Lists of World Wrestling Entertainment champions (1st supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Lists of World Wrestling Entertainment champions for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
ADD: List of WWE Divas Champions
New championship created in July, seems to be sticking around so it should be added. At the moment, the list portion is too small to sustain it's own article, so it is included in the main championship page. Meanwhile, that one is too small to become a GA.
REMOVE: List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions
Defunct championship, deactivated at the beginning of the year and doesn't seem to be coming back any time soon, so it doesn't belong in the topic since it's definition is active championships only. -- Scorpion0422 00:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support removal of List of WWE Cruiserweight Champions,
opposeaddition of WWE Divas Championship. I'm far from convinced WWE Divas Championship is too small to get GA, but at any rate, adding an article in place of a list which is too short to get FL is unprecedented, and I am unsure whether or not that is the best course of action - rst20xx (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)- I was prepared for this, and I have created a List of WWE Divas Champions. Since it is largely a recreation of the WWE Divas Championship article, it has already been peer reviewed. Is this acceptable? -- Scorpion0422 21:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Y-es, I suppose. Though you need to update Template:WWE Championships. Out of interest, what non-current WWE titles are there? rst20xx (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Category:World Wrestling Entertainment championships. Of those listed, List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions, List of WCW World Tag Team Champions and List of WWE European Champions are FLs. There are also official WWE sources for the List of WWE Hardcore Champions and List of WWF Light Heavyweight Champions. Many of the rest of them didn't last long, and reliable sources don't exist for them any more. -- Scorpion0422 22:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I've found Template:Former WWE Championships, there we go. Anyway, support both changes - rst20xx (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Category:World Wrestling Entertainment championships. Of those listed, List of WCW World Heavyweight Champions, List of WCW World Tag Team Champions and List of WWE European Champions are FLs. There are also official WWE sources for the List of WWE Hardcore Champions and List of WWF Light Heavyweight Champions. Many of the rest of them didn't last long, and reliable sources don't exist for them any more. -- Scorpion0422 22:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Y-es, I suppose. Though you need to update Template:WWE Championships. Out of interest, what non-current WWE titles are there? rst20xx (talk) 22:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was prepared for this, and I have created a List of WWE Divas Champions. Since it is largely a recreation of the WWE Divas Championship article, it has already been peer reviewed. Is this acceptable? -- Scorpion0422 21:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support both changes.--SRX 21:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support both, the Crusierweight Championship is no longer active so it should be removed. The Diva's Championship has been properly reviewed. Nikki♥311 05:34, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 17:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
2003 Atlantic hurricane season (3rd supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/2003 Atlantic hurricane season for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 17:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support - rst20xx (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Links need to be added from the original nomination page to this and addition 2. Zginder 2008-12-10T23:08Z (UTC)
- Strong support -
Duh.OK, so maybe "duh" was inappropriate, but I stand by my support !vote. --Dylan620 Contribs Sign! 02:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC) - Support; it makes me wonder if it is necessary to have the whole supplementary nomination process to add a newly-featured piece of content to a featured topic, but meh. No objections from this end. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support from –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Guitar Hero (1st supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Guitar Hero for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
This nomination is to add in the recent FL-promoted List of songs in Guitar Hero World Tour to this topic. --MASEM 18:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why not just wait until Guitar Hero World Tour is GA? Gary King (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I can get it to GA or better by Dec 12, the day that this article at least needed to be part of the topic per FT retention. (I had another article in the GA queue that took at least 2 weeks to clear). Also, the GHWT article would just be promoting it, not adding a new article, as its already listed. At this point, the only likely new article that I can see being added to the topic would be the Metallica song list, but that is not yet created as there's no info for it. --MASEM 19:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh okay. I thought both World Tour's article and its game list had the same amount of time to be added to the topic; that would have made sense to me. Gary King (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I can get it to GA or better by Dec 12, the day that this article at least needed to be part of the topic per FT retention. (I had another article in the GA queue that took at least 2 weeks to clear). Also, the GHWT article would just be promoting it, not adding a new article, as its already listed. At this point, the only likely new article that I can see being added to the topic would be the Metallica song list, but that is not yet created as there's no info for it. --MASEM 19:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Gary, the way it works is that an article has 3 months from its creation to be included in the topic, and then three months from its release (so to speak) to be good/featured. As this article was created before the release date, it needed to be included before the game needs to get to good - rst20xx (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, I kind of get you there. So you're saying that the game's article has a release date, but the list does not, so it doesn't follow the rule that it has three months starting from its release date? Gary King (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- At the time I had this topic nominated originally, it was requested that the three upcoming game articles be added and at least peer reviewed to complete the topic. At that time, the info on World Tour was limited, and only hints of a songlist were present - not enough for its own article. On Sept 12 (or thereabouts) the full songlist was revealed, which necessitated the separate list - at that point, that article was created, and thus to meet the completeness, this article had to be at least peer reviewed and added as such to make the topic meet 1d (topic completeness). So the Dec 12 date to get this article into the topic was one thing (and that's what I'm doing now). Now, with the game released in late October, that starts a second clock on the quality of both articles - the World Tour game one, and this song list, to get the quality to at least GA or in the list case to FL as to meet the 3a requirement for featured topics, that in late January. Now, since I've got the songlist to FL, that's one of them done, I still have to get the GHWT to GA or better but that doesn't need a renomination of the topic once completed, just marking it as such.
- I am expected that the same cycle will be in place if/when Guitar Hero: Metallica's setlist is revealed (the Decades setlist is fine in the game's article body there since there's not much to say outside of the usual game elements, thus no need to split); a songlist will be created and that starts a 3 month timer to get it peer reviewed (at minimum) and into the topic, and then 3 months after release for both game and songlist articles to be GA or better. --MASEM 16:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Alright, I kind of get you there. So you're saying that the game's article has a release date, but the list does not, so it doesn't follow the rule that it has three months starting from its release date? Gary King (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Zginder 2008-11-20T18:12Z (UTC)
- Support - Good to see such a large new topic! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Carnivàle (1st supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Carnivàle for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
| Main page | Articles |
 Carnivàle
|
List of Carnivàle episodes - Characters of Carnivàle -  Mythology of Carnivàle
|
This award list was created after Carnivàle had become an FT, and since I couldn't get the list AfD-deleted, I improved it to FL status so that the FT can comprise all Carnivàle articles again. – sgeureka t•c 19:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Related to topic. ~~ ComputerGuy 22:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support and I recommend renominating the mythology article, since last time, it gained a single comment and no supports or opposes. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support looks fine.--Music26/11 20:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - rst20xx (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Zginder 2008-11-06T23:19Z (UTC)
- Support Looks good, nice work. Cirt (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Necessary addition to complete the topic. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 18:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
2003 Atlantic hurricane season (2nd supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/2003 Atlantic hurricane season for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - This article needs to be in this topic for full understanding. ~~ ComputerGuy 17:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support Zginder 2008-11-02T21:03Z (UTC)
- Support - non-controversial - rst20xx (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support - no brainer -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 20:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Support if you need it. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Jesus College, Oxford (1st supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Jesus College, Oxford for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
Adding another Featured List to the existing Featured Topic. Err, that's it. BencherliteTalk 23:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
- noncontroversial procedural support Zginder 2008-10-25T23:53Z (UTC)
- Support - rst20xx (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support ~~ ComputerGuy 17:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Dwarf planets (1st supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Dwarf planets for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
Newest member. Nergaal (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Non-controversial procedural support Zginder 2008-10-09T02:58Z (UTC)
- Support. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Serendipodous 07:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - rst20xx (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - TheLeftorium 21:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Pie is good (Apple is the best) 21:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support --Admrboltz (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Better if the FAC passes. ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 01:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support (looks like snow) -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 21:16, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - that was easy! rst20xx (talk) 01:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games (1st supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
| Main page | Articles |
| ACC Championship Game | 2005 ACC Championship Game - 2006 ACC Championship Game - 2007 ACC Championship Game |
Hi. This is a supplementary nomination to add 2008 ACC Championship Game to the topic. I'm not the original creator of the FT, but the FT creator gave me his permission to get a Peer review for 2008 ACC Championship Game. I'm 99% sure that I messed something up when I started this nom, and I apologize in advance. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 21:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I have notified User:JKBrooks85 about this nom here. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 21:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support and you did it all right as far as I can tell - rst20xx (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me too. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support procedural vote. Zginder 2008-10-07T13:40Z (UTC)
- Support works for me --Admrboltz (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't think this article should be added until the game is played and the article written for the game.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- The rules are set up such that articles need to be included in such cases. See [1] - rst20xx (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to thank User:Ilikepie2221 for his/her effort in moving this through the bureaucracy. I hadn't planned to do anything until after the game was played and I had a chance to write the full article, but Pie's contributions have been an enormous help and have allowed me to keep working on other projects, which is greatly appreciated. Obviously, I support this and fully intend to complete the article and submit it for GA following the completion of the game. Thanks for your help, Pie, and thanks to all those who offered their support. JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support ~~ This page was edited by ĈĠ 01:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- Support Procedural. --Admrboltz (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 22:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Degrassi:The Next Generation, Seasons of (1st supplementary nomination and rename)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
I am nominating two one additional articles to Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation, the first is the new and peer reviewed season page, Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 8), the other is the only article about an episode of the series, Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation), which has recently been promoted to FA status.
With the nomination of the episode article, I also propose a rename from Degrassi: The Next Generation, Seasons of to Degrassi: The Next Generation, Episodes of. Thanks for your consideration. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Am striking out and withdrawing the episode article. Please only consider the addition of Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 8), and disregard the change of Topic title from "Seasons of..." to "Episodes of..." Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Season 8, but
Opposethe episode and renaming. If you add the ep, you will need to have articles created for all of the episodes, and have them added. Maybe consider working on Season 1 articles, then promote Season 1 as a FT/GT. --Admrboltz (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for commenting. With regard to your opposing of the episode, right now this is the only one that can stand alone as being notable enough for its own article, the others do not. May I point you to Smallville (season 1) Featured topic, which contains only two episode articles, and the discussion at FTC Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Smallville (season 1). Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- The episode is only being added due to Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation#Possible additions. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Weak support of ep/rename of topic. --Admrboltz (talk) 01:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose adding the episode, but would support adding Season 8 and keeping it as a seasons topic.
- I oppose the adding of the episode because I do not feel it would be comprehensive. I was quite active in the above mentioned Smallville topic debate but the big difference here is that the seasons are featured lists whereas Smallville (season 1) is a featured article. The difference is that the lists do not contain a lot of information the equivalent article does. For example there would be nothing to cover the production or writing side of the seasons, something that the Smallville season article had. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose adding the episode. Support adding Season 8 and keeping it as a seasons topic. I wasn't crazy about the Smallville topic either, but at least you could make a plausable argument that the pilot and the season finale were the only 2 episodes notable enough for their own independent articles in season 1. Here, what you're saying is that only the pilot episode is notable enough for its own article in 7 seasons of shows. Not to mention the fact that the episode article sticks out like a sore thumb among the season lists, whereas the smallville topic is made up of 3 articles. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment OK, I see where you're all coming from. In that case do I need to withdraw this nomination, or can I just move it to Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation/addition1 and remove the episode article from the nomination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewedwards (talk • contribs)
- You can stick with the current nomination, just strike out the bits you're changing at the top and state what you've changed - rst20xx (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK,
Done. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- OK,
- You can stick with the current nomination, just strike out the bits you're changing at the top and state what you've changed - rst20xx (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support non controversial. Zginder 2008-09-26T19:35Z (UTC)
- Support - rst20xx (talk) 20:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Season 8 is a necisary addition and it has been peer reviewed. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Matthew's splendid work. –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Close as consensus to add Season 8 only. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 13:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Lost, seasons of (2nd supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Seasons of Lost for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
| Main page | Articles |
| List of Lost episodes
|
Lost (season 1) • Lost (season 2) • Lost (season 3) • Lost (season 4)
|
Season 5 premieres in January/February 2009 and will air its finale in May. The peer reviewed page is well-sourced and looks like any of the other season articles, but without episode summaries and reception sections. Thanks, –thedemonhog talk • edits 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Zginder 2008-09-21T20:15Z (UTC)
- Support - rst20xx (talk) 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support just as long as I'm not expected to watch any of it... BencherliteTalk 00:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support works for me --Admrboltz (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support Now it's been through PR -- Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:43, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support, though this show's never held my interest. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 04:17, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I have never experienced so many (two) backhanded supports. ;) –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
- Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Kingdom Hearts (2nd supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Kingdom Hearts series for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
Per a previous discussion at WT:FT?, the Kingdom Hearts topic became in violation of FT criteria 1d (no obvious gap) and 3c (Items that are ineligible for featured or good article status must have passed an individual quality audit). The articles at the root of this are unreleased video games that expand upon the current series. They have each gone through a peer review to satisfy criteria 3c and adding them to the topic will satisfy criteria 1d. Once the games are released, there are plans to improve them to GA, and FA if at all possible. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC))
For reference, here are the Peer Review links
- Support - Completes the topic once again, great job! Get those GA's to FA too, I know you can do it :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Great work - rst20xx (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Looks good to me --Admrb♉ltz (talk) 21:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Per Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs) and Rst20xx (talk · contribs). The plans to improve the articles further to WP:GA is also encouraging. Cirt (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I added the peer-review requirement without discussion and was never challenged. It was never meant to disregard looking at the artilces. Here at featured topics we have it easy, we do not look at content. I think the audit for quality takes place during the FTC and the peer review is just something to prevent bad artilces from reaching us. Zginder 2008-09-12T04:41Z (UTC)
- To those that supported, I would prefer it if the articles were looked at per Zginder's comment if you haven't already. I will address any questions and concerns you have as best I can. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC))
- Support I could not find any problems. Zginder 2008-09-13T04:13Z (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - and sorry this took so long, things have been a bit hectic round here lately! rst20xx (talk) 15:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Solar System (8th supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Solar System for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
Dwarf planet- Removal of all moons and dwarf planets
| Main page | Articles |
| Solar System | Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Asteroid belt, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Dwarf planet, Kuiper belt, Scattered disc, Oort cloud, Formation and evolution of the Solar System |
It looks like consensus is oppose to large overlaps between topics and prefers setting up subtopics, so now that there is a dwarf planets topic and moon topics underway, I'd like to rearrange this topic to match the new setup. In this supplementary nomination, I'm adding the lead article of the dwarf planet subtopic and removing the moon articles. Once the subtopics are ready we will probably add articles like Moons of Jupiter, but until we can do so I don't think this counts as a gap given that the moons are mentioned in the articles on the planets. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support> Even though it portends much more work. Serendipodous 17:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Per nom. ~~ ĈĠ890100Review me! 18:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Oppose.Weak Support. I very much like the idea of grouping the dwarf planets and moons into sub-topics, but I think this is too much change at one time. I think we should just deal with moving the dwarf planets now since that is already another featured topic, and leave the moon articles where they are for the time being. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)- Support, and I would note to the above reviewer that there's only one moon not included in the below Galilean moons topic nomination. --PresN (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, there are 2: Titan and Triton. Also, the Galilean moons topic has not yet been approved and this nomination is only proposing taking the moon articles out without replacing them with the Galilean moons article.
I therefore still oppose.Rreagan007 (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, there are 2: Titan and Triton. Also, the Galilean moons topic has not yet been approved and this nomination is only proposing taking the moon articles out without replacing them with the Galilean moons article.
- Support Zginder 2008-08-27T21:02Z (UTC)
- Comment the dwarf planet topic was never meant to lead to changes into the SS topic. I think that there should be some grace period (as is with the case of topics that become incomplete with the release of new songs/games/etc) until contributors have the time to set up the Jupiter/Moons of Jupiter subtopic. Nergaal (talk) 22:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I think setting up a Jupiter/Moons of Jupiter subtopic may take longer than you think, indeed longer than any grace period will last. In the meantime, this topic is left in the lurch, structurally, when compared to the two new topics. Further, to address Rreagan007's suggestion, I feel that in addition to my above argument I would also say that taking out the dwarf planets but not the moons would constitute a notable gap, as the dwarf planets are more notable than the moons. Therefore, I support this move, pointing out that only two articles are losing out completely for the timebeing - rst20xx (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I think this is a great idea, splitting the topic to make several smaller topics that are more focused. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Agree with Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
- Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:15, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Characters of Halo (1st supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Characters of Halo for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
| Main page | Articles |
| Characters of Halo
|
Master Chief (Halo) - Cortana - Arbiter (Halo) - Gravemind - Nicole (Dead or Alive)
|
I have run this by David Fuchs, who nominated the original topic, and he supports this addition. If you would look back to the original nomination for this topic, you'll see there was some controversy over the inclusion of Nicole (Dead or Alive) in the topic. Proponents of this article's inclusion (myself included) pointed to the fact that excluding the article may constitute an obvious and notable gap, thus violating criterion 1.d) However, opponents pointed to the fact that this article was not at the time properly integrated with the other articles (specifically Characters of Halo and Template:Halo characters), thus violating criterion 1.c), and hence the result of the nomination was that it passed, but without the Nicole article.
Since then, I have integrated the Nicole article with the others, where it has sat for over a month now, and feel that this should remove any objections to its inclusion here. On the other hand, I think that excluding the article would still violate criterion 1.d) (now more than ever). While Nicole has not appeared in any media outside Dead or Alive 4, she is still regarded as an in-continuity character of the Halo Universe - rst20xx (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support - now that it is linked with the others in the template and the lead article summarizes it, it can and should be included. Zginder 2008-08-04T20:26Z (UTC)
- Strong support - Nicole is now mentioned in the lead article and the template of the characters of halo, which she should be, and should now be included in this topic to make it 100% complete. Great job. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Properly linked with the rest of the topic now. James086Talk | Email 08:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support I guess. By the way, was Nicole actually ever in any Halo video games? Xnux the Echidna 15:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Quote from above, "Nicole has not appeared in any media outside Dead or Alive 4" - rst20xx (talk) 17:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose There are other characters, more relevant to Halo that need to be added before this one should be introduced. Surprisingly, other characters even appeared in the game! Who should get priority: A character that appeared in several dozens scenes, or a character that appears in a different game? Nergaal (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Which other characters? None of the other characters have enough out of universe information or secondary sources about them to write an article. James086Talk | Email 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. No other characters can be added besides Nicole, because she is the only other Halo character notable enough for an article. Well, maybe with the exception of the Flood and the Covenant, but they're more in line with factions of Halo rather than characters of Halo. Xnux the Echidna 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly. The other characters are all covered exclusively in the main article - rst20xx (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. No other characters can be added besides Nicole, because she is the only other Halo character notable enough for an article. Well, maybe with the exception of the Flood and the Covenant, but they're more in line with factions of Halo rather than characters of Halo. Xnux the Echidna 02:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Which other characters? None of the other characters have enough out of universe information or secondary sources about them to write an article. James086Talk | Email 10:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Solar System (7th supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Solar System for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
| Main page | Articles |
| Solar System | Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Ceres, Asteroid belt, Jupiter, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Saturn, Titan, Uranus, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Makemake, Kuiper belt, Eris, Scattered disc, Oort cloud, Formation and evolution of the Solar System |
A new body has been declared a dwarf planet and its article has been made a GA. I give to you Makemake. Zginder 2008-07-24T02:14Z (UTC)
- Support - Not enough FA's, get Scattered disc and this one to FA!! :) You guys do awesome work, keep it up. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support - It was amazing before, its amazing now. Just two more FAs! --haha169 (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. There seems to be some cherrypicking going on here. Can someone explain why small Solar System body, interplanetary medium, timeline of solar system astronomy, timeline of Solar System exploration, attributes of the largest solar system bodies, geological features of the solar system, Solar System in fiction, table of planets and dwarf planets in the Solar System, timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons, or stability of the Solar System isn't included? Also, wouldn't Moon, Io, Ganymede, Callisto, Titan, and Triton be better suited to Earth, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune subtopics? I'm sorry, but this is far from featured-worthy. Xnux the Echidna 04:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Cherrypicking or not, this topic's scope was decided months ago, and includes all dwarf planets. Makemake is a dwarf planet, and so, by definition, has to go into this topic. There really isn't a need to discuss this, as far as I'm concerned. The big seven moons were included in the topic because they were all larger than Pluto and Eris, and so were deemed worthy of inclusion if Pluto and Eris were. This topic expands its scope in incremental lots. First the planets and dwarf planets, then the minor planet populations, then the major moons, then formation. None of your listed articles are barred from possible future inclusion, but would need massive amounts of work done on them before they are ready.Serendipodous 06:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- So, is this topic purposely not including these articles? Also, when Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune become subtopics, will the moons listed here be included in their respective subtopics or not? Xnux the Echidna 13:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- A topic's scope must be well defined, but that that does not mean that every single article about the topic be included. Almost every article on Wikipedia has to do with a topic in the solar system; however, I do not think that anyone would argue that we need ever BLP in this topic because that all of them live on Earth. Zginder 2008-07-25T13:50Z (UTC)
- ...That wasn't what I meant. Obviously, we aren't putting in every article where the Solar System is the setting. However, for some reason, we aren't putting articles that discuss the Solar System specifically. Why? Also, you didn't answer my question about later putting the large moons on different subtopics. Xnux the Echidna 17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I like to think of Featured Topics as sentences- with the idea being that if you can't write out the topic in a sentence without torturing it, you don't have a topic. This topic, therefore, is "Major bodies of the solar system, including the sun, planets, dwarf planets, and the large moons." (where there is a clear division between the large moons and the not-large moons). It's fairly well defined, and there's no rule that says that articles can't be non-head articles in more than one topic- after all, if I did a topic "largest cities in the US", it'd have NYC in there an article, and if I also did a "major cities of New York" topic, NYC would also be there, and still not as the head article. --PresN (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- The opic is not, however, "Major bodies of the solar system including blahblahblah as well as the notable attributes of the solar system." It's a perfectly valid topic- it's just not this topic. --PresN (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- I like to think of Featured Topics as sentences- with the idea being that if you can't write out the topic in a sentence without torturing it, you don't have a topic. This topic, therefore, is "Major bodies of the solar system, including the sun, planets, dwarf planets, and the large moons." (where there is a clear division between the large moons and the not-large moons). It's fairly well defined, and there's no rule that says that articles can't be non-head articles in more than one topic- after all, if I did a topic "largest cities in the US", it'd have NYC in there an article, and if I also did a "major cities of New York" topic, NYC would also be there, and still not as the head article. --PresN (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- ...That wasn't what I meant. Obviously, we aren't putting in every article where the Solar System is the setting. However, for some reason, we aren't putting articles that discuss the Solar System specifically. Why? Also, you didn't answer my question about later putting the large moons on different subtopics. Xnux the Echidna 17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- A topic's scope must be well defined, but that that does not mean that every single article about the topic be included. Almost every article on Wikipedia has to do with a topic in the solar system; however, I do not think that anyone would argue that we need ever BLP in this topic because that all of them live on Earth. Zginder 2008-07-25T13:50Z (UTC)
- So, is this topic purposely not including these articles? Also, when Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, and Neptune become subtopics, will the moons listed here be included in their respective subtopics or not? Xnux the Echidna 13:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support. --PresN (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Were it not for Formation and evolution of the Solar System, we would be able to just call this "major bodies of the solar system" and everything would fit. When we get around to having a big talk on whether to allow overview topics, it will have a big impact of this topic. However, that change has nothing to do with this nomination. If some dwarf planets belong, then they all do. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- For the record, this topic isn't excluding anything. But there are only a few of us and we are working flat out as it is. I was planning to include Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons and Planets beyond Neptune alongside Makemake in this expansion, but was beaten to the post before "...Beyond Neptune"'s FAC was finished. Serendipodous 22:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support - If one dwarf planet deserves to be in then they all do. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Planets beyond Neptune has reached FA. Do you think it could be added as well? I was also intending to include Timeline of discovery of Solar System planets and their moons in this expansion. Serendipodous 10:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Hopefully scattered disc will become an FA soon. But seriously, the only ones that do any work are Ruslik, Serendi, Marskell used to, and Ling who's new to it plus other people who i don't know as well... I do just a little bit of the work. I need to get on the job guys! --Meldshal (§peak to me) 14:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
- Note to all - Let's keep this nomination about the new dwarf planet. If you want to add other articles later, discuss it and do a separate nomination, because otherwise adding new articles at this point will just nullify all discussion to this point. Let's just add this new one, and those interested can formulate another addition later. Sound good? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I respectfully disagree Judge, I think we should start a new vote with the two other articles included immediately, this will be the fastest way to get all 3 articles into the topic and will result in the least work overall - rst20xx (talk) 09:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Let us keep the nomination as it stands because, I for one might have some problems with the other two. Zginder 2008-07-31T12:25Z (UTC)
- Clarification I do not know if I would support the addition of the two additional articles. I would need to do more research and a good argument would help. My point is that Makemake is an easy nomination and the other two are not. Zginder 2008-07-31T19:42Z (UTC)
- OK, fine, that's fair enough then. I really didn't think my last post through, I think it's mainly because I'm slightly frustrated because the main contributors probably should have been the ones to nominate in the first place - rst20xx (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
- Clarification I do not know if I would support the addition of the two additional articles. I would need to do more research and a good argument would help. My point is that Makemake is an easy nomination and the other two are not. Zginder 2008-07-31T19:42Z (UTC)
- Support --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 00:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
- Support Pretty much falls directly into the scope of the topic as much as any other article does. When overview topics have improved then I would support the continued expansion of the scope of this topic and also a spin off in the form of "Major bodies of the solar system". To do this now would be a little silly and repetitive in my opinion. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 04:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
- Close with promotion - This supplementary nomination is for the addition of an article, a move which has got unanimous approval. The only oppose vote seems to have issue not with this addition, but with the topic as it currently stands, and any such opposition should not be brought here but instead by bringing the topic to WP:FTR - rst20xx (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Meerkat Manor (1st supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Meerkat Manor for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
| Main page | Articles |
| Meerkat Manor
|
List of Meerkat Manor episodes - List of Meerkat Manor meerkats - Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins
|
I'm nominating Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins for addition to this featured topic as it is a "prequel" film to the television series and directly related to the topic. It is now a GA article, making it an acceptable addition to the topic. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support - nice work :) rst20xx (talk) 19:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support per criteria. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Nice addition. Congrats! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Looks good Gary King (talk) 06:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support No reason not to. --haha169 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support Looks good to me. Silver Sonic Shadow (talk) 04:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
- Close as promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Solar System (6th supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Solar System for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
| Main page | Articles |
| Solar System | Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Ceres, Asteroid belt, Jupiter, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Saturn, Titan, Uranus, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Kuiper belt, Eris, Scattered disc, Oort cloud, Formation and evolution of the Solar System |
This article is as vital to the Solar System topic as Solar System itself. It is, if you like, the 4D image of the Solar System with the main article as the 3D image. I have wanted to get this article included in the Solar System FT since I first got involved, and now that it is FA class, I think it is ready. Serendipodous 07:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support and kudos on all your work on these articles. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support as substantial contributor to formation and evolution. However, Solar System uses Template:Solar System table for the footer, while most of the others in the topic use Template:Solar System, which seems a bit odd. ASHill (talk | contribs) 15:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Note also that Mercury is undergoing a FAR. ASHill (talk | contribs) 15:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Brilliance - what have you got planned next? rst20xx (talk) 00:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Depends what happens to Mercury. :-) Serendipodous 05:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Close as consensus to add --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Dream Days at the Hotel Existence (1st supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Dream Days at the Hotel Existence for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
| Main page | Articles |
| Dream Days at the Hotel Existence
|
Lost and Running - I Don't Remember - Nobody Sees - Black Tears - Who Really Cares (Featuring the Sound of Insanity)
|
This supplementary nomination should be a very straightforward one. The album got an extra single, and the article on that single is now a GA. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support Zginder 2008-04-28T16:53Z (UTC)
- Support; everything falls into place. Teh Rote (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support as contributor. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Support No problems here. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- Close as consensus to promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Solar System (5th supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Solar System for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
| Main page | Articles |
| Solar System | Sun, Mercury, Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Ceres, Asteroid belt, Jupiter, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Saturn, Titan, Uranus, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Kuiper belt, Eris, Scattered disc, Oort cloud |
These six featured articles represent a large segment of the Solar System's geography. The "big seven" moons, as astronomers call them, fill a "mass gap" in the Solar System between the planets and the dwarf planets. The smallest big moon, Triton, is larger than all the smaller moons put together. These moons are also highly evolved worlds in their own right, with weather, complex geology, and the possibility of life. This nomination also gives a reason for the Moon to be included that is more than historical. Serendipodous 09:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support - and great work on these highly important articles. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support—All featured articles and works in the topic. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 13:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Logical conclusion to the Solar System featured articles. Note the term "big seven" has been used in sources.[2][3]. (Dropping my vote, as I'm a participant in the project.) Marskell (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support - I see no reason not to add them. Nergaal (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Support. Great work, and a quite sensible addition. I guess now would be the time to consider altering the box by indenting the moons under their respective planets, and the dwarf planets under their respective "belts" (this has been suggested in the past).--Pharos (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- A topic can not be subdivided only split into different topics. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 18:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- I mean the display of items in Wikipedia:Featured topics/Solar System, in a way so that it is clear which moons belong to which planets, etc. This would not be dividing the topic, but merely making the topic box easier to read.--Pharos (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Question — I'm a bit weary about whether these really are special enough that they can be added while the rest of the moons aren't. Does the "Big Seven" classification have any official recognition the way that the "Dwarf Planet" classification does? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- It isn't official, but these seven moons are all larger than all the smaller moons in the Solar System combined, which is not true of any of the smaller moons. Serendipodous 20:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Considering that there are 166 moons orbiting the eight planets, and most written treatments concentrate only on the major ones, I think this is a reasonable cut-off, as it is one that has been used by several astronomers.--Pharos (talk) 20:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely, this is a reasonable cut-off. Anyone familiar with the list of Solar System bodies would recognize a dividing line between Triton (seventh of seven) and the smaller moons. It would be sort of nuts to expect that all of the moons in the Solar System (an ever growing group) should be FA before we add them to this featured topic. These seven are a logical dividing line, buttressed by sources. Marskell (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- We could eventually get every moon in the solar system in the article by getting pages like Moons of Saturn up to FL status. It would be a lot esier than featuring each individual moon. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely, this is a reasonable cut-off. Anyone familiar with the list of Solar System bodies would recognize a dividing line between Triton (seventh of seven) and the smaller moons. It would be sort of nuts to expect that all of the moons in the Solar System (an ever growing group) should be FA before we add them to this featured topic. These seven are a logical dividing line, buttressed by sources. Marskell (talk) 21:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
- Strong support, oui, très bien :-) MOJSKA 666 (msg) 17:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Terrific work and addition to this featured topic. Hello32020 (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
- Rename? - While this nomination is up, it might be a good idea to propose a rename to something like "Solar System bodies" or "Solar System, major features of" so that it is clear why we do not include articles like Formation and evolution of the Solar System. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've been trying to get Formation and evolution of the Solar System up to FT inclusion standard for over a year, so I think the topic name is fine. Serendipodous 09:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Support. Excellent work all. Kaldari (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Close as promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
2003 Atlantic hurricane season (1st supplementary nomination)
[edit]The new article is clearly part of the topic, and given its a featured list, I suppose it would be a fine addition ;) --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support- no comment really needed. --PresN (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - Righto. David Fuchs (talk) 03:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - The Mary Wollstonecraft topic has shown that a list can be included in a topic of articles, so there is no problem here. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 22:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support; no issues here. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Closing nomination as promote --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Final Fantasy titles (1st supplementary nomination)
[edit]This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Final Fantasy titles/archive1 for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
Since "topics with gaps" are already moving to the FTR, looks like it's a good idea to replace the main article from "former featured list" to "featured article". We can re-add it as soon as it improves. (we could put other FF Good/featured articlesin the nom, but depends on how the discussion here goes - the FTC usually complains when cherry-picking articles) igordebraga ≠ 18:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Question - What will happen to the series article once the list is brought back up to FL? Will it remain the main article, be moved to a regular article of the topic, or removed? (Guyinblack25 talk 18:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC))
- Sorry, I put the proposition instead of the current topic. The current main article is List of Final Fantasy titles, which was demoted of FL status. I'm nominating to replace it with the series article. igordebraga ≠ 19:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I was asking what will happen to the series article once "List of Final Fantasy titles" is brought back up to FL? Will the Final Fantasy series article remain the main article for the topic after "List of Final Fantasy titles" is brought back up to FL? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC))
- The topic can go like the Kingdom Hearts one, in which the series is the main and the list of media is one of the articles. igordebraga ≠ 15:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Cool, sounds very reasonable. One more question; would the name also change from "Final Fantasy titles" to simply "Final Fantasy"? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC))
- Since the topic features only game titles (and FF has a lot to offer: music, movies, TV series and gameplay-related articles), I think we don't need to change the name. igordebraga ≠ 17:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- Cool, sounds very reasonable. One more question; would the name also change from "Final Fantasy titles" to simply "Final Fantasy"? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC))
- The topic can go like the Kingdom Hearts one, in which the series is the main and the list of media is one of the articles. igordebraga ≠ 15:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I was asking what will happen to the series article once "List of Final Fantasy titles" is brought back up to FL? Will the Final Fantasy series article remain the main article for the topic after "List of Final Fantasy titles" is brought back up to FL? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC))
- Sorry, I put the proposition instead of the current topic. The current main article is List of Final Fantasy titles, which was demoted of FL status. I'm nominating to replace it with the series article. igordebraga ≠ 19:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support change to main article- Final Fantasy is an excellent main article, and meets the requirements. --PresN (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
- Support - One the media article gets its featured list status back though, we should add it to this topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose- I see why you are doing this, but I think it would be better to just get the existing main article back up to Fl status. It seems to me that a topic with Final Fantasy as the main article should include (for example) an article on the history of the series and an article on its cultural impact. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)- If I may ask, why would separate articles on the history and cultural impact be required? I know those may have been arbitrary examples, but other video game topics don't have similar articles and such information is already covered in the main series article. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC))
- Looking back, I guess precident has been set to allow a topic organized like this. In fact, once the list is brought back up to FL status, you could include it as a member of the topic, since the Mary Wollstonecraft topic has a timeline in it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- If I may ask, why would separate articles on the history and cultural impact be required? I know those may have been arbitrary examples, but other video game topics don't have similar articles and such information is already covered in the main series article. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC))
- Weak Support Although I think it is Gerrymandering, I will allow it. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 01:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Close debate as pass --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)