming incomplete and in danger of delisting, and, if someone makes another GT for "Phase Four" or whatever comes next, then that and this could be combined into an overview topic for the MCU as a whole. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with Bryanrutherford0, we should restructure and limit the topic to the "Infinity Saga" to avoid having to repeat this process with every new film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem with that is that the Infinity Saga does not have an article (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, but there seems to me to be precedent for that sort of thing. Grabbing a random example from WP:GT, I see that Wikipedia:Featured topics/Classes of supernovae has for its main article Supernova, which is not just about the classes. I think List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films would still make an acceptable summary article for an "Infinity Saga" topic. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the grounds that I agree with Bryanrutherford0's assessment that we should limit this scope to prevent the topic from lagging in getting films nominated and being delisted (as has already happened to this very topic). And as such, if we limit it to the Infinity Saga, then Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase One, Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Two, and Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Three need to be included and all three are not GAs (yet). Or alternatively, we make three topics: a Phase One, Phase Two, and Phase Three one, which can lead towards a larger "MCU films" topic of which each is a subtopic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the three-topic option (by "phase") would also be a natural way to handle this, if the Phase articles could be gotten to GA. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with the assessment above; "Phase one/two etc." would be the best way to handle this. By promoting the current topic, we'd be allowing a continuously unstable topic every year, which is surely not ideal. Aza24 (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support because it is back into completeness, the goddamned pandemic ensured there won't be new movies until May, and then it's three months until getting a GA out of Black Widow (something the editors responsible for MCU articles usually get to do, even if at times, like noted in the Topic Removal, the articles are perfunctory). It's eight months where the responsible ones can get GAs out of Phase One\Two\Three to then nominate three other GTs and reduce this into a modular topic. Better recognize their effort so far. igordebraga ≠ 03:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, oppose Despite what I'm pretty sure people have said about me, I sincerely love these films, even after COVID and Disney+ killed the momentum (I lost interest in Harry Potter during the long wait between books 4 and 5), and think Wikipedia should provide them with the coverage that they deserve, especially now that the first "saga" has ended and can be viewed and studied from a distance. Unfortunately, this is not the case right now. Apart from the unambiguous copyvio that was the immediate cause for the Black Panther article being delisted, there are a large number of issues that have been brought up over the years and ignored by the small cadre of editors who "own" these articles, and these aren't "new" issues that could not have been addressed until Spider-Man: Far from Home had been released on home video. To give just one example, I've seen the fact that the cast lists are formatted to match pre-release "spoiler-free" first-party advertising materials, and contain character descriptions that are "unified" across multiple films but frequently don't make sense in individual articles' contexts, brought up several times, with all but three users generally agreeing that it was problematic, but because those three users were the only ones who consistently showed up... This set of circumstances imply that all of these articles fail the stability criterion for being GAs. On top of all of that, the Black Panther article was relisted as a GA under highly questionable circumstances, with the nominator claiming in an edit summary that the copyvio issue had been addressed despite otherwise never having even acknowledged that there was a copyvio issue: what actually happened was that he and a number of other editors managed to drive the person who pointed out the copyvio (me) off the site, and he waited until it seemed like a certainty that I wouldn't be coming back before immediately working to undo the delisting, without any kind of reflection about why the delisting had actually happened.

I really feel like the community shouldn't be rewarding this kind of behaviour and promoting articles that (let's not mince words) definitely include a significant amount of textual plagiarism, either in the form of unmarked quotations or quotations that are too long and make up too much of the articles, and these circumstances needed to be brought to the community's attention. Given that a number of the other "oppose" !votes above seem to be based primarily on the good-faith but incorrect assumption that these articles don't have inherent problems and would change to "support" if the name of the topic were changed, I felt it was important to point out the problems as well.

I'm not interested in getting into fights over this general topic anymore. Please don't ping me -- I don't want to discuss this beyond leaving this statement, and if you don't believe me, that's your business.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you genuinely believe this, can you give more precise, citing specific examples, starting perhaps with the article which you think is in worst shape? El Millo (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For reasons that should be obvious, I don't like to keep "records" of which articles have particularly severe problems, but to reiterate the concrete example that I already mentioned, virtually every sentence of Black Panther (film)#Pre-production includes some amount of text within quotation marks. Without checking every source, it would be difficult to say how much unmarked quotation exists (but to be clear, any amount of the latter should be a deal-breaker, and it was sheer random luck that this was caught), or how much of the articles misrepresent their sources when attempts are made at paraphrasing (see here, where a needless talk page back-and-forth took place on the talk page because multiple editors refused to accept that they had misread a source).

As for cast lists relying on pre-release spoiler-free advertising materials and consequently misrepresenting the actual film and the consensus of reliable secondary sources, Avengers: Endgame is easily the worst example: Gurira, Wong, Favreau, and Paltrow all get bullet points despite their appearances all being minuscule cameos, while Cumberbatch, Holland, Saldana, Mackey and Slattery have substantially greater roles in the film but get lost in a sea of names at the bottom of the section because their names appearing on the poster would have been a spoiler. This is true to some extent for the majority of the films: in Avengers: Age of Ultron, Cardellini, Kim and Serkis each has substantially more screen-time, dialogue, and presumably coverage in reliable secondary sources discussing the film, than Atwell, Elba and Skarsgård combined, but the latter three get bullet-points and character bios that have virtually no relation to their role in the film because contract negotiations (maybe...?) resulted in their names appearing on the poster.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Panther problem shouldn't be too hard to fix. Regarding the Cast list, there's a reason for them being as they are. In order to avoid a pointless edit wars about which characters deserve a bullet point, as it is the case with the "Starring" parameter on the infobox, it's been decided that we go by the billing block. Exceptions have been made, for example at Spider-Man: Homecoming, where a few more characters were included in the Cast list, but generally we stick to the billing block, unless something specific is brought up. You may be right about Endgame, we should probably give further thought to that. —El Millo (talk) 03:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You think a problem that would require opening, loading, and reading through hundreds of advertisement-heavy entertainment sources for each of around two-dozen articles "shouldn't be hard to fix"? You're entitled to your opinion, but I disagree. I also disagree (for the reasons I explained above and another that I hadn't managed to express until just now below) that the cast lists are fine the way they are. I don't have either the time or the inclination to argue this further, which is why I asked not to be pinged back, and only saw your non-ping above because of an edit conflict with a now-abandoned addendum. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the Pre-production section having too many quotes, where simple paraphrasing would solve the issue, I wasn't referring to the article as a whole. —El Millo (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe paraphrasing would solve the problem for that one section, and maybe it would solve it for the whole article; but "paraphrasing" in this case would involve opening hundreds of external links, locating the relevant text in the sources, verifying that it is accurately reflected, but not plagiarized, by the relevant text of our article, then repeating this whole process for the other two-dozen or so articles, which is far from "simple". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This just now occurred to me, but downplaying information (keeping it out of the lead and infobox entirely, and not giving it appropriate emphasis further down the article, essentially hiding it within a barely-readable block proper nouns underlined and in blue) that a film's marketers considered to constitute spoilers, for that reason, is arguably a violation of WP:SPOILER, and doing so because their names had less marquee value at the time of the film's release would arguably be worse. If someone tried to remove Anthony Daniels from the lead of Star Wars (film) or Tom Cruise from the lead of Tropic Thunder because the films' original posters didn't name them, no one would take such a ridiculous proposal seriously, and yet these films are treated as exceptions because three or four editors refuse to take seriously the idea that we shouldn't just be parroting marketing materials. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you find that proposal so ridiculous, then suggest a clear method to decide which actors get a bullet point (or inclusion at the infobox) and which don't. —El Millo (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actors/characters whose presence in the film merits more than two sentences of descriptive text get their own bullet points. Any bullet point that consists of nothing more than the name of the actor, the name of the character, and an unsourced character description should ... well, the current "sea of links" below the bullet points, with little or no prose explanation for those readers who don't already know who all the actors and characters are, is also a problem.

I'm pretty sure I have already presented this proposal (or a variant thereof) several times; it is not your responsibility to know that, but it is inappropriate for you to specifically request that I make a comment that is off-topic for this discussion after I have already told you that I don't even want to engage in on-topic discussion of this matter. The fact that the problem exists is enough of a reason to oppose the present proposal; possible ways to fix the problem are not going to reach a conclusion in an FTC discussion, so why you are requesting them is baffling.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 19:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to know if you'd already thought of a better method to either replace or improve the current one that's being used. The two-sentence rule makes sense to either give a bullet point to a character that isn't in the billing block or take the bullet point out if they are. It might be off-topic but I still thought it was important to hear what possible solution you might've thought of. —El Millo (talk) 19:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reluctantly oppose even with the articles being promoted. As mentioned before, this is an ongoing topic that isn't complete when there are more films to come at some point (even if the next installment won't be distributed anytime soon). I agree with the suggestion of splitting into phases as those are finished, and giving each phase its own separate nomination to avoid repeating the process of demoting the topic with one or more films lacking featured/good status. No objections to having each MCU phase article also be part of an overarching topic and also nominating that for FT/GT at some point. That'll save people trouble in the long run. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Closed with consensus not to promote - GamerPro64 00:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]