Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/Final Fantasy XII/archive2

Final Fantasy XII

Final Fantasy XII

8 articles

Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings

Fortress

I recently brought up this issue at WT:VG here regarding this topic's status, but didn't get much of a response, so I'm bringing it here. Basically, I realized that while Characters of Final Fantasy XII is a GA and in the topic, two branch articles from that article, Vaan and Balthier, are not at least GAs and are obviously not included. These two articles were recreated in October 2009, about a year after this topic was first approved, and it looks like they were overlooked based on an assumption which User:PresN stated in the above linked thread: I guess the idea is that since Characters of Final Fantasy XII is in the topic, that Vaan and Balthier, as subarticles of that list, don't need to be directly included.

But I find this argument to be a little shallow when, as I noted, WP:VG has two current FTs which include separate character articles in their topics so as to satisfy WP:WIAFT criterion 1(d) for completeness: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and (perhaps ironically, being another Final Fantasy topic) Wikipedia:Featured topics/Final Fantasy VIII. So I believe this topic should be delisted until Vaan and Balthier are brought up to at least GA and added to the topic per criterion 1(d). Also, the GA Fortress may also need to be added to the topic, but perhaps that is for a later discussion.--十八 22:01, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles look really good. A few easy to fix issues are there such as proper ref citation. Fortress is already at GA. I suggest fixing these articles within the week and nominate them for Ga. If they fail, then we remove it as a featured topic. If we remove it now then itll just leave more work.Lucia Black (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I agree that the Fortress article must be added to satisfy completeness, but I think the character articles are a grey area. The featured topic criteria is vague on this point, and it has been understood to this point that these topics are focused on the game articles themselves. Perhaps we have to first come to a consensus on what the correct formatting should be, and it probably goes like this; if there is a "characters of" article with two or more character articles, that should be a separate topic, and only the characters of article should be present inthe games article with a link to the separate character topic. If there is one character article, it should be added to the topic for completeness sake.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am finding it difficult to accept this reasoning. How can you suggest that a list of all the characters of a given game is more necessary for inclusion than individual character articles from the same game? Just because it covers more content? If this isn't an example of cherry picking, I don't know what is. Why should the project treat only this topic differently when there are two current topics that have character branch articles?--十八 00:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I agree with you, we should not treat articles differently. I am saying that this has been a gray area till now, since topics have been promoted both with and without their individual character articles. I am saying that we should find a consensus position, and my proposal is that if there are at least 3 character articles (1 characters of article and 2 individual characters, they should be a subtopic, and only the characters of article should be in the games topic. Otherwise, they should all be a part of the games topic. If this reasoning makes sense, I think a nomination should be started to add the Fortress article and define the criteria at the featured topics criteria talk page. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Judgesurreal777's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Lucia. They do look good. Close this FTRC, GAN them, and do a supplemental nomination. No need to go through this extra step of bureaucracy. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying is to have this FTRC closed, then put them up for GAN which may take weeks leaving a void in the topic and then do a supp nom even though there was an FTRC that would've taken care of it all. I'm sorry but as a delegate, and you mentioning these two articles should be part of the topic in the first place which doesn't make sense, I think the review should stay up until the GANs are taken care of. GamerPro64 01:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're saying that a potential outcome of this FTRC is that those two character articles are added to the FT (i.e. duplicating the functionality of a supplemental nom), then by all means, keep the FTRC open and do that. What I don't want is multiple drawn-out bureaucratic processes when one would suffice. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- The GANs for final fantasy related article go pretty fast. I think we are moving to fast just to un-feature the topic. There is still the question of editors believing the character articles is too indirect to be part oof the topic.Lucia Black (talk) 05:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominated Vaan for GA while we are at it. I haven't contributed too much to Balthier so I'm unsure about it.Tintor2 (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Balthier has been nominated as well (not by me). --Pres N 03:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vaan now a GA; I've updated the box above to match the proposed expansion. --Pres N 17:40, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noticing that Balthier is now a Good Article, I will now Close this as Keep. GamerPro64 00:56, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]