Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:

Featured content:

Good content:

Good and featured topic tools:

"WP:FTL" redirects here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Follow the leader.

This is a log of good topics and featured topics from Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates. Discussions about unsuccessful nominations are located in the failed log. Automatic promotions/demotions from good topics to featured topics/featured topics to good topics are not logged.

Candidacy discussion about topics promoted in this calendar month is being placed at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log/August 2015.

Full current month log

Featured topic candidates: view - edit - history

edit2006
April 1 promoted 6 not promoted
October 0 promoted 1 not promoted
November 4 promoted 1 not promoted
December 1 promoted 2 not promoted 1 sup.
2007
January 2 promoted 7 not promoted
February 1 promoted 2 not promoted 0 sup. 1 demoted
March 1 promoted 4 not promoted 0 sup. 1 demoted
April 2 promoted 1 not promoted
May 2 promoted 4 not promoted 2 sup. 1 kept
June 3 promoted 2 not promoted
July 0 promoted 0 not promoted
August 1 promoted 0 not promoted
September 4 promoted 6 not promoted 1 sup.
October 4 promoted 1 not promoted
November 2 promoted 0 not promoted 2 sup.
December 3 promoted 1 not promoted
2008
January 3 promoted 0 not promoted 2 sup. 2 demoted
February 2 promoted 1 not promoted
March 4 promoted 2 not promoted 1 sup.
April 5 promoted 4 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept
May 5 promoted 1 not promoted 1 sup.
June 2 promoted 0 not promoted 1 sup. 2 demoted
July 3 promoted 4 not promoted 1 sup.
August 7 promoted 5 not promoted 2 sup.
September 10 FT, 7 GT 14 not promoted 3 sup.
October 2 FT, 7 GT 7 not promoted 3 sup. 1 kept
November 2 FT, 5 GT 3 not promoted 4 sup.
December 7 FT, 11 GT 5 not promoted 2 sup.
2009
January 2 FT, 4 GT 5 not promoted 2 sup.
February 7 FT, 6 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
March 2 FT, 3 GT 2 not promoted 1 sup. 1 kept
April 3 FT, 1 GT 3 not promoted 0 sup.
May 2 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 demoted
June 4 FT, 9 GT 2 not promoted 3 sup. 3 demoted
July 2 FT, 6 GT 5 not promoted 3 sup. 2 demoted
August 2 FT, 6 GT 2 not promoted 1 sup.
September 3 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 2 kept
October 3 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 2 kept, 6 demoted
November 1 FT, 1 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept
December 1 FT, 5 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup.
2010
January 1 FT, 3 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 2 demoted
February 0 FT, 3 GT 2 not promoted 3 sup. 2 kept, 2 demoted
March 5 FT, 4 GT 3 not promoted 1 sup. 1 kept, 5 demoted
April 1 FT, 8 GT 3 not promoted 4 sup.
May 0 FT, 7 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup.
June 2 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 demoted
July 5 FT, 3 GT 2 not promoted 2 sup. 2 demoted
August 1 FT, 6 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup.
September 1 FT, 1 GT 4 not promoted 0 sup.
October 3 FT, 18 GT 4 not promoted 1 sup. 2 kept, 2 demoted
November 0 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 2 kept, 1 demoted
December 2 FT, 7 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
2011
January 2 FT, 5 GT 3 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
February 1 FT, 11 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
March 0 FT, 4 GT 2 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
April 1 FT, 9 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
May 1 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 2 demoted
June 1 FT, 2 GT 2 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 2 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 2 demoted
August 1 FT, 8 GT 2 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
September 2 FT, 2 GT 2 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
October 4 FT, 6 GT 0 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 1 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
December 1 FT, 4 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
2012
January 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
February 0 FT, 11 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
March 2 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
April 0 FT, 6 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
May 1 FT, 5 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
June 0 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 0 FT, 14 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 4 demoted
August 2 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
September 1 FT, 6 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 2 kept, 0 demoted
October 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 2 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
December 1 FT, 6 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
2013
January 0 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
February 0 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
March 2 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
April 2 FT, 4 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 2 kept, 0 demoted
May 0 FT, 5 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
June 1 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
July 1 FT, 8 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 3 kept, 2 demoted
August 1 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
September 0 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
October 4 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 1 FT, 1 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
December 0 FT, 4 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
2014
January 1 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
February 0 FT, 3 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
March 0 FT, 3 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
April 1 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
May 1 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
June 2 FT, 4 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
August 4 FT, 1 GT 2 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
September 1 FT, 5 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
October 1 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 2 demoted
November 1 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
December 1 FT, 0 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
2015
January 0 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
February 0 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
March 1 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
April 0 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
May 2 FT, 3 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
June 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
August 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
September 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
October 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
December 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted

Good topic candidates: view - edit - history


Almirante Latorre-class battleships

Featured topic
3 articles
Featured article Almirante Latorre-class battleship
Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre.jpg

Featured article Chilean battleship Almirante Latorre

Featured article Chilean battleship Almirante Cochrane


Contributor(s): The ed17, Sturmvogel 66

Clearly in-scope for a featured topic. The second article uses the original Chilean name for the ship because this is a topic about the Chilean battleship class. See also Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/Minas Geraes-class battleships/archive1. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC) --Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:25, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


  • Support per my comments at the FTRC discussion Ed linked. Parsecboy (talk) 20:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Meets the criteria. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as per my comments at the FTRC. --PresN 20:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Closed with a consensus to promote to Featured Topic. - GamerPro64 19:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


The Last of Us

9 articles
Good article The Last of Us
The Last of Us Fireflies Logo.svg
Good article The Last of Us: Left Behind
Good article The Last of Us Remastered
Good article The Last of Us: American Dreams
Featured list Accolades
Good article Development
Good article Music
Featured list Characters
Good article Ellie


Contributor(s): Rhain1999

This proposed topic covers the video game The Last of Us and its subtopics, covering the DLC, remaster, comic book, characters, music, awards, development and directors. I quietly started working on these in October 2014, with major work beginning in January 2015; at the time, we had one C-class article, one Start Class and two Stub. We now have nine seven GAs and two FLs. I believe it meets the criteria. --– Rhain1999 (talk to me) 07:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Support. Been waiting for this. Topic appears complete and meets the FTC. Well done. – czar 07:21, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support. An amazing and complete topic. Will even be better if the game's composer Gustavo Santaolalla is promoted to good article as well. AdrianGamer (talk) 07:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


I'm not convinced that Neil Druckmann and Bruce Straley should be a part of this topic; precedent prior has been that the flow goes Developer->games they developed, not Game->People who worked on the game, unless the developer in question is mainly known for that game. And these two aren't- they've worked on other big name games like the Uncharted series. The game's characters, music, spinoffs/expansions, etc. are clearly sub-components of the "The Last of Us" idea, like subarticles, but their notable developers aren't tied to just this game. I'd be fine with them as component articles of a "Naughty Dog " topic or lead articles of a "Neil Druckman" etc. topic, but not as parts of a topic on just one game they worked on. --PresN 17:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

My 2¢: it doesn't matter much either way. I think precedent has been to keep the devs out of the related game articles, but Straley and Druckmann, as the game and creative directors, are really prominent throughout the entire Dev article and I think make fine subtopics. – czar 22:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
@PresN: I think I have to agree with your logic there. If this was a situation like, say, the Metal Gear Solid franchise topic—then yeah, we'd probably want Kojima's article in there. But it's very rare for a person or company to be so closely entangled with their products that this kind of inclusion becomes necessary. I'd even argue that a potential BioShock topic needn't include Ken Levine (game developer), for a variety of reasons. Breaking away from this tradition could become problematic in the future, too, as it's liable to create a slippery-slope situation in which every developer with an article must be included in a topic about their product(s). That's just unfeasible. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I'll take them out, if that's the consensus, but I just figured that they fit here because The Last of Us is quite clearly their most prominent game (to date). The difference with good topics such as Greg Wohlwend and Asher Vollmer is that they are about developers who almost independently worked on the games within the topic, whereas Druckmann and Straley are two members of a 250-person development team. If they don't fit in this topic, then I think the only reasonable topic for them would be one about Naughty Dog (which I'm okay with, to be clear, but I thought I'd mention it). – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 06:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
It's their most prominent game to date, but there's a difference between "most prominent" and "the game they're almost entirely known for- Uncharted isn't exactly an underground hit of a massively popular AAA series. I would also agree that the way FTopics are set up, Druckmann (for example) would only fit in a Naughty Dog topic, a Druckmann topic (which would have it's own problems and likely wouldn't work), or some sort of absurd "American AAA game designers" topic. That said, a Naughty Dog topic would just be the company, the games list, Druckman, Straley, Gavin, Rubin, and Bisell, so it's difficult but not undoable. --PresN 04:35, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
@PresN: That makes sense; thank you for clarifying. I'll probably try and tackle the Naughty Dog topic one day, anyway. But, for now, the consensus seems to be that Straley and Druckmann don't belong within this topic, so I've removed them accordingly. If anybody has any objections to this, please feel free to say. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 07:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support --PresN 14:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support as well. Very strong topic—it's a shame that the hard work on Druckman and Straley's GAs isn't being recognized here, but I think it's for the best. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support great work! My only question is, when do you find the time/when do you sleep? ;) Great job! Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I take short power naps while I write the articles, and my only other activity is eating; that's my secret. No, but seriously, this topic would not have been possible without the assistance and support of many other editors; that's what kept me going. Not to mention my love for this game. – Rhain1999 (talk to me) 12:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - This is a fantastic achievement. You should be proud of what you've accomplished here. Great work. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. -- 06:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Mana series

10 articles
Featured article Mana series
Icone Forêts sèches caducifoliée.svg
Good article Final Fantasy Adventure
Featured article Secret of Mana
Good article Seiken Densetsu 3
Good article Legend of Mana‎
Good article Sword of Mana
Featured article Children of Mana‎
Good article Dawn of Mana
Good article Heroes of Mana
Good article Music of the Mana series


Contributor(s): PresN

A year and a half ago, I decided to bring up first Secret of Mana, then Seiken Densetsu 3 to GA status—two of the best SNES RPGs/2D RPGs ever made. Once I had, though, I went ahead and finished off the whole series, bringing 7 articles to GA with 2 continuing on to FA (I had gotten the music article to GA years prior). Now that it's all done, we have here a tidy little Good Topic- a series article, 8 game articles, and 1 music article, for 3/10 FA and 7/10 GA. If I get any more to FA it won't be for quite a while, so I'm bringing the whole group to GTC now. I'd like to thank Kariteh (retired) and Judgesurreal777 (essentially retired) for getting the series article up to FA years ago (recently updated by me), and Lucia Black (retired) for getting Final Fantasy Adventure to GA in 2013. The image is a free icon of a tree that looked the most to me like the Mana Tree, the central icon of the franchise; there isn't a good free image directly from the games available. Thanks all for reviewing! --PresN 18:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC) --PresN 18:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Shouldn't the title of the main article match the title of the topic? So either (1) rename Mana (series) to Mana series and leave the topic title as is, or (2) leave the article at Mana (series) and rename this topic just "Mana"? I would think that "Mana series" is the common name for this topic anyway and that all sources call it the "Mana series" rather than just Mana, but I also see that the way the topic candidate template works, this topic becomes "Mana series series". Thought I'd bring it up as a recurring issue, but happy to discuss in another forum. – czar 19:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • The title of the topic doesn't need to match the title of the lead article- they're completely independent. They often don't match, since the article's name is meant for a different purpose than a "topic title". I could rename the topic to "The Mana Shindig" and it wouldn't affect anything else- it's just a name, the template imposes no formatting. The formatting of the lead article in the template doesn't need to match either one, though it's convenient if it does- it's just a piped link. The (rough) consensus for video game topics seems to be: "X titles" if it's just the games in a series, and "X series" if it's every article related to the series (music, characters, etc.). So, in this case, "Mana series" would be correct for the topic title. I could change it to "Mana", but given that Mana links to something unrelated that seems counterintuitive. As to renaming the actual lead article to "Mana series"- that seems to be more a discussion for WP:VG, though I'm not opposed. --PresN 20:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support although the designer could be added at a future date. Where does "Mana" come from? Nergaal (talk) 04:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • No idea; I suspect that someone in the design team for Secret of Mana said, "We can't call it 'Holy Sword Legend' in English, that's dumb. What's a cool name for magic? Mana? Sounds good." They didn't worry so much about names back then, not when you had major new series called "Dragon Quest" and "Final Fantasy" to compete with. --PresN 01:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I'm not dead yet! Life just got a lot busier, but I still love Wikipedia, PresN, and the Mana series. I dreamed that this would become a Good Topic someday, glad I got to see it happen! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Glad you did too! Sorry it took 7 years! --PresN 01:13, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support, but there appears to be enough coverage of the unlisted series titles to warrant their own articles (e.g., Rise of Mana). This said, I wouldn't count them towards the topic right now as I can't find any English-language reviews. – czar 18:20, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: While there are gaps in the series, this is a good topic as it stands. Having looked at all the articles, I'm confident that this is good enough for it. Congratulations to PresN for bringing the Mana series this far. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: I've been waiting for this one. Everything seems to be in order—full coverage, great icon. I don't agree with some of the others that Rise should be included, since it's a Japan-only mobile game whose independent notability is doubtful. Even if we dredged up Japanese sources, I'm very skeptical that they would be meaty enough to warrant a standalone article. If strong sources emerge in the future, Rise can be added to the topic at that time; right now, it's no big deal. Great work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 17:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

2002–03 Arsenal F.C. season

3 articles
Good article 2002–03 Arsenal F.C. season
Arsenal Stadium Highbury east facade.jpg
Good article 2002 FA Community Shield
Good article 2003 FA Cup Final


Nominating this topic as it is a complete topic that has not previously been nominated. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Credit should go to Lemonade51 who did the hard graft. Im merely ensuring his work is recognised! Cheers. NapHit (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming from, probably needs a bit more input from other users. I'm unsure myself. NapHit (talk) 15:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't include it, otherwise where would you draw the line? This isn't about the overall Premier League season (or a good topic on the Premier League seasons), but Arsenal's, which is summarised in the lead article. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support I'd stick with what you've got as it keeps it specific to one team. So think the articles here are those which are important to the topic. Miyagawa (talk) 08:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - This nomination is reaching its two month anniversary with only one vote for Support. There needs to be more of a consensus to pass this. If not this is going to have to be closed and be re-nominated. GamerPro64 21:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support The scope is appropriate and there are no obvious gaps. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support - I think all the articles which need to be included are present -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Support Articles included are pertinent to the topic. I think it's right to limit it to competitions won by the club, so I wouldn't worry about including 2002–03 FA Premier League. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.-- 02:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)