Updating to featured topic
Hello. Apologies in advance if this is obvious, but I was wondering how to nominate a pre-existing good topic to become a featured topic? Wikipedia:Good topics/All Money Is Legal was a good topic, but after the promotion of "I Got That" to FA status, two of the three articles are now FAs, which I think makes it a featured topic instead of a good topic. Apologies again if this is obvious. It has been a while since I have worked on anything related to topics. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- GTs eligible for FT status do not require a nomination. I have moved it to the FTs page.--NØ 16:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying that for me. Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- What would be the produre for demoting a topic? If a topic with 3 GAs and 3 FAs suddenly had another GA I would no longer be featured Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Saint Kitts and Nevis at the Olympics
I got Saint Kitts and Nevis at the 2024 Summer Olympics, to GA. Should this be added to the Saint Kitts and Nevis at the Olympics topic. History6042😊 (Contact me) 22:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Would this be a good idea for a topic?
Hello. I'm new to good topics, and was wondering about the following potential topic where all the articles are WP:Good articles.
What do you say, is this a good idea for a topic? TompaDompa (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Absolutely! Per Template:Astronomical locations in fiction I'd support it Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 11:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- I can see various problems with this. Even if we generously allow that black holes are stars, what about all of the other types of stars? White dwarfs in fiction, red giants in fiction, variable stars in fiction, red dwarfs in fiction, binary stars in fiction? Can some be lumped into main sequence stars in fiction? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- Well those articles don't exist therefore they wouldnt be included Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Those are WP:REDLINKS (apart from binary stars in fiction, which redirects to Extrasolar planets in fiction#In multiple star systems) for a reason, namely that sources don't really treat those as stand-alone topics worthy of overarching analysis. I have not come across any sources that cover the appearance of e.g. white dwarfs in fiction that would allow for the creation of a policy-compliant article on that subject to be written. As George Mann says in The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction,
Stars, although there is a certain poetical reference to them in much science fiction, do not actually feature in much depth in most SF stories.
. The divisions that make sense for articles about stars and star types in the real world do not necessarily do so for articles about their appearances in fiction. TompaDompa (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Would something like this work as a topic?
I've gotten the two articles to FL over the last year or so without really planning on a FT, but I started thinking about it and was wondering if it would even be possible. All of the lists are part of the Portland Trail Blazers lists category, but these are the only one really focused on the players of the team. -- ZooBlazer 06:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hey @ZooBlazer—not sure, the accomplishments one doesn't seem too closely related to the roster scope, otherwise I'd expect to see List of Portland Trail Blazers head coaches and List of Portland Trail Blazers seasons and eventually it just becomes a general Portland Trail Blazers topic. Aza24 (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
How soon?
I'm working on a topic for Legends of Tomorrow season 3 It currently looks like this
However there are other potential articles in the set that I do plan developing but they all exist as redirects so I was wondering could I nominate this topic now and add the other articles as I create them or do I have to wait until the whole set is finished before submitting it? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @OlifanofmrTennant, there's not a general rule for this, since it might be outside the scope of a ratings projects to decide which episodes are notable enough for future creation. I would say best practice would be to focus on creating/improving more and then nominating the topic, but this isn't strictly a rule.
- FTs and GTs are something of a "last step" ideally—to celebrate accomplishments of editors, as much as provide readers with a unified set. Aza24 (talk) 06:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- I would assume once you have everything you wanted to create and improve done. Not necessarily a "rule" but it would save the community time and effort of having to vote on 15 supplemental nominations (assuming every episode eventually has an article). TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Renaming former topics from FT to GT
I know last year all of the current GTs were renamed accurately to reflect that they were GTs and not FTs, so I was wondering if the same was planned, or could be done for former topics as well? I've meant to bring it up as someone who edits Marvel Cinematic Universe articles often, as in the MCU WP's recognized content, the former GT Wikipedia:Featured topics/Marvel Cinematic Universe films is listed as a former FT because that's the name of the page still. -- ZooBlazer 17:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Subtopic supplemental nom?
Doctor Who (2005-present) has four subtopics listed however there are currently nominations for the 2022 specials and series 14 are currently GTC noms. So if all three of these are promoted then can they be flat added or does a supplementary nomination need to happen for the subtopic to be added? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Would this work as an eventual good topic?
Hello, I'm not familiar with how featured/good topics work, so I was wondering if my idea for a future GT would be something possible. I was thinking it'd be called "1933 Philadelphia Eagles season" and I'd have to get the Eagles season to GA, as well as their head coach (Lud Wray) and all 35 of their players (Template:1933 Philadelphia Eagles), while their owner/general manager, Bert Bell, is already GA. If I were to get the season, coach, and all the players to GA status, would that qualify as a good or featured topic? Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:45, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I think historically the "X team season" has been include the season article and games that were played. Per 1, 2, 3. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- @OlifanofmrTennant: Hmmm... though, in this case, there were no notable games played in the season that could be included. I do see Wikipedia:Good topics/2011–12 Australia women's national goalball team which seems to include the players. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Well in that case the lead article is 2011–12 Australia women's national goalball team, there is no 1933 Philadelphia Eagles season team article Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I would of thought the 1933 Philadelphia Eagles team and the 1933 Philadelphia Eagles season are the same thing? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- They are. The comparisons above don't really work well as they are different sports/leagues -- ZooBlazer 18:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I see no reason why the 1933 Philadelphia Eagles team could not become an article and then be the lead article of a G/FT. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Gog the Mild: Historically, the football project has never written separate articles about the rosters for individual team seasons. I don't think there's really enough coverage about that particular team's roster to warrant a standalone article (the season and players are notable, but a standalone specifically about the players as a whole doesn't really have enough coverage). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I see no reason why the 1933 Philadelphia Eagles team could not become an article and then be the lead article of a G/FT. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- They are. The comparisons above don't really work well as they are different sports/leagues -- ZooBlazer 18:20, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- I would of thought the 1933 Philadelphia Eagles team and the 1933 Philadelphia Eagles season are the same thing? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- Well in that case the lead article is 2011–12 Australia women's national goalball team, there is no 1933 Philadelphia Eagles season team article Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
- @OlifanofmrTennant: Hmmm... though, in this case, there were no notable games played in the season that could be included. I do see Wikipedia:Good topics/2011–12 Australia women's national goalball team which seems to include the players. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
One or two topics?
I have a GT that I'm nearing completion on (only two GA's away). I was initially planning on putting everything into one topic, but after seeing how some of the other television-related topics have been historically set up, I was wondering if it would be better suited as two, or if I should just stick with the one?
One topic format:
Two topic format:
TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'd say sub topic makes the most sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- The two topics work fine imo Idiosincrático (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
- IMO it seems better suited to two topics. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for the replies, I appreciate it! I've gone ahead and nominated the first set since it's complete. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Has this nomination been properly closed?
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Djibouti at the Olympics/archive2 was apparently withdrawn, but its nomination still shows up in relevant WikiProjects' article alerts. Was it closed properly, i.e. is there anything else that needs to be done? Yue🌙 08:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
From GT to FT?
Fearless (Taylor Swift album) was promoted as a Good Topic, but with its current number of Featured Articles, it is now qualified as a Featured Topic. Is there any procedure to officialize this? Ippantekina (talk) 04:03, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- @FGTC coordinators:User:Aza24 User:Kyle Peake User:MaranoFan please advise tysm! Ippantekina (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- For the correct process, I would say you need to put this through the featured topic candidates since the previous nomination only had consensus to become a GT, making a new one needed for FT. --K. Peake 08:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Ok let me create a new nomination, thanks! Ippantekina (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- This was previously discussed here in January where it was said that "
GTs eligible for FT status do not require a nomination.
" Not sure which is actually correct, just noting the discrepancy in answers. Pinging @MaranoFan: as a courtesy since they responded there. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)- Yes, I do not think a new nomination is required in this case. I moved my own Thank You GT to FT two years back and we haven't discussed changing the procedure since. Maybe Aza24 can confirm.--NØ 16:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a strict/decided rule for this. I would say it is not particularly worthwhile to necessitate an entirely new nomination. Aza24 (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- I have had three GTs promoted to FTs. None of them were renominated. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Neat, I noticed a few topics that would be eligible during one of my regular rounds of updating redirects in the topics. I'll go ahead n get those done then. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)
- Whoops, I totally missed this discussion. Alright, roger that! Ippantekina (talk) 14:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think there is a strict/decided rule for this. I would say it is not particularly worthwhile to necessitate an entirely new nomination. Aza24 (talk) 23:26, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, I do not think a new nomination is required in this case. I moved my own Thank You GT to FT two years back and we haven't discussed changing the procedure since. Maybe Aza24 can confirm.--NØ 16:57, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- This was previously discussed here in January where it was said that "
- Ok let me create a new nomination, thanks! Ippantekina (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- For the correct process, I would say you need to put this through the featured topic candidates since the previous nomination only had consensus to become a GT, making a new one needed for FT. --K. Peake 08:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)
- @FGTC coordinators:User:Aza24 User:Kyle Peake User:MaranoFan Now that Scott Carpenter has been promoted as a featured article, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Mercury Seven can now become a Featured Topic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:48, 3 April 2025 (UTC)
30 Rock seasons 2 and 3 at FLRC
Hi all, I'm here to note that FLRCs for 30 Rock season 2 and 30 Rock season 3 have been opened; both are the main articles for good topics. Just wanted to leave a note here in case anyone in the GT/FT community is interesting in working to keep these at GT level before going to GTRC. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Stale nominations with multiple supports
@FGTC coordinators:User:Aza24 User:Kyle Peake User:MaranoFan I'm noticing that there are multiple nominated featured and good topics right now that have multiple supports and have been inactive for some time but have yet to be promoted. Any movement on this? Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 06:10, 25 May 2025 (UTC)
- @FGTC coordinators:User:Aza24 User:Kyle Peake User:MaranoFan Several topics were promoted in the last few days; please note that the bot is not actually posting the promoted topics to WP:FT/GT. It updates the overall count and the articles themselves but never appends the new box to the page. I just added the 2 video game ones as I noticed them, but Special:Contributions/NovemBot shows that its true for all. Also, for some reason it makes GTs at Wikipedia:Featured topics/whatever, not Wikipedia:Good topics/whatever, so watch out for that. --PresN 17:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Also noting that for whatever reason, the bot did not remove the recently-promoted Doctor Who episodes topic from this page. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- It probably wasn't removed because the nomination subpage was moved, but the transclusion on the page wasn't updated. Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 09:20, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Also noting that for whatever reason, the bot did not remove the recently-promoted Doctor Who episodes topic from this page. TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
Scottish invasion of England (1648)
Hi @FGTC coordinators:User:Aza24 User:Kyle Peake User:MaranoFan I hope that things are ticking along here. I have just nominated a Featured Topic. Either there is something wrong with "Create a new nomination" or, more likely, I am too stupid to work out how to use it. So I created the nom "by hand". If I have messed up or broken anything let me know and I'll do my best to fix it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
Roman invasion of Africa (204–201 BC)
Greetings coordinators - Aza24, MaranoFan and Kyle Peake - a query. I nominated a couple of FTs a couple of weeks ago. One has just been promoted after garnering six supports - for which many thanks. The other, nominated a whole two hours earlier, has eight supports but is still waiting. I am absolutely not wanting to either nag nor backseat coordinate, but it occurred to me that there may be something which I am missing; possibly even something I should be doing or at least able to help with. In short, a brief update on Roman invasion of Africa (204–201 BC) would be appreciated. "Back off and be patient!" would be entirely acceptable.
Separately, it is good to see nominations getting processed through the system so promptly and efficiently. I know all too well that this means a fair bit of frantic activity behind the scenes, so many thanks for putting it in and getting F>C working so well.
Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Now promoted. The delay was mostly from my extended absence, and less activity from MaranoFan recently. We are lucky to have the resilience and efforts of @Kyle Peake, but my increased activity should amend this further. Aza24 (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks Aza. For the promotion and the explanation. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
Scope
Hello, I would like to know if, when the last article is promoted to GA, this will be a topic with a large enough scope,
History6042😊 (Contact me) 14:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
Relist
Hello. The last article, Tuvalu at the 2024 Summer Olympics, was promoted to GA. I think this topic meets the GT criteria now and could be relisted. Since I am not familiar with the procedures, I put it here. Thanks in advance if someone could kindly handle this. :) Z423x5c6 (talk) 09:59, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
MaranoFan retired
MaranoFan has indicated on their user talk page that they have retired and hasn't edited much in the last few months. While their efforts as FTC coordinator during their active days are much appreciated, I think it would be appropriate to remove them from the role and perhaps start looking for a successor. FrB.TG (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2025 (UTC)
South India
I wish to withdraw this nomination after a misunderstanding of the criteria and how this topic at the moment is not suitable for inclusion here. I would appreciate if someone could help me out with the closing procedure. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
1969 World Snooker Championship
Hi, 1969 World Snooker Championship has been promoted as a Featured Topic. I think it should "only" be a good topic. Please could someone check and advise? Thanks all. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
Template:Add to topic
I think the Template:Add to topic needs a tweak. Currently it only accounts for Featured Topics but given that Good topics are listed separately this should be tweaked. Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/List of generation IX Pokémon/addition1 points to Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/List of generation IX Pokémon instead of the proper target Wikipedia:Good topics/List of generation IX Pokémon Olliefant (she/her) 06:53, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
Season GTRC bulk nomination
Is it OK if I bulk nominate seasons 2-10 and 13 of The Simpsons for GTRC? There was consensus that season lists should be bulk nominated at FLRC, but there was no such consensus for FTRC/GTRC. JHD0919 (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2025 (UTC)
- Context: There was consensus at Wikipedia talk:Featured lists/Archive 2#FLs for television seasons that TV seasons should be considered articles, not lists, and therefore should not qualify as FLs. This led to a lot of demotions, and a later discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 24#What to do with season lists found support for a bulk nomination format since the consensus for demotion was pretty clear. The rapid demotions have created a potential backlog for GTRC, and if there is similar consensus to demote those season GTs, it might be easier to do it all at once. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:12, 21 December 2025 (UTC)