Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/2008 log

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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 2 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
October 0 FT, 0 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 1 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
December 1 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
January 1 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
February 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
March 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
April 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
May 0 FT, 3 GT 1 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
June 1 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 2 demoted
July 1 FT, 2 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
August 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 1 demoted
September 0 FT, 7 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
October 0 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 3 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 0 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 1 kept, 2 demoted
December 0 FT, 1 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
January 2 FT, 3 GT 1 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
February 0 FT, 3 GT 2 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
March 4 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
April 1 FT, 3 GT 0 not promoted 2 sup. 0 kept, 2 demoted
May 1 FT, 6 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
June 0 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 0 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
August 0 FT, 1 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
September 0 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
October 0 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
November 1 FT, 0 GT 1 not promoted 0 sup. 1 kept, 0 demoted
December 1 FT, 2 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
January 1 FT, 4 GT 0 not promoted 1 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
February 0 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
March 0 FT, 1 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 1 demoted
April 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
May 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
June 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
July 0 FT, 0 GT 0 not promoted 0 sup. 0 kept, 0 demoted
August 0 FT, 0 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


Smallville (season 1)[edit]

3 articles
Featured list Smallville (season 1)
Hatley Castle front entrance Aug 2006.jpg
Featured article Pilot
Good article Tempest

Violation of criterion 1d. If our goal is comprehensiveness, this unfortunately does not make the cut. If the Simpsons topics can make notable and GA-class articles for every one of its episodes, then president has been set and Smallville should be able to make articles for each of its episodes too. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 04:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

1D does not state that you must make every subtopic its own article. It specifically states: "There is no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic. A topic must not cherry pick only the best articles to become featured together." -- Funny, as there are no "obvious" gaps. An "obvious gap" would be the topic not including articles that ALREADY EXIST. I believe that you are missing the point of both the 1D criteria, and WP:NOTE, WP:FICT, and WP:PLOT. The fact that 19 out of the 21 episodes are not notable enough to have their own articles does not change the fact that this topic meets the basic criteria for featured topic status. Also, not every show is The Simpsons (i.e. most shows don't last 20 years and develop the type of coverage The Simpsons does). So, if you have a problem with that, you might want to spend your time changing WP:NOTE and WP:FICT before coming here and trying to do it. The argument for removal has not grounds, as #1D is not referring to "creating articles" but whether or not there are missing pages to articles already in existence. P.S. If you've looked at the season 1 page, you'll note that it's actually the most comprehensive season article (note the intentional use of "article") on Wikipedia.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I too disagree with removal. There needs to be an assertion with proof by Arctic Gnome or someone that there is sufficient evidence that the other episodes of Smallville's first season are sufficiently notable to warrant articles. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
My past reading of the "missing article" criterion does, indeed, apply to non-existent articles. Otherwise, you could do something silly like nominate a "presidents of country X" topic and leave out the boring president from 1890 that no one wrote an article about. I'm fairly sure that there have been a couple past topics that necessitated the creation of a new article before they were called comprehensive, though the only one I can remember off of the top of my head is the "National symbols of Belarus" topic, which is not a perfect parallel. Of course not every TV show can make articles about every episode, but in this case we are talking about a show that ran for eight seasons about the most iconic character in comic books. Such sources tend to generate lots of reliable sources in the form of books with titles such as "Inside Smallville" or "Philosophy of Smallville", are there truly no such publications for this series? I find it difficult to accept that no independent sources can be found that discuss these episodes enough to make them notable when there apparently are such sources for shows like Lost and the later, less popular, seasons of The Simpsons. That being said, the lead article is very good, and I'd like to see something done with it in FT, but I do not think that this show is obscure enough to violate the precedent that has been set regarding "season X" topics. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 14:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, what you're talking about is a show based on an iconic character that hasn't been popular for some time. Superman Returns was a flop. The comic books haven't sold well in almost a decade, and Smallville resides on the WB (not the CW), which IS an obscure television station. It gets no where near the publicity of shows like Heroes and House, which are are (not only at different times) but much larger networks that can afford to promote their shows on multiple stations. When was the last time you saw an advertisment (not for the DVD) for Smallville that wasn't on the CW? I've been writing these Smallville pages for years; I believe that I have exhausted just about all possible avenues to find reliable, professional reviews for these episodes. They don't exist. There is a lot of crap out there that doesn't actually "review" the episode, but gives a passing judgement of "it was good" (which is not an establishment of notability, not even if 100 professionals simply say "it was good"). As for the book titles you're talking about. The only books that are published about Smallville are the ones commished by the owners, Warner Bros.. Those are the companion books, which are already used as sources in the season articles. Unless there is a crap load of production information that would warrant a split from the main article, simple primary source information like that does not mean it is notable. Also, any books written about Smallville in general, will most like be just that, a general like at Smallville the television show and would be used at Smallville (TV series). Just to assist some, here is a Google books search, and a Google scholar search. I either already own any directly related book material out there, or I have saved all the PDFs that contain journal articles written about the show. None contain detailed looks at the individual episodes. Here's a Google News search for 2002. If you look at the abstracts and the titles, these aren't article about individual episodes, with the exception of the pilot (which you can see based on the dates of the articles). Here's one from 2003, to give you an idea of what the news results are for the entire first season of the show. They're all primarily about the show in general. You mention the fact that it is in its 8th season, but you have to remember what I said, it's on an obscure network. Four million viewers a week on a network like NBC or FOX will most likely get you cancelled. Four million viewers on the WB and the CW makes you their highest rated scripted show.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:18, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Bignole and Judgesurreal777. I have to go do something, I plan to elaborate later. Zginder 2008-09-27T07:02Z (UTC)
  • Keep. I have to agree with the above comments. While I think it is great that the Simpsons wikiproject has been able to accomplish their goal of making an article for every episode in a season, there are questions as to the notability of doing such a thing. I'm not a huge fan of this topic, but I think it meets the requeirements. The pilot and season finale are certainly the most notable episodes in the first season, and they are included. Unless someone can demonstrate that another episode in season one is notable enough that we should require an article on it, I vote for keeping the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 12:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Bignole. Nom's reasoning is based on a misinterpertation of what criteria 1D means by "obvious gaps".  Paul  730 13:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
If find it amusing that I'm accused of misinterpreting the criteria given how long I've been working with them. Granted, the meanings of the rules have changed over time and even now are not always clear, but the fundamental purpose of FT is to promote comprehensiveness, and that requires both quality in a topics existing articles and the existence of those articles in the first place. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 15:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep but with one caveat: Comprehensiveness is met due to the main article for the topic covering the episodes that "complete" this set, but I would like to see redirects made for each episode (or when they overlap with disamb, an entry in the proper place), so that they are technically searchable. But making full episode articles without appropriate information will lead to AFD and edit wars with the current state of notability; AGF that the editors have found all sources they can,there's no point in tempting that fate. --MASEM 19:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I've redirected a couple titles and added others to disambiguous pages. "Hug" has no place to put a link to the season page, as all related pages are solely to deal with the physical touch.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Bignole has done an excellent job with the Smallville articles on Wikipedia and this topic does meet the criteria, however, I still have a problem with it. For example, take a couple articles that I wrote, Eggtown and Something Nice Back Home. They are both as comprehensive as can be, yet I am not about to nominate them for FA status because I do not feel that they are comprehensive (period). While the group of articles in this topic are comprehensive as can be, I would not necessarily say that they are comprehensive. –thedemonhog talkedits 23:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - per my arguments in the topic's FTC. There is no need to create articles that are clearly not notable for the sake of the topic. If the topic is comprehensive, it is comprehensive. sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There are no obvious gaps in the topic. Using non-existent articles to claim lack of comprehensiveness should only be used when there's sufficient evidence to suggest the missing articles should exist. Jay32183 (talk) 11:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Per Bignole (talk · contribs) and Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs). In response to Rreagan007 (talk · contribs), above, it is interesting to note that Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) never responded in the thread about the notability of episodes of The Simpsons to the query from Durova (talk · contribs), as to which Featured Articles of The Simpsons he would "vote to delete". Cirt (talk) 07:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was just using that to show that there are questions about whether every episode is notable enough for its own article. I think it's a gray area, so if someone (like the simpsons wikiproject) wants to spend the time doing it, I'm ok with it. But it shouldn't be required for the completeness of a topic that every episode have its own article. And I've seen a lot of the episodes from season one of Smallville. Most of them are all the same thing: meteor freak gets created, Clark pines after Lana, meteor freak goes crazy and starts killing people, Clark saves the day. Most of them don't deserve their own article if you ask me. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps. But the test should not be whether or not they "deserve" their own article, but instead whether each particular episode has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. In the case of episodes of The Simpsons, many of them have, as evidenced by the ability to improve the quality of many of those articles to Good and Featured Article Quality Status. Cirt (talk) 15:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps relegate to GT? I strongly believe that smaller topics should be allowed to become "quality topics" to encourage people to work on such articles. Nevertheless, it might be a bit unfair for the other featured topics that are 100% complete. I think GTs can fill the gaps between a fully complete topic, and topics that are comprehensive but may not cover quite everything. Nergaal (talk) 16:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Firs, nothing is 100% complete (ever). In fact, nothing in life is ever 100% true. Regardless, you cannot compare Smallville to The Simpsons, or any other show on Wikipedia for that matter. The reason being, no other show on here (that's zero percent) is set up the way Smallville is. Smallville is currently the only show that has season articles, as opposed to season lists. That's because, a part from The Simpsons and maybe a couple of others, all of those other shows refuse to acknowledge that there is no significant coverage from reliable sources about their individual episodes and create them regardless. The idea of a featured topic, and a featured article for that matter, is comprehensiveness. What featured topic does not state is that comprehensiveness equates to an individual article on every subtopic within the larger topic. In Smallville's case, the season 1 article is a comprehensive look at all of the episodes that could not have their own article because significant sources independent of the subject did not exist. Good topics are for articles that are not featured. This is not the case here, as all but one are featured (and the "one" might soon be going up for featured status ...or the potentially new "featured short article" category if that is passed). Featured topics have a limit, three articles, which this topic meets. This topic is comprehensive, as everything you would find with a topic of 22 articles is found here with the 3 articles. There is no difference other than the fact that there just are not 20 separate pages.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
      • Agree with this comment by Bignole (talk · contribs). This topic satisfies WP:WIAFA, and so relegating it to WP:GT is not an appropriate solution here. It seems that the general above consensus is to "Keep" its featured topic status, as it is indeed comprehensive. Cirt (talk) 18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
        • [1][2] Nergaal, if you want to change the rules, please don't propose the change in the topic nom - rst20xx (talk) 18:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Close with consensus to keep - rst20xx (talk) 10:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VIII[edit]

7 articles
Featured article Final Fantasy VIII
FF project logo.svg
Featured article Characters of Final Fantasy VIII
Good article Music of Final Fantasy VIII
Good article World of Final Fantasy VIII
Good article Squall Leonhart
Good article Rinoa Heartilly
Demoted article Chocobo World

The topic fails criterion 3b as Chocobo World was de-listed from Good Article rank and three months of grace period have passed since. FightingStreet (talk) 10:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Confused Chocobo World is nor even mentioned in the lead article meaning it fails criterion 2. But, Chocobo World's article clearly states that it was included with the game. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 17:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
It's mentioned in the development section. --Mika1h (talk) 15:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Remove Chocobo World Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 20:06, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge to FFVIII and Chocobo articles - I do not believe the article has sufficient notability for its own article, and should be merged into those two articles and taken out of the topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Chocobo World. It's just a minigame, not very needed (unlike the directly-related articles such as world and characters). igordebraga 23:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Chocobo World, it was not appropriately added anyway. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:07, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: Weren't you one of the persons to support its inclusion in the topic in the previous nomination? FightingStreet (talk) 15:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Am I a politician or something? Am I not allowed to change my mind after nearly a year? Axem Titanium (talk) 01:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • remove - concord with fighting street. MOJSKA 666 (msg) 19:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - So Chocobo World was added to the topic, just because it achieved GA status, and not for the relevance to the topic? And now that it's lost that status, you're voting to remove it from the topic? This looks a lot like cherry picking. - hahnchen 17:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It's an interesting case. The article in question is directly related to the topic, yet the topic would be complete without it. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 01:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Chocobo World has been flagged as requiring further citations, yet it is not clear at first glance (hunting for citation-needed flags) what is missing. What the article does need is a lot of cleanup to meet standards, particularly in the following areas:
  • Referencing - references need to be brought up to date
  • Development - merge in Audio section, expand.
  • Story - expand using information from existing cited sources
  • Gameplay - link through to existing cited sources and fill in the blanks as needed. Compact where possible.

I think these are minor issues that can be resolved to bring the article back up to GA status. It's a bit of work, but it's definitely doable in a short timeframe. The major delay would be getting the article relisted as GA to meet FT criteria. Gazimoff (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If the wikiproject is actively working on the article we can keep this FTRC open until a GA review has been done. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 02:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
No cherrypicking. If it's removed, it should be permanent. --Mika1h (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have proposed a merger of Chocobo World with Final Fantasy VIII. Chocobo World wont improve because it doesn't have enough reliable sourcing to get back to GA status, and will make a nice paragraph within the main FFVIII article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Observation - Chocobo World wasn't even released as a stand alone game if memory serves me right. As a result, it really shouldn't have its own article. What about incorporating Chocobo World into Minigames of Final Fantasy instead of Final Fantasy VIII. After all, it is more of a minigame than a stand-alone game and doesn't belong in the main FFVIII article just as Triple Triad doesnt. - Noj r (talk) 21:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
  • SOLUTION: Judgesurreal and myself have come to a solution. I will be merging Chocobo World into the Minigames of Final Fantasy article. It will have a nice home there and the FFVIII topic can retain FA status. I will make the changes in the next few days. -- Noj r (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Update I have added Chocobo World as a section of minigames of Final Fantasy. I left out the audio, reception, and development sections because there were no citations and are not very notable. I am archiving the Chocobo World talk page and adding it to the minigames of Final Fantasy talk page. The chocobo world article has been changed to a redirect page and now points to chocobo world in the minigame article. Feel free to alter the chocobo world section if you wish. Chocobo World needs to be removed from the topic now. I dont know how to do that though. -- Noj r (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Congratulations, on getting everyone, including me, to agree to the biggest case of Featured Topics Gerrymandering ever. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 17:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep now that Chocobo World is gone, all issues are addressed. I have put the reception section from Chocobo World into the Minigames article- it's useful content, and notable. --PresN (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Of course I'm nominating for keep. Should we wait for a consensus before removing chocobo world from the topic and closing this assessment? After all, its basically a no-brainer. There is nothing to contend about now. -- Noj r (talk) 00:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - with Chocobo World removed, this topic satisfies the relevant criteria. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Closing nomination as KEEP – All of the concerns of those voting to remove have been addressed by the merge. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 17:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Final Fantasy titles[edit]

15 articles
Featured article Final Fantasy titles
FF project logo.svg
Good article Final Fantasy
Good article Final Fantasy II
Demoted article Final Fantasy III
Featured article Final Fantasy IV
Good article Final Fantasy V
Featured article Final Fantasy VI
Demoted article Final Fantasy VII
Featured article Final Fantasy VIII (subtopic)
Featured article Final Fantasy IX
Featured article Final Fantasy X
Featured article Final Fantasy X-2
Featured article Final Fantasy XI
Featured article Final Fantasy XII
Good article Final Fantasy Mystic Quest

The grace period for this topic has ended, and not all of the articles are good (Final Fantasy III and Final Fantasy VII). -Xnux the Echidna 15:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment Sigh, what is there to say? FIII needs more references but there aren't that many for it, and FFVII was totally fixable but no one was interested. I supposed it will come back within a year, once it has some more work done to it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Each article covers a very large subject in itself, and information updates are regularly needed all over the series; perhaps this topic is simply too huge to be manageable for the time being. Featured (sub)topics might be a more realistic goal for these articles for now. The FFVIII subtopic has always managed to maintain its high quality. Once more subtopics are produced I believe this main topic will become more easily manageable. Kariteh (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think this is too huge to work. Once each games gets a GA or FA, demotions should be rare, and it isn't asking too much to get each new game in the main series up to GA when they are released every other year. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 17:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove This topic was already kept once because of Gerrymandering. Zginder 2008-06-10T18:15Z (UTC)
  • Remove. I'm sad to say it, but this topic does not currently meet the criteria. I do believe, however, it can be renominated quite quickly, and I'm planning on getting FFVII to at least GA status. When the next candidacy is up, I would like to see FFX-2 and Mystic Quest removed, as they are not part to the main series. The Prince (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, I don't think anyone is ever happy to vote for the removal of an FT... Kariteh (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
      • What's your point? The Prince (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Just a little comment, as said in my edit summary. Kariteh (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Two of its articles are below good article status. Martarius (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove per criterion 3. –thedemonhog talkedits 21:33, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Close as consensus to remove --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 17:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Devil May Cry[edit]

6 articles
Good article Devil May Cry series
Featured article Devil May Cry
Featured article Devil May Cry 2
Featured article Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening
Good article Dante
Good article Characters in Devil May Cry

Unfortunately, this topic no longer meets the featured topic criterion 1.d. ("obvious gap") since Devil May Cry 4 was released on January 31, 2008 and hasn't been added to the FT yet, due to its failure to reach GA status. The grace period of three months has passed, so it is time for this topic to be demoted. Kariteh (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Has the editors involved, the Wikiproject and featured talk page, been notified of this? Zginder 2008-05-17T13:23Z (UTC)
Judgesurreal777 left a note on the featured talk page on April 18, and another one on the Wikiproject talk page on May 5. Kariteh (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Lovely, evidently no one noticed that I already began placing footnote templates in the article, and did so with a note saying: "begining FA push", with the rest of the project either inactive or not editing the page it will take a while but the article should be at GAC in around two weeks after Puerto Rican Amazon is nominated, thanks a lot for not leaving a message on the article's or my talk page before opening a FTR. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Mmh, no need to give ironic thanks, I could thank you in the same way for not replying on the two talk pages links I mentioned above. The topic no longer meets the criteria, and thus it should have been nominated for removal on April 30 or May 1 (three months after the game's release date). If Devil May Cry will be at GAC in two weeks from now (May 31) and will pass, then the topic will be re-nominated at FTC and will pass again, that's all. The problem is that the topic can't and shouldn't be left in an unproper status for an entire month (from May 1 to May 31), especially since there are a lot of people currently criticizing the quality of the video game articles. It's just a question of credibility: featured topics are supposed to be "Wikipedia's best work". Kariteh (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It takes a minimum of a fortnight to demote. If you can get it to be a GAC by the n I do not think it will be demoted unless if fails. Zginder 2008-05-17T16:26Z (UTC)
  • Hold — I'd recommend a hold until June 1. That would give editors a fortnight to build up the needed article to GA quality (and please contact me if you need a reviewer -- I hate to see FTs cast away). JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

...So one more day than we would have held otherwise? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly! :P JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove per nominator. Zginder 2008-05-30T17:15Z (UTC)
  • It's June 1 and Devil May Cry 4 is nowhere near GA status. I hate to see this topic tossed out, but once DMC4 is promoted, the topic can be re-nominated. --haha169 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Close as consensus to remove - It has indeed had more than enough time to get the new article to GA. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 05:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Terrific, its utterly ridiculous that this was demoted when the game has only been in the market six months, other topics such as Wikipedia:Featured topics/Final Fantasy titles have games that were released over a decade ago and aren't good or featured articles and they aren't being demoted, just brilliant. - Caribbean~H.Q. 05:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh don't worry about Final Fantasy titles; I'll nominate it for a review on due time (June 10). Kariteh (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Don’t worry. As I said, once DMC4 is promoted, you can re-nominate the topic. Its not incredibly difficult. But for now, I think we have to demote this topic. --haha169 (talk) 02:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Michigan State University[edit]

edit | discuss | [[Book:|book]] | [[Book talk:#Book report|report]]
6 articles
Featured article Michigan State University *
MSU Abbot Hall sign.jpg
Featured article History of Michigan State University
Good article Campus of Michigan State University
Good article Michigan State University academics
Symbol oppose vote.svg Michigan State Spartans
Good article Michigan State University Libraries
For this topic's first FTRC nomination, click here.

This topic contains a B-class article, violating criterion #3. It also is missing several articles about the topic with no justification, violating criterion #1(d). This topic will have used up its grace period by the time this nomination closes. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 16:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reluctant Removal - It appears that this above named topic is much larger than the selection of articles listed below it. They should make a more focused topic about the university, such as Academics or some such. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Remove It is time to finally rid us if this topic. It has been nominated for removal two previous times. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 22:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Remove. Michigan State Spartans is B-Class, and the current scope seems large enough that it should cover several other articles, such as Michigan State Spartans football. Pagrashtak 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove per nomination. You can't simply pick a handful of articles that fit the topic. The purpose is that all articles need to be at least good, if not featured. --rm 'w avu 12:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove per its limited scope and B-class article. Teemu08 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Close nomination as remove. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 18:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars episodes[edit]

edit | discuss | [[Book:|book]] | [[Book talk:#Book report|report]]
6 articles
Symbol oppose vote.svg Star Wars episodes (Category) *
Good article Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Featured article Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
Featured article Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
Featured article Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
Featured article Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back
Good article Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

This topic has no lead article and thus violates criterion #2. The only possible lead article, Star Wars is only B-class. This topic will have used up its grace period by the time this nomination closes. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 16:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

  • RemovalKeepRemoveKeep This is definitely not the Star Wars topic, but simply a collection of the six articles on the films. The topic is much more expansive, including all kinds of media & etc.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You are correct that this is not the Star Wars topic. It is the Star Wars episodes topic, of which there are 6 and they are all either FAs or GAs, so the topic is complete. The question is whether it meets Criteria #2 "The topic has an introductory and summary lead article." and, by extention I guess, whether Criteria #2 is an absolute requirement or a flexible policy. --maclean 02:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
      • You're right. The topic is complete as far as concerned, and unless someone can suggest an intro article that must be there and what it would constitute there isn't anything to be done about it.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Actually, I have changed my mind. As soon as the main Star Wars article is up to par then the topic could be featured again.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 08:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Does not meet current requirement. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 22:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - There's no way a centralised article could be created to encompass the films. There is a category for the films and if necessary, I'm certain that this can be expanded as a kind of an article itself, but there's no criteria for the quality of display of a category page. --lincalinca 08:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
    • There are no critiria for the quality of categories, but there is a criterion that featured topics have "an introductory and summary lead article", which this topic does not. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 16:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep In this case, I think the rules are at fault. The topic is complete. All six Star Wars films meet GA or FA criteria. It just seems silly to drop it because of a technicality. WP:Ignore all rules seems to apply here. The general goal of featured topics is to feature series of articles covering the same subject. In this case, the subject = Star Wars films. There is no Star Wars films article. Big deal. We know the articles are good and that's what matters. I say keep it. I also think we should add a qualifies to that rule saying that topics should have "an introductory and summary lead article if such an article exists" or something like that. Wrad (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If no lead article can be written to summarize a topic, than it isn't really a whole, unified subject worthy of being grouped as an FT. In this case, there already is an article that summarizes all six others: the main Star Wars article. If that article was GA or higher, the topic could stay, but it is not. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 07:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
      • It seems ridiculous to me to claim that this is not a "whole, unified subject worthy of being grouped". It also seems ridiculous to require the Star Wars article to be the lead. It wouldn't be an appropriate lead. It summarizes the films, yes, but also the comics, the action figures, the popular culture, the novel series... Just doesn't make any sense to me. The only logical lead would be Star Wars film series, along the lines of Spider-man film series, but that article doesn't even exist. That communicates to me that no one feels that such an article is important enough to be included on wikipedia. If that attitude changed, then maybe it would be right to remove it (there is actually a discussion about the issue here, but I just feel that it shouldn't be removed on such a technicality. I feel that it would hurt wikipedia not to feature this excellent article series. Wrad (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
        • So maybe instead of removing this featured topic, let's give it a bit more time and figure out exactly what the intro article should be. There definitely is an intro article here that could be written, and I would suggest something more academic, looking at the themes, mythology & etc that is pervasive in the Star Wars episodes, rather than the entire Star Wars canon.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
          • I agree that an intro article could be written on the films. There is defiantly enough information about plot, making-of, and themes to write at least a GA-quality article about the films as a whole. However, I disagree with BillDeanCarter suggestion that we keep the topic until such an article is writen. This topic clearly violates one of the three major criteria for inclusion; I see no reason why this topic needs to have an exception to those rules made for it. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 23:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
            • Well I've said my piece. I'll just leave it to what the consensus decides. Wrad (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove. Plainly does not meet criteria. The WikiProject was informed months ago that Star Wars (or another chosen lead aricle) would have to get to GA by Jan 2008.--Pharos (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
AHEM!! Well, I've just created a potential lead article which centrally discusses the episodic films only. It's Star Wars theatrical films. It's nowhere near GA at the moment, but with a little TLC and a lot of references, we should be able to get it there before long. Could this discussion be placed on hold pending vast improvements to that article (I think the title's more appropriate than Star Wars film series)? Maybe give it, say, a week or so? It shouldn't take that much to get it to find its feet. Most of the references and info can be found on other Wikipages. --lincalinca 13:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You might want to see Talk:Star Wars original trilogy#merge, which discusses merging Star Wars original trilogy and Star Wars prequel trilogy into one article, which would be the article you are trying to create. Pagrashtak 22:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Bingo! With such strong articles on each film, and an article on the franchise, a merger would make good sense without this extra consideration. --kingboyk (talk) 01:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
This discussion can certainly be put on hold while you fix up that article. If you ask for a GA assessment for your new article within the next few days, this discussion shall not be closed until the review is made. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 18:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Remove - I played a secondary role in to User:The Filmaker in guiding these articles to FA, and even I must say that the rules are clear about Featured article requirements and they are correct, a lead article is needed and there is not one. I hope this will spur people to create a GA one so it can be brought back soon. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove or remove the rule about having a lead article. As it stands, this has to be removed and it's not even worth debating. Better outcome: get Star Wars up to GA or FA and come back, hopefully real soon! --kingboyk (talk) 01:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove topic meets criterion #2 but fails criterion #3. Either the Star Wars or merged Star Wars original trilogy and Star Wars prequel trilogy needs to be a single Good article. Mighty Antar (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Close as "remove" Although there are some keep votes, I am closing this discussion as a removal. All of the keep votes are critiquing the criterion itself rather than how this topic relates to that existing rule. Those who voted to "keep" are encouraged to propose an amendment to the featured topic criteria to allow for a situation like this, but for now this topic will be judged by the rules as they currently stand. It should also be noted that the article being written as a possible lead article has been deleted during the course of this discussion. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 16:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)