Kept

[edit]

Seasons of 30 Rock

[edit]

Seasons of 30 Rock

5 articles

Season 1 ^(subtopic)

Season 2 ^(subtopic)

Season 3 ^(subtopic)

Season 4

Season 5

Even though 30 Rock (season 5) could be added as is, 30 Rock (season 4) had until August 30 to become a FL. Nergaal (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the season 4 article just needs a good copy-edit and a run at FLC... shouldn't be that difficult. Courcelles 13:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Season 4 is almost ready. A small extension would be nice if possible, FL-quality editing wasn't really possible until the Emmys. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with it as long as FLC will be started in the foreseeable future; then this nom will serve as a supplemental one for the 5th season. Nergaal (talk) 00:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully season four can be brought to FLC within the next week; it looks like it's just about there, so I would hope that I don't have to delist it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Season 5 obviously cannot be a FL at the moment, it runs from the last month until May next year. Tbhotch^Talk ^C. 06:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Season 5's okay for now per that; however if season 4 is not brought to FLC by the 18th, I'm going to have to close this and demote the topic; it should've been up by now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Season 4 has now been nominated at FLC. Courcelles 03:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; I'll close this at the conclusion of that FLC. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The FLC closed with it being promoted. Z gin der 2010-12-14T18:07Z (UTC)

Closed, kept as FT. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero series

[edit]

I'm nominating this for topic removal status because it needed to have had a peer review done for the articles Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock and DJ Hero 2, as well as a supplemental nomination, last month (by August 15). Neither has happened, so it fails FT criteria 1d and 3c, and the wheels should already be in motion for both to get to good article status shortly due to their imminent release. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:28, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demote per nom. Ucucha 02:33, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
slightly towards keep the PR requirement is a formalism that is meant to help cleanup the articles within the topic. The two articles look fairly ok (sufficient reffenrences, well organized, decent prose, etc.). The first article looks like it could easily pass GA if one would be willing to put the energy. Unless nobody shows up to deal with the GANs I don't think delisting and then re-nominating it is necessary. Nergaal (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist though this could be rectified. There's no way an article on a not-yet released game could pass GA, so PR's need to be opened ASAP if anyone wants to save this topic. Courcelles 13:20, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the one basically running this topic, let me suggest something: GH:WOR is due for release in a week and change from today; within a week of that I can get the article to a GA (reviews will be up within that time, enough to complete it), so it makes no sense to PR it right now in that time scale. I will however immediately put DJH2 to PR since that's still a month out. Be aware that likely the DJH2 soundtrack , possibly the WOR soundtrack, will be separate lists that will be made once the games are out (where the soundtrack in th emain articles is replaced with reception). --MASEM (t) 15:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Masem. GamerPro64 (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to followup:
- DJH2 in PR has had a few eyes on it, so that's been done
- GH:WOR is now out worldwide , and reviews are coming in. I have now made List of songs in GHWOR, so that will be a third article that I could add when I create a supplemental. The latter probably needs just a few more bits to tidy up to FLC that will come with getting GHWOR up to snuff. But as per normal FT rules I technically have three months to do something with this.
Given that I expect that there will be a list of songs in DJH2 come late Oct, I think that it is reasonable to hold off on the supplement until both the main GHWOR article is through GA and then the list for DJH2 is out (roughly equal timelines). That way, I will be adding 4 articles at once. But any thoughts are appreciated here too. --MASEM (t) 23:01, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would set a bad precedent. I initially was against the FTRC, but mainly because I was assuming that editors would work on it. The 3months period is supposed to be for giving editors some slack, but with leniency precedents, it seems that many topics get their FLC/GAN started after the 3 months are up. As long as work is actually done I would be fine with the slack, but if the slack is used to wait for those 3 months to be up again... Nergaal (talk) 20:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: DJ Hero 2's PR closed, Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock is at GAN, and its list of songs is at FLC. GamerPro64 (talk) 16:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds good; I'll hold off anything until the FLC runs its course. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:10, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Warriors of Rock passed its GAN. Should it be added to the topic like this was a Supplementary nom? GamerPro64 (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this should count as a suppl. nom if not delisted. Nergaal (talk) 23:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - - - Given me one week , after which I know I will likely have to make List of songs in DJ Hero 2, and then I can add all 4 at once for a single sup. --MASEM (t) 22:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Ok, the list is created now. I want to get the GHWOR list through the FLC process, after which I'll get this new list through and then create the supplemental nomination for these four articles. --MASEM (t) 20:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need. This FTR can use as Supp nom. Just write the updated topic template/box below. Nergaal (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is a supplemental nom going to be posted soon? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero (4th 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:

Supplimentary nominations. Should I make the separate addition to redirect here to track this? --MASEM (t) 22:57, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good DJ Hero 2 and its songs will have until January 19 to pass GAN/FLC, while the Warriors songs will have until Dec 24 to pass FLC. Nergaal (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would merge Guitar Hero (iOS) into the Mobile series. Nergaal (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, the DJ Hero 2 songs should probably be merged into the existing FL of songs of DH Hero 1. Nergaal (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno yet. If there are no more DJH titles coming, then sure I can see the combination of the setlists along with the DLC. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably speaking out of turn, but DJ Hero 2 still needs a whole lot of work. There are mx tags, the Reception section has no prose at all, and the Post-release section seems unnecessary - all games have bugs, most get patched. There are also instances where the game is referred to in the future tense, so I'm guessing this needs some copy editing as well. --Teancum (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was peer -reviewed before the game's release, and so technically I have about another 2 months to fix it; however, please don't read this that I'm not trying to work on it. I do have to improve it and I'm not trying to skirt that issue; I just have to sit down for an hour or so to bulk up the reception section and then the tense cleanup, and then I'll GAN it. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - lets get this one closed down so that we can stay out in front of this topic- I still remember the 4-month-long supp nom that wouldn't die as new games kept being released. --Pres N 22:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with PresN. Nergaal (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to promote, supplemental articles added. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:41, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category 5 Pacific hurricanes

[edit]

This article fails the current standards as it is missing Hurricane Celia (2010), which had to be either a GA or FA by the end of September, and remains neither. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the rule you gave for tropical cyclone articles was that you'd wait three months after the tropical cyclone report was released. Often, a TC article can't get to GA or FA status until that report comes out. Celia's report came out only a few weeks ago. Hurricanehink (talk) 15:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right; I just saw the failed GAN and FAC and it slipped my mind. In that case this can serve as a supplementary nomination. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone want to nominate Celia for GAN? Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well GA nom it now, gonna be a while before it's reviewed probably. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to review it. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I went and nommed it for you, but you guys will have to do the review fixes; to avoid COI issues I'm not touching it during the review. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a supplemental nom, as it's now a GA. Any support or opposition? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support. This is a classic hurricane speedy pass. Why would somone oppose this? Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy support Z gin der 2010-11-10T03:29Z (UTC)
Support, no problems. --Pres N 22:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support though this will mean demotion from FT to GT. Courcelles 20:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with consensus to keep; demoted from FT to GT due to featured/good count. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NHL awards

[edit]

The 10 entry to ~~Mark Messier Leadership Award~~ Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award was added back in April, so by July it should have been promoted to FL. Nergaal (talk) 01:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a point, but I think you're aiming at the wrong target. Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award would have a better shot at FLC than the Messier Leadership Award, though both might struggle for a few more years. Courcelles 13:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that list might squeak through FLC. I might give it a quick tart up and nom it. The sum total of what I know about ice hockey is that it takes place on ice and they fight a lot, so this could be a challenge ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is now at FLC...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This will be closed as kept should the FLC pass, which it looks like it's going to do so far. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:50, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It has now been promoted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. But keep in mind that early next year there will be a 10th entry to the other prize too, at which point that one also needs a FLC. Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone else can make the save on that one ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with consensus to keep. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State touring routes in Warren County, New York

[edit]

There has been an impetus to stop doing topics around highways within a county as discussed here, I think it is time to go through with this one. Of the roughly 250 miles of highways currently in use, the topic as stands does not cover about 80 of them, by not including the two of some of the longest ones: I-87 and US-9. This is not the biggest issue though! The bigger problem is that the members of this topic aren't truly within the scope of the topic or that of the main article. For example, of the current membership looks like:

# / length within the county / length of the actual highway / rough %
NY 8 / 46.79 miles / 208.17 mi / 22
NY 9L / 18.58 miles / 18.58 mi / 13
NY 9N / 48.58 miles / 143.49 mi / 34
NY 28 / 21.23 miles / 281.69 mi / 7.5
NY 28N / 4.54 miles / 50.95 mi / 9
NY 32 / 2.88 miles / 176.73 mi / 1.6
NY 149 / 5.90 miles / 33.50 mi / 17.6
NY 254 / 5.34 miles / 6.01 mi / ~ all
NY 418 / 3.50 miles / 3.50 mi / all
NY 917A / 5.88 miles / 5.88 mi / all
total / 163 miles / 930 mi / 17.5%

This does does take into account the roads not in use anymore also, two very short ones that are nevertheless within the county (those ones though I bet ought to be merged within the parent road).

As can be seen, asides from the shortest ones, essentially none of the other highways are really part of the county. Because the topic includes parts that are not within the scope of the topic, while selectively leaving out those that although are highways, are not state ones in specific, this topic is incredibly selective and poorly defined. I think it is the time to clear out this topic and leave space for the topics that are based on the parent highways only like these: 1, 2, and 3. Is this topic worth being featured, as in is it among wikipedia's best work considering its forced definition? Nergaal (talk) 19:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neither an interstate or a U.S. Highway are state routes, so there is no gap, and the state highways by county is a valid grouping (IMO, the Marquette County, MI verdict was a mistake). Courcelles 13:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC) (For the record, this is a good topic, not a featured one. 13:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Any further comments? (I have no opinion on this one) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as no consensus to delist. Only two opinions in over a month, and it seems that the M-28 FTC and this one are different beasts, so can't use precedent here. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Steady

[edit]

Rock Steady

5 articles

"Hey Baby"

"Hella Good"

"Underneath It All"

"Running"

I am nominating this topic for removal because it is missing the article Rock Steady Live, which I feel it should include - rst20xx (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's on a long list of things to do for me. I'll bump it to the top (attempt to get Rock Steady Live to GA status) if this removal candicy can be put on hold for a while. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 20:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, I'm willing to leave this open/on hold so the article can take a crack at GA :) rst20xx (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on it. Please bear with me. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 21:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished. I'm listing the article at WP:GAN, although I know I'll need to get one of the GAs in this topic to FA status to attain 50% featured. Feedback would be gratefully received. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 16:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement is for 33% featured, not 50%, so you should be OK with the existing two...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The percentage increases this year to 50%. I might as well do the work now. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 15:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rock Steady Live just made GA. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 13:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, there is a supplementary nomination above. Can someone close this? -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 22:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can add the new article in this FTRC, no sup nom is needed - rst20xx (talk) 23:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to keep - and the Rock Steady Live article will be added. Sorry this took me so long to do - rst20xx (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1994 Pacific hurricane season

[edit]

1994 Pacific hurricane season

5 articles

I am nominating this topic for removal because 3 months ago, when the 1973 Atlantic hurricane season was up for GTC, it was agreed that this topic needed a Timeline of the 1994 Pacific hurricane season FL adding. Further, it was agreed that a retention of three months would be set for this to be added. However this time has now passed and the article hasn't even been created - rst20xx (talk) 16:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - obvious gap in the topic and the timeline hasn't even been created yet the entire retention has gone by. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Im not 100% convinced of a need for a timeline as theres virtually nothing to write about this season. The season only had one landfall and only 5 of the systems were Major hurricanes.Jason Rees (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close as consensus to keep - per the discussions at the simultaneous 1998 nom - rst20xx (talk) 15:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1998 Pacific hurricane season

[edit]

1998 Pacific hurricane season

4 articles

Hurricane Isis

Hurricane Lester

Hurricane Madeline

I am nominating this topic for removal because 3 months ago, when the 1973 Atlantic hurricane season was up for GTC, it was agreed that this topic needed a Timeline of the 1998 Pacific hurricane season FL adding. Further, it was agreed that a retention of three months would be set for this to be added. However this time has now passed and the article hasn't even been created - rst20xx (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - obvious gap in the topic and the timeline hasn't even been created yet the entire retention has gone by. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Per my comments belowJason Rees (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose as well (brief coming out of retirement), as the co-nominator of the original topic. I don't think it should be forced that a season should have a timeline. The WPTC has had several debates on the usefulness of timelines, and each time there were strong opinions on both sides. As there isn't an absolute, clear agreement, I don't think they should be forced to be included in the topic. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would be interested to hear Juliancolton's opinions on this, seeing as how he agreed to these retentions in the first place... rst20xx (talk) 01:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe that timelines are useful and informative, and that ideally, all recent hurricane seasons should get one. However, as Hurricanehink says, there have been numerous debates regarding seasonal timelines, none of which have been conclusive. Indeed, if I recall correctly, a couple editors actually object to the creation of timelines outside of highly active hurricane seasons. Given that there is no consensus on whether or not season articles must be accompanied by these lists, I don't think it's appropriate to delist the topics at this time. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in that case I guess I'm neutral on this. It just would have been a whole lot easier if you could have said that from the start... :/ :P rst20xx (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in hindsight I think my support of the retention period was a bit rash... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to keep - rst20xx (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demoted

[edit]

StarCraft titles

[edit]

StarCraft titles

5 articles

StarCraft

StarCraft: Brood War

StarCraft: Ghost

StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty

I am nominating this for GTRC on the grounds that Starcraft 2 was supposed to be a Good or Featured article before October 27 and it is well was the date. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Nergaal (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural delist --Admrboltz (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might be prudent to try nomming it for GA, since while it's not one the article seems to be in good shape. Granted, it would take 2+ months to get the review ready that should have happened by the end of October... Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per Nergaal (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk) 23:20, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Starcraft II has had only ~40 edits in the past two months, and the difference between October 6 and today is not major, indicating it could have been nominated, but was not. --Teancum (talk) 17:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - II is nowhere close to GA status right now, and S@bre doesn't appear as active these days. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closed, topic demoted. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons of YuYu Hakusho

[edit]

Main page	Articles
*List of YuYu Hakusho* episodes**	List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 1) - List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 2) - List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 3) - List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 4)

List of YuYu Hakusho episodes has been delisted as result of a FLRC. I was informed to start FTRC so here it is... Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural delist Nergaal (talk) 05:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural delist --Pres N 02:49, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural delist --Admrboltz (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to delist. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Orange Box

[edit]

The Orange Box

6 articles

Half-Life 2

Half-Life 2: Episode One

Half-Life 2: Episode Two

Portal

Team Fortress 2

I'm nominating this for topic removal status because Half-Life 2 has not been a good or featured article in several months; it had until September 30 to regain that status and no work has been done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. No longer meets criteria. Ucucha 03:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Nergaal (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove --Teancum (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Z gin der 2010-10-20T17:35Z (UTC)

Close with consensus to demote. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Half-Life 2 titles

[edit]

Half-Life 2 titles

6 articles

Half-Life 2: Episode One

Half-Life 2: Episode Two

Half-Life 2: Lost Coast

Half-Life 2: Survivor

Codename: Gordon

Remove. No longer meets criteria. Ucucha 03:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Nergaal (talk)
Remove --Teancum (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove Z gin der 2010-10-20T17:35Z (UTC)

Close with consensus to delist. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Love. Angel. Music. Baby.

[edit]

Love. Angel. Music. Baby.

7 articles

"What You Waiting For?"

"Rich Girl"

"Hollaback Girl"

"Cool"

"Luxurious"

"Crash"

This topic has had a three month retention period for the article Cool (Gwen Stefani song) to be brought back to GA status after its demotion. The retention period concluded on 28 June and the article is still not a GA nor even nominated for GA status. Accordingly, I now nominate this topic for removal due to the failed retention period. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Crystal Clear x3 07:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - I have not seen any work done to Cool to try to make it at least a Good Article. GamerPro64 (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to delist. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 17:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian election timelines

[edit]

While looking at all of the Featured Topics, I noticed that the List of Nunavut general elections hasn't become a Featured List and that its Peer Review was reviewed in 2008. That's a long time to do nothing. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - hmmm well it would be good to give it another PR but technically this topic does still meet the criteria so I think this isn't grounds for delisting in itself. But yeah, no harm in getting it another PR. Also Tompw's editing looks slightly sporadic now so we may have to give it a little while before he sees this - rst20xx (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- List of Nunavut general elections originally failed its FL nomination because it had only two items. Now it has three items, so I'll re-nominate it for FL, and ask that this removal process wait for the outcome of that. Tompw (talk) (review) 18:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update - List of Nunavut general elections failed the FLC. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and not because of brevity. Hmmm - rst20xx (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Tompw, what now? rst20xx (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this can be re-brought to FLC with improvements and we hope for the best, I'd have to support the removal. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message about what's going on at his talk. If he responds we'll see what he has to say and we'll go from there. If not we'll have to make a decision on whether or not the failed FLC is grounds for delisting this as a Featured Topic. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on working on getting Nunuvat up to FL standard this weekend. If it's not listed at FLC by Monday (5th July) (or has already been rejected), then I can't really oppose the removal.
Close with consensus to delist. This was given a shot at FLC, then a second one with that July 5 deadline, and unfortunately neither one worked out. If you can get it to FLC in due time then it can be re-nominated. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

State highways in Marquette County, Michigan

[edit]

State highways in Marquette County, Michigan

10 articles

M-28

Business M-28

M-35

U.S. Route 41 in Michigan

The geographic basis for this topic is being deprecated. Instead, classification of topics by highway is preferred. Imzadi 1979 → 16:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I Object the removal. I do not think it is an issue. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

The problem is M-28 is up for FT, and this is in the way as it duplicates a fair bit. It's one or the other, and in choices like that I believe that the roadway should take precedence over the county. Reluctant Remove. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose remove. I think that the two topics can exist simultaneously. If the new "style" is to do articles by highway instead of geographical location, well so be it. But this list can still be featured. There is lots of overlap for, say, video game series or TV series/seasons/shows. This topic is well defined and can stay. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 04:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - I think this one is slightly better but consensus seems to be against it, and we certainly can't have both. Goodtimber makes various assertions that the levels of overlap here are comparable to in other topics. That is absolutely not the case. 75% of the M-28 topic is also in this one. The remaining article is under 9k long. If this is not "excessive overlap", I don't know what is. The video games overlap he alludes to is that there is a 50% overlap between the Half-Life 2 titles and The Orange Box topics, but the smaller of those two topics having 45k of unique articles (i.e. 5 times as much). Furthermore, both the Valve topics seem like very natural constructions, whereas these is some debate as to whether this one is "artificial". Finally, no TV topic has more than one article overlapping with another TV topic - rst20xx (talk) 14:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - The nominator summed it up perfectly. Dough 48 72 03:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of those editors who thinks the "state highway by county" topics are a bit artificial, with the reasoning that it requires the creation of an article - in this case List of state highways in Marquette County, Michigan - that likely would not exist if it wasn't needed to "create" the topic. OTOH, I'm also one of those editors that's a fan of topics based around a single highway, like the proposed M-28 topic and the existing NY 20N and NY 20SY topics in New York. I see all of those as natural topics in that they bring together related articles by way of an already existing article that should, without question, exist. Grouping by route also just makes more sense and is more appealing to me than grouping by an area such as a county. Thus, I say this topic should be removed to clear the way for the M-28 one to be created. – TMF 22:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to demote - rst20xx (talk) 11:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda titles

[edit]

I am nominating this topic for removal because the article The Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks should have been a GA by 7 March. Additionally, I am a little unsure that this topic should exclude the spin-offs and remakes, as these are after all Legend of Zelda titles - rst20xx (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - Might as well. This would be a huge topic if we have all of the spin-offs and remakes in it. And there are a lot! GamerPro64 (talk) 21:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It'd add an extra 9, to bring the total to 23. Plus The Legend of Zelda (2010 video game) needs adding soon anyway, for 24. One of the 9 is a GA but all the others would need work - rst20xx (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to demote - only one vote, but this is an unambiguous fail of the criteria - rst20xx (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games

[edit]

I am nominating this topic for removal because the article 2009 Chick-fil-A Bowl should have been peer reviewed and added to the topic by March 4, and by March 31 (ten days' time) this article should be a GA and in the topic - rst20xx (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Demote topic. It isn't complete anymore, unfortunately. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 23:53, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to demote - only one vote, but this is an unambiguous fail of the criteria - rst20xx (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games

[edit]

Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games

7 articles

Previous FTRC: Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games/archive1

Unfortunately I am nominating this topic for removal a second time because the topic's retention period has lapsed with regards to bringing 2009 ACC Championship Game to GA (criteria 3a) on or before 5 March 2010. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - topic has failed its retention, simple as that - rst20xx (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - no longer meets the criteria. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to demote - rst20xx (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Song Dynasty

[edit]

8 articles

I'm listing this for FT removal because unfortunately, it appears Architecture of the Song Dynasty has been delisted as a GA, which I believe makes Song Dynasty ineligible for featured topic. Hopefully, this will spur interest in bringing the article back up to GA status, but in the meantime... — Hun ter Ka hn 07:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was delisted on December 18, so it has until March 18 to get back up. --Pres N 16:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Should I withdraw the nomination, or should somebody else do it? — Hun ter Ka hn 16:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think, given that 18th March is only 22 days away, we may as well just leave this open until then, just making sure that the demotion does not actually occur before the 18th - rst20xx (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove - 3 days to go and no work has been done - rst20xx (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, time's up. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove -MBK₀₀₄ 03:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to demote - a shame, considering the great rescue mission this topic went through when it first was up for removal in September - rst20xx (talk) 17:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Powderfinger albums

[edit]

Powderfinger albums

9 articles

Parables for Wooden Ears

Double Allergic

Internationalist

Odyssey Number Five

Vulture Street

These Days: Live in Concert

Fingerprints: The Best of Powderfinger, 1994–2000

Dream Days at the Hotel Existence ^(subtopic)

I am nominating this very old topic for removal because Powderfinger released a new album in November, Golden Rule. This album's article should have been GA and added to the topic by 13 February, however no work has been done to save it. Unfortunately Giggy, who initially nominated the topic, and Spebi, who nominated some of the articles (I haven't checked them all) have both retired from editing - rst20xx (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - No longer meets the criteria. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 18:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to demote - only one person replied to this, but it's really uncontroversial - rst20xx (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

World Series of Poker Europe

[edit]

World Series of Poker Europe

3 articles

2007 World Series of Poker Europe

2008 World Series of Poker Europe

I am nominating this topic for removal because the article 2009 World Series of Poker Europe should have been included as an FL by January 1st - rst20xx (talk) 15:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a day or two to think about this, but right now I can't argue with removing it. The only question I have is do I want to make the effort to work on the 2009 WSOPE?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

notifying wp poker of this---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:24, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure - rst20xx (talk) 01:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 2 weeks and nothing's happened. Balloonman, does this mean you're not going to try to save the topic? rst20xx (talk) 14:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close as demote - this clearly fails the criteria, the 2009 article should have been added by now, and no work has been done on it since this FTRC started - rst20xx (talk) 15:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spider-Man films

[edit]

Spider-Man films

4 articles

Spider-Man

Spider-Man 2

Spider-Man 3

I am nominating this topic for removal because Spider-Man 2 was delisted as a GA over three months ago - rst20xx (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - No longer meets the GT criteria. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 00:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - there has been no effort made to retain the topic even after the article was delisted as a GA (and that delist was after seven days with no response or effort) -MBK₀₀₄ 08:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - per above. —Aaroncrick (talk) 05:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - per ThinkBlue. —Terrence and Phillip 00:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to demote - rst20xx (talk) 14:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X-Men films

[edit]

X-Men films

5 articles

X-Men

X2: X-Men United

X-Men: The Last Stand

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

I am nominating this topic for removal as X-Men: The Last Stand needed to be a GA by 11 December - rst20xx (talk) 01:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - No longer meets the GT criteria. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - It's been a month and no one's even signed up to re-GA it, no need to hold off any longer. --Pres N 21:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to demote - rst20xx (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation

[edit]

Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation

9 articles

I am nominating this topic for removal because Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 8) needed to be a featured by 30 November, and it's still not. (Also, Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 9) should have been added to the topic waaaay back in July!, but it did receive the PR it needs to be added, so this is trivial) - rst20xx (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist doesn't meet the requirements, obviously, failed retention, yadda, yadda. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:52, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - per Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 22:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Degrassi season 10 now has a retention [1] - rst20xx (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to demote - back to 99 topics, ha - rst20xx (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]