Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured Topics in Wikipedia A featured topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles). This page is for the nomination of potential featured topics. Here we determine which topics are featured on Featured topics. A featured topic should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work. See "what is a featured topic?" for criteria. If you would like to ask any questions about your topic and the featured topic process before submitting it, visit Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates. If you nominate a topic, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. You may wish to receive feedback before nominating a topic by listing it at Peer review. Consensus must be reached for a group to be promoted to featured topic status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates topic and archived. Purge the cache to refresh this page	Shortcut: WP:FTC Featured content: Featured articles Featured pictures Featured lists Featured portals Featured topics ← Featured sounds Featured topic tools: Featured topic criteria Featured topic candidates Featured topic removal candidates Nomination procedure Featured topic log Former featured topics
Nomination procedure For how to nominate topics or how to add articles to existing topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure. Supporting and objecting Please read all the articles of the nominated topic fully before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the article nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link). If you approve of a nomination, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons. If you oppose a nomination, write '''Object''' followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an article's suitability for the Wikipedia Main Page, unless such suitability can be fixed (featured articles, despite being featured, may be marked so as not to be showcased on the Main Page). To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it. For a topic to be promoted to featured topic status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived. Nominations will stay here for ten days if there is unanimous consent, or longer if warranted by debate.

Contents 1 Nominations 1.1 Video game consoles (seventh generation) 1.2 New York State Route 20N 2 Removal candidates 2.1 Final Fantasy titles

[edit] Nominations

Please add new nominations to the top.

[edit] Video game consoles (seventh generation)

Main page	Articles
Video game consoles (seventh generation)	Nintendo DS - PlayStation Portable - PlayStation 3 - Xbox 360 - Wii

Obviously, I am nominating this topic for Featured Topic. I see that it meets all requirements, but feel free to leave any suggestions or things in need of improvement. I will try to fix it as quick as possible. --haha169 (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Support - looks good. Though I'd just call the topic "Video game consoles (seventh generation)" and miss out the history bit if I were you - rst20xx (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Reply - Ya, thats a good idea. I wanted to keep the article's name, but it would be less awkward your way. I've changed it.--haha169 (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think these generations are well-defined though, are they? For instance, the following may also need to be included: GP2X, HyperScan, and Game Wave Family Entertainment System, depending on how stringent people are going to be. Gary King (talk) 06:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  Support Gary King (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  There may not be an official definition of video game generations, but I think there would be near-unanimous agreement among gamers about which consoles were contemporary with each other and which were big enough to be a part of each console war. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support In response to Gary King, no, they and not well defined, but these five are the only big ones. Zginder 2008-06-05T13:02Z (UTC)
  • Yes, that's true. There is a huge list of remakes and other seventh gen. consoles, but most people don't even know them. The big five are good enough. It doesn't break criteria 1(d) because it isn't an obvious or notable gap. --haha169 (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Yep, fair enough. I wasn't really on the edge with this one; I would love to see it as it is now, but I figured it was worth mentioning. Gary King (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't worry about it. I was wondering about that before I nominated this topic, but decided to just nominate it anyway. I don't think it will be a major issue. --haha169 (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
        • I would say that if something else were to be added, then Nintendo DS Lite and PlayStation Portable Slim and Lite would be the most obvious choices (though of course neither meets criteria) - rst20xx (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
          • Yeah, they don't really meet criteria. I've read both of those articles, and I still can't tell the difference between the Lite and the Originals. If they make it to GA, we can nominate for them to be added, but as of now, they really won't be missed. Literally, they're pretty much the same as the originals. --haha169 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• OpposeSupport - I really really hate to do this, but there needs to at least be an explanation as to why all the systems in the "7th generation" category are not included here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The main article only lists the others at the bottom and never discusses them. Zginder 2008-06-07T01:17Z (UTC)
    • Judge, it doesn't break criteria 1(d) because it isn't an obvious or notable gap. Nobody knows about those systems listed on the bottom, unless they actually check out the main article. I never even knew about those until I began editing the seventh gen. article. All the main consoles are listed, and that should enough. --haha169 (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree that there is an obvious gap, but Haha169, I think you need to back it up with a citation, in the main article's introduction I guess. That'll deal with any complaints, and hopefully one should be easy enough to find - rst20xx (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
        • Here we go: Best citation there is. This will perhaps be one of the last things I do for a while... Seventh Generation Video Game consoles. The link includes financial data, sales data, brief summaries, history, and all that stuff. Only lists the 5 consoles listed above.--haha169 (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
          • OK, I've incorporated that citation into the lead, and given it a minor rewrite while I was at it. Is that sufficient to cover your concerns, Judgesurreal777? rst20xx (talk) 11:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I think so, we can add the other systems when they reach GA status :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support I would think the topic would need to be larger, but it seems to meet the criteria. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone}

[edit] New York State Route 20N

Main page	Articles
New York State Route 20N	New York State Route 20SY - New York State Route 92 - New York State Route 173 -New York State Route 174 - New York State Route 175

This is my first featured topic nomination to start it off. The topic itself is about New York State Route 20N and the roads that replaced it and/or were concurrent with during its length. Just as a little background, Route 20N was assigned in the 1930s over Routes 92, 173, 174 and 175 in Onondaga County, New York. Route 20SY came in later. In 1962, Route 20N (along with 20SY) were decommissioned, leaving just 92, 173, 174 and 175. Anyway, I spent several months working on the articles to create this topic. I have heard that the idea is a little awkward, but I'm going through with it. Thanks!^Mitch32^contribs 11:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Good, distinct topic. Includes all the possible articles, linked together by a template, seems to meet all the criteria. Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 12:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support I would have never thought this could be a topic, but it seems to fit. Zginder 2008-05-30T14:26Z (UTC)
• Support - Nice to see a groundbreaking Featured Topic.Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
• Support rst20xx (talk) 00:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support Looks good to me. Gary King (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
• Support A featured topic is a good choice for this collection of routes. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removal candidates

[edit] Final Fantasy titles

Topic discussion 15 articles Final Fantasy titles
Final Fantasy Final Fantasy II Final Fantasy III Final Fantasy IV Final Fantasy V Final Fantasy VI Final Fantasy VII Final Fantasy VIII (subtopic) Final Fantasy IX Final Fantasy X Final Fantasy X-2 Final Fantasy XI Final Fantasy XII 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 (talk • contribs) 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)