Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

I know this is a bit ambitious and a long shot, but I was wondering if these articles themselves would be enough to make a Good or Featured Topic, or would there need to be additional material such as Neighborhoods in Chicago? FWIW, all these articles have the navbox {{Community areas of Chicago}} in common. Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Reywas92^Talk 20:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson, this looks perfect! That would be amazing if many of these were brought up to GA! That's absolutely fair to do a topic of the officially-defined areas: there are far too many neighborhoods, many of which are appropriately just sections of the community area articles anyway. Reywas92^Talk 20:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

If those more familiar with the process could assist: After Gerda Arendt and I recently got List of operas by Claudio Monteverdi to FL, a featured topic with Monteverdi's operas seems like the next step. The opera articles were all brought to FA by Brianboulton, who has since passed away. Should Monteverdi's article itself be included, as it is FA? We spoke with the main contributor other than Brian, Smerus, and he was unsure as well. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

No- The topic as listed is "Operas by Claudio Monteverdi", and Monteverdi himself is not one of those operas. The status of any given article does not affect whether it is in a topic. Monteverdi would need to be the lead article to be included, and that won't work as the non-opera articles aren't GA+. That said, while I'd be fine with it, it should be noted that you're excluding two child articles of L'Orfeo, which is a little suspect on a 6-article topic. --PresN 15:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

@PresN: Leaving Monteverdi out sounds good to me, thanks for your input. I certainly wasn't cherry picking in this topic and purposely leaving the List of items and Possente spirto out. I would be hesitant to promote and then include them since, as you say, they are not one of Monteverdi's operas. My assumption is that they would be more appropriate as a subtopic of L'Orfeo. Aza24 (talk) 23:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Could this potentially qualify as a good topic? There is not really a main page for these games, but they are all still heavily related. How do I approach this as I am new to this part of Wikipedia.(Oinkers42) (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

• @(Oinkers42): it needs an actual main article to start with. GamerPro64 15:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Potentially the series article could be used. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:26, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Then you would be missing articles if you are using the series articles. The Genesis series are all part of the same series and there is no article on the 3D games. GamerPro64 17:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
      • In that case, I would probably just wait to propose it. All of the Genesis console games, plus Sonic Mania are all featured or good articles. That just leaves Sonic 4 Episode 1 and episode 2 to become good or featured and that finishes the main games in the series. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

        It'd need to include all the handheld games as well. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

        • So, it is now four; Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode I, Sonic the Hedgehog 4: Episode II, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (8-bit video game), and Sonic Chaos. Everything else is either good or featured. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Any suggestions on Black Mirror as a potential good topic? The navbox also includes "On a Roll", "Thanksgiving of Horror" and "Anyone Who Knows What Love Is (Will Understand)" but the latter two are almost definitely not closely related enough to include. It would be good to get opinions on:

1. Should "On a Roll"—a song written for and performed in an episode of the series—be included?
2. I think the five series are not suitable for standalone lists ("season articles") as they're 3–6 episodes per series and it's an anthology and there'll be enough space at Black Mirror to document any commonalities between their production. Any disagreements?
3. Any other incompleteness or incompatibilities?

Pinging The Rambling Man and Masem as users who've helped a lot around these parts. — Bilorv (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I mean, if you argue "On a Roll" should be included, then you could argue that Charlie Brooker's and Annabel Jones' article should be included too, and a whole rabbit trailer of possible inclusion. You're limiting the GT/FT to just Black Mirror and its episodes; "On a Roll" is a related topic but not essential to complete this topic list. That said, I do think the series/season articles should be considered in this, if they remain separate, but as you say, as an anthology series, you could almost merge them up to the main show article instead. --Masem (t) 18:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Masem: I think that's a miscommunication on my part—I meant that there are currently no season articles (e.g. Black Mirror (series 1) goes nowhere), but that in some cases people might reasonably say "This topic is incomplete because there are no season articles" (for instance if you did this for a 4 season x 24 episodes show where every episode was notable). I'm guessing you're fine then with no season articles being created in the first place? — Bilorv (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

• I would say the main article, the list of episodes and every episode would be a perfectly suitable good topic. Happy to help (as ever) with getting the last bits over the line. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 19:11, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

What should happen with Wikipedia:Featured topics/Animal (Kesha album), in concrete this update. Stephen (song) and Dinosaur (Kesha song) were promoted to GAs a year after the FTC was approved, but they were never requested to supplement the GT. I can nominate them but Get Sleazy Tour (which existed at the time it was promoted, but it was not considered as a key part of the GTC—but nowadays tours are required) is not a GA and might require some work to fulfill the criteria. The original main author has vanished, so no one might care about the Get Sleazy Tour.

On a side note, I find it weird that Cannibal (EP) (practically the subtopic) was never nominated to GTC because all the related articles (excluding the tour) are GAs. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 08:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Tbhotch: if you think all the notable songs from the album exist (and are GAs) then I would re-nominate with the songs and without the tour included. The topic would technically be "Songs from Animal", but I think calling that simply "Animal (Kesha)" is fair enough. Tours aren't always integrally linked to albums and Get Sleazy Tour seems to indicate that it was a tour that overlapped with promotion for the EP Cannibal as well. — Bilorv (talk) 18:25, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm on track to get all of trisomy X, tetrasomy X, and pentasomy X to GA or higher. They're generally defined as a set with one another, and linked in a navbox. I'm curious about what counts as a 'main article' and how that can apply here. An article of the sort of, say, "Female X-chromosome polysomy" couldn't really be written, as its scope would be completely consumed by the other three. However, trisomy X is by far the most frequent of the three conditions (1/1000 vs 1/50,000 vs 1/250,000), and the other two are mostly defined as variants on it. The tetra X article, which is currently in the closest to 'completed' state, talks extensively about its relationship to trisomy X, and the other two will be similarly structured when I've worked on them. Would trisomy X count as the main article for such a GT/FT? Vaticidalprophet 09:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm certainly not an expert in this area, but it doesn't appear to me that tetrasomy X or pentasomy X are "types" of trisomy X, but instead are compared to it because they're similar-but-less-common X-chromosomal disorders. It's not clear to me that you could claim the tetrasomy article as the "main" one and the others sub-articles just because it's more common. They seem to be just the 3 types of polysomy that affect women only or are X-chromosome-only; you could maybe at a stretch have polysomy as the main article but pipe it as "Female polysomy" or "X-chromosome polysomy", if you don't think you could write an article about just that concept alone. --PresN 13:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

PresN, been thinking about this response for a bit (over a month, apparently...). It's difficult to say to what degree they're considered 'types' of it. They're certainly treated as a continuum. Male X-chromosome polysomy is historically considered to all be a subtype of Klinefelter syndrome, although that's a bit of an outdated view now (but still the colloquial one; our article for KS unfortunately claims it in wikivoice). I'd say there's a continuum or grouping here that treats the tetrasomy and pentasomy disorders as addenda to the trisomy in a similar way to how XXXY and XXXXY are treated as addenda to XXY. Vaticidalprophet 11:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Pop Smoke's mixtape Meet the Woo 2 has just been promoted to GA status and all the tracks that are part of the standard edition are also at GA. I was just wondering if the track "Gatti" should be part of the GA topic nomination? It was released as a Target edition bonus track, so it's not even part of the standard or deluxe edition of Meet the Woo 2. I am going to ping some people who are familiar with Pop Smoke's work and some know about the GT topics see if they think it should be promoted to GA and be part of the Meet the Woo 2 GA nomination. Pinging TheAmazingPeanuts, AllegedlyHuman, Kyle Peake, and MarioSoulTruthFan. Shoot for the Stars 💫 (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I believe the inclusion would be suitable, as the Target release is an official version. --K. Peake 05:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

From my point of view, the inclusion of that track is a must for the mixtape to become a GT. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd say it's optional, as the topic "[the standard edition of] Meet the Woo 2" is a perfectly reasonable scope, and "Gatti" is (I gather) more strongly associated with JackBoys. On the other hand, it would be fine to include, and articles are allowed to be in more than one topic if in theory JackBoys was ever a GT/FT. — Bilorv (talk) 12:53, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

"Gatti" is a JackBoys track then a Meet the Woo 2 track, but it's been added in the Target edition. So I think that good enough. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Could Santa's Little Helper be added to Wikipedia:Featured topics/Simpson family? It's currently at GA and fits the category. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:34, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• @AllegedlyHuman: if (the) Snowball(s) are notable (and I can't see why it wouldn't be if Santa's Little Helper is) then an article would need creation and then promotion to GA, otherwise the GT would be incomplete. On the other hand, I think it's well-defined as it stands without the pets. — Bilorv (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, in the process of getting Inuit clothing to GA (and now at FAC), I spawned two child articles off it, history of Inuit clothing (current GAN) and research on Inuit clothing (GA passed). Assuming that History passes GA, would those three articles alone be sufficient for a Good Topic? There are articles about individual Inuit garments (amauti and mukluk for example), so I don't know if they would have to be included, or if just the broad overview articles would count. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:49, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• I've got no relevant subject knowledge here, but in general just overview articles should be fine if they're exhaustive, without need to have every notable individual type of clothing included. — Bilorv (talk) 11:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks, much appreciated. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

• No problem, feel free to ping me if there's a GT nom in future. — Bilorv (talk) 17:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking over at Wikipedia:Former featured and good topics, I noticed Wikipedia:Featured topics/Spider-Man films seems to meet the crieria again since every main line Spider-man film is a GA, with the recent repromotion of Spider-Man 2 early this year. Not a significant contributor so I thought I should ask here first. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

No subject knowledge on this, but from reading Spider-Man in film it looks like Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse should be included, and it's also a GA so that's fine. There'd be a few months of grace period, but Spider-Man: No Way Home will need to get to GA soon after its release (currently scheduled for December 2021). — Bilorv (talk) 16:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Filled this out as a candidate and was about to click publish when I noticed the existence of Scarlett Johansson discography. Not sure how far away it is from FL status, but if someone wants to take it on, then the set would be complete. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Similarly, Bruno Mars seems to just be missing List of songs written by Bruno Mars: the main is at GA and there's four FLs (discography, videography, awards and nominations, songs recorded). AllegedlyHuman (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, these look like good scopes if those lists can be featured. — Bilorv (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

On a related note a similar situation can be said of Anne Hathaway which a I believe would just need the list of awards to be FL to become a topic.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 08:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually looking around at the high-profile actor articles there are many that are very close 1 article/list away from being able to become featured topics (have listed some below if anyone is interested but do not quote me as it is possible I may have missed out a related article that may be within the scope of the topic). Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 09:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Late response, but surely the Scarlett Johansson topic would need to include Anywhere I Lay My Head, Break Up (album), and "Relator" (song) under discography as well? – Rhain ☔ 04:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rhain: (not sure how active you are in this TP so pinged), That is a fair point. However if the discography is included (plus the others) and the topic is called say "Overview of Scarlett Johansson" those songs and albums I think can reasonable be included under that list. Then a subsequent subtopic about her discography with all albums (and possibly songs) could be included under that instead. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 21:00, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I believe that would work, though I think the discography subtopic would need to be nominated first (or simultaneously). Not entirely sure. Not very active here—I just stumbled across this and thought I'd make a comment—so I appreciate the ping. – Rhain ☔ 13:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rhain: Per the precedents at Wikipedia:Featured_topics#Music (one example overview) we usually do not require such subtopics for the overview topic to occur. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Featured & Good topic folks,

I was wondering whether, since this group works with Featured & Good articles, you all needed the empty categories that don't deal with Featured & Good articles. Do you expect any scenario where, say, a Featured topic would be a B-Class or Stub article? If not, perhaps they can be deleted. I've been going through a lot of unused WikiProject empty categories, most of which were created in 2006-2008 and not used over the past decade+ period. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I am not a delegate or director so they will be able to answer this better for you but there sometimes occassions when topics are promoted that are not FA/FL/GA after being peer-reviewed (For example a list may be ineligle for FL so instead it is peer reviewed before being added to said topic). This is mentioned at WP:FTCRITERIA 3.c. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Been working on the various games of the BioShock series for some time. Wanted to get feedback if the above structure and scope seems to make sense, or if I'd need to do the entire franchise, which would mean including some side articles (about characters, settings, etc., more or less following parts of the {{BioShock}} navbox.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 21:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hmm this is an interesting question. Looking back at previous related topics for video game franchises/series the two most relevent are: Mother series, Myst series, and God of War franchise. Regarding characters: God of War topic included the character list and all indivdual character articles (Kratos, though he is central to almost all titles); Mother series has no character list but two indivdual character articles (Ness, Giygas) which is not included in the topic; Myst series only has a character list and no indivdual character articles, and thus included the character list.

So for the BioShock topic with the scope of "BioShock game series" it would have to include: all the main games/DLC/collection, probably the development article based on precedent, probably just the character list (IMHO all three characters articles are probably not needed but other editors may disagree), music (though looks like it is going to be merged anyway), maybe even Rapture? (no VG series topics nominated I believe have had such a fictional city article, so not sure)

Alternatively, you may be able to structure the article based around the games within the BioShock: The Collection. For example:

Regards  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 00:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Spy-cicle, the alternative proposal to structure the good topic around BioShock: The Collection which is specifically about the three games and their development and DLC pages is the more realistic and sensible option in my opinion given the context of the scope of work originally proposed. A fourth BioShock game is currently under development, so the inevitable existence of a Wikipedia page about it will call into question the Good Topic status that encompasses the entirety of the BioShock franchise, unless it is unceremoniously canceled before further information about its development is made available. PS: BioShock Infinite appears to be not, and never was, a FA. Haleth (talk) 01:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I have moved a talk page to Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates/Millennium Park, which is where I think it is properly located. However, I remain befuddled by the milestone history. Is there suppose to be a milestone for promotion from WP:GT to WP:FT. If so, I am not sure how to track it down.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

• Also, what is the proper scope of this topic if relisting is to be pursued?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I've been working on articles surrounding the Kinks' 1968 album The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society and I'm trying to get a grasp of how far a good topic would extend. Obviously all of the LP's tracks need to be GA. Also, because the album had a different track listing in some European countries, I think it makes sense to get the songs unique to that edition of the album ("Days" and "Mr. Songbird") to GA status as well.

Where I'm fuzzier is with something like "Wonderboy" / "Polly", a non-album single recorded during the album's sessions. Or a song like "Berkeley Mews", which showed up as a B-side some two years after the album. (Later commentators have discussed "Polly" and "Berkeley Mews" as relating to Village Green's themes). There was also a planned US-only album, Four More Respected Gentlemen, which would have featured many of the same tracks as Village Green. Or what about a compilation album like The Great Lost Kinks Album, which collects many of the unreleased songs from the Village Green sessions? The band's later albums Preservation Act 1 (1973) and Preservation Act 2 (1974) deal in similar themes, but I think they're completely distinct and it wouldn't make sense to include them here. Similarly, Dave Davies released a single, "Lincoln County" (1968), which was recorded during Village Green's sessions, but I again think it's separate from the album.

I'd appreciate some guidance here. Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 13:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Tkbrett: (late response, only because it was noted that this page is abandoned) If the song was included on the album at any point, it is probably better to have in the topic - most similar FTs and GTs add tracks from deluxe editions, and a research shows many of those tracks seem to pop up as bonuses in the album's anniversary versions. In any case, sticking to just what's on the album's template should be as complete as it gets, no need for the compilation. igordebraga ≠ 04:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Igordebraga: thanks for the direction. I'm the one who organized the template recently, so referring to it isn't really much help for me.

I like your suggestion to consider which tracks appear on deluxe reissues of the album. During the sessions for this album, one of the members of the band (Dave Davies) recorded a song ("Lincoln County") which was released as a single under his name as part of his solo career. For whatever reason, it was not included as a bonus track on the 2004 and 2018 reissues of this album, but instead on the one that follows it (Arthur). I wasn't sure then whether it made more sense to include it here. I have not read in any books that the song was ever intended to be on Village Green, but in a piece for Rolling Stone, Rob Sheffield characterizes the song as a Village Green outtake. I also remember reading a contemporary magazine article from a couple months before the album dropped where Dave said that the album was going to include songs by both him and his brother Ray. Ultimately, the finished album only includes songs by Ray. I think Dave may have meant that this song was going to be included since it is the one that has the most in common thematically with the album. I have never seen that spelled out anywhere though. Beatleswhobeachboys may know a bit more here.

Another song I added to the template is "She's Got Everything". It was recorded two years earlier before it was released as the B-side to the non-album single "Days". That's another one that I wasn't sure whether to include here, or if it makes more sense to instead include it on a good topic for the album during which it was recorded (Face to Face). It is a bonus track on the 2014 reissue of Face to Face and on the 2018 edition of Village Green.

I have considered including The Great Lost Kinks Album here and on the album template because it mostly consisted of outtakes from this album. Tkbrett (✉) 15:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Far as I know, "Lincoln County" was only really considered for the hypothetical Dave solo album that he was working on intermittently for a couple years. A lot of these recordings did feature other Kinks, but I'm not sure if it was ever intended for a Kinks album. Then again, I'm not sure if Dave's songs on Something Else we're originally intended for that album, so who knows! Beatleswhobeachboys (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi! Just had 2022 Tour Championship upgraded to GA - any ideas if I need to go through the candidates process for this as it's clearly part of the Tour Championship topic? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:02, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

That's where the "Supplemental nomination" process comes in, for adding articles to an existing topic. Since it's obviously a continuation of the series, it would be approved swiftly and smoothly, doubtless. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:55, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

How does that process work exactly? I need to know because I'm working on getting Fire Emblem Engage to GA for the Fire Emblem GT. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You can find the instructions here; if you can't follow it, just let me know when it's ready. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

(obviously assuming all non-GAs would be GAs)

— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 14:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Updated plan:

— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 14:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

There cannot be any articles that are not GA, FA, or FL. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Reading a little more, I am not sure. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, assume that Microphones in 2020 was a good article. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 00:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@FGTC coordinators: I wanted to run two potential topic ideas by you. One was "A Very Trainor Christmas original material" including both original songs on the album that have articles, excluding the cover songs which are only notable for other artists' recordings of them. The second one was "Meghan Trainor Billboard Hot 100 entries" which would include about 11 articles most of which are FAs. I didn't see any clear precedence for these so I wanted to clarify if these scopes are tight enough.--NØ 21:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Interesting! The "original material" topic idea seems like a bit of a stretch to me, but I wouldn't condemn it if others thought it worked. I think the Billboard topic definitely makes sense, but it sounds like a pain to maintain, so it would be classy of you to try to keep it up if you're going to nominate it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

With the promotion of John D. Whitney to FA, the Presidents of Georgetown University good topic now qualifies as a featured topic. Can someone more familiar with the process please advise on how to designate it as a FT? Is it as simple as just moving it from the GT page to FT or do I have to log it in the FT log? Ergo Sum 12:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's just as simple as moving the template to the other page, which I've just done. Good job! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Have I updated the talk page history correctly? Perhaps it might be necessary to modify {{Featuredtopictalk}} to accommodate "upgrading" and "downgrading" between GT and FT. It does not seem the template is currently configured to handle that in a clear way. Ergo Sum 14:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems good to me, well done! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topics/Dwarf planets lost FT status once Ceres fell, but it has even become an FA. So I wonder if it can be restored with the topic as it was minus the removed page regarding Plutoids...

...putting all the nine articles that appear atop the Dwarf planet page...

...or if the topic shouldn't be attempted without List of possible dwarf planets. In any case, want to know before I attempt a nomination. igordebraga ≠ 04:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

There are only a dozen or so noms, but it seems to be taking a long time to approve them. Obviously I'm asking because I'm getting a bit impatient myself, but I feel there may be something more to it. Is there an expectation of how long this process typically takes? Looking at the current noms, there are many that have been open for months with all support !votes, yet there's no indication of next steps or who to ask for closing assistance. I feel like this FT/GT process is fading out? (also, once you are on this talk page, you are unable to get back to the GT/FT pages easily since the "project page" links back to here). Grk1011 (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

This is a fair complaint. I have not been active with the topics for some years. I should probably find someone who would be more active to take over for me.

GamerPro64 01:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I also have no been particularly active (though there was a good year where I was the only active coordinator). I plan to invest more time into it for the future and will aim to get through some of the backlog. But yes, there is much to improve, the talk page mess included. Your complaint is noted and heard though, I assure you. Aza24 (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Four of the five articles in the sovereign coin range issued by the Royal Mint are FAs and the fifth will shortly be. The current FAs are Sovereign (British coin), Five pounds (gold coin), double sovereign and half sovereign, with the FA in waiting quarter sovereign. What would be needed to make this a FT? Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Per Wikipedia:Featured and good topic criteria, you have a set of 5 articles linked together, but what you seem to be missing (unless I just didn't see it) is a lead article/list, e.g. something that discusses these 5 articles as a distinct set. At a stretch you could have Sovereign as the lead and the other 4 as the subarticles, but it feels kind of artificial, as that article doesn't talk about the other 4 coins as being "types" of sovereigns, just 4 other coins around at the same time. Numanistics isn't my thing, but what makes these 5 coins distinct from shillings/guineas/crowns other than having "sovereign" in the name? I think answering that question would in turn answer what the lead article should be. --PresN 17:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Probably an overview article could be written but there would be a lot of duplication between that and the sovereign article. Probably the difference is that they are gold and usually have the Pistrucci reverse. Pistrucci is a FA as well, btw. Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi - a few months ago I nominated Climate change in Turkey, and then Energy in Turkey as a good topic. There are 13 articles listed as good articles, giving a good coverage of this topic. Previous feedback was that Bioenergy in Turkey should also be a GA before it is listed, but the key contributor to this disagreed. The discussion has now stagnated. Is the Bioenergy article's promotion essential for the topic to be promoted? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

What would constitute a complete topic for Fab Five (University of Michigan). Which of the following are necessary

1. Players Chris Webber, Jalen Rose, Juwan Howard, Jimmy King, Ray Jackson (basketball)
2. Teams 1991–92 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 1992–93 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, 1993–94 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team and 1994–95 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team
3. Coaches Steve Fisher (basketball)
4. Assistant Coaches Brian Dutcher, Perry Watson, Jay Smith (basketball)
5. Teammates who played in the final four years with all 5 Fab Fivers: Rob Pelinka, Eric Riley
6. Teammates who played in later years with some of them: Tariq Abdul-Wahad, Maurice Taylor, Maceo Baston
7. Related The Fab Five (film), University of Michigan basketball scandal

-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:27, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I feel fairly confident that the five players and main article would suffice. A slight possibly that others might want the film as well, but the teams/coaches/teammates feel like overkill. Aza24 (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that the main article and the five players are probably all that's needed. The film I'd be fine with, but wouldn't have issues if it wasn't included either, so it's up to you if you want to include it or not and see what the voters think. -- ZooBlazer 23:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)