Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates

The history of the National Hockey League begins with the end of its predecessor league, the National Hockey Association (NHA), in 1917. After unsuccessfully attempting to resolve disputes with Eddie Livingstone, owner of the Toronto Blueshirts, executives of the three other NHA franchises suspended the NHA, and formed the National Hockey League (NHL), replacing the Livingstone team with a temporary team in Toronto, the Arenas. The NHL's first quarter-century saw the league compete against two rival major leagues—the Pacific Coast Hockey Association and Western Canada Hockey League—for players and the Stanley Cup. The NHL first expanded into the United States in 1924 with the founding of the Boston Bruins, and by 1926 consisted of ten teams in Ontario, Quebec, the Great Lakes region, and the Northeastern United States. At the same time, the NHL emerged as the only major league and the sole competitor for the Stanley Cup; in 1947, the NHL completed a deal with the Stanley Cup trustees to gain full control of the Cup. The NHL's footprint spread across Canada as Foster Hewitt's radio broadcasts were heard coast-to-coast starting in 1933.

Contributor(s): CosXZ, Scorpion0422, Resolute, Maxim

Meets all of the criteria. --Cos ^{(X + Z)} 17:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Perhaps the split discussion at Talk:History of the National Hockey League (1992–present)#Move to 1992–2017? that's been going on since February should be resolved first. There exists a draft at Draft:History of the National Hockey League (since 2017) which was worked on as recently as two days ago. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like there was support for a split and the draft is in good shape. Instead of being bold and moving the draft to main space myself, I've reached out to the draft creator here to see if they intend to move it to main space. They haven't edited in a few days, so we may need to be patient. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm one of the other editors on that draft, I've been meaning to port over content from Arizona Coyotes and Utah NHL team to fill out the currently-empty last section but haven't gotten around to it. Once that's done, the draft should be good to publish. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fully expanded the aforementioned section, improved coverage of Tampa Bay's B2B and added a section on Boston's record-breaking season as well. Let me know if anything else is needed. The Kip ^(contribs) 06:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just following up - @Hey man im josh, would I be good to move the draft to mainspace and perform the associated removals/page moves/template edits associated with doing so? Only issue is that 2017-present will then need to go through the GA process, which will hold up this FT nom. The Kip ^(contribs) 17:21, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Kip: I don't see any reason why not. There did seem to be a general consensus in favor of the split and it's well written, so I say shoot. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hey man im josh I've moved to mainspace and nominated it for GA in order to keep the ball rolling on this nom. I believe I've taken care of all the associated moves, edits, removals, etc - please let me know if I've missed anything. The Kip ^(contribs) 19:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold – pending discussion and draft article status. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just pointing this out—in order to cover all the articles relating to the History of the NHL, we would need to add History of the National Hockey League on television, History of the National Hockey League on United States television, and History of organizational changes in the NHL to the topic. XR228 (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the current list of articles is okay as they're the ones included in the NHL series template. By criteria 1.c, these articles are shared in a common template. There's probably an argument to make the series more sophisticated, but the articles you've mentioned could very well be compiled into other topics/series/templates. For example, the two television history articles could go under a National Hockey League on television lead with articles from the NHL on TV template. I just think the series template is clearly defined and this topic is a direct and complete representation of that, which is what we're after. Idiosincrático (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, the template and topic is clearly defined. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold since one of the articles is still getting reviewed. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Loud is the fifth studio album by Barbadian singer Rihanna. It was released on November 12, 2010, by Def Jam Recordings and SRP Records. The album was recorded between February and August 2010, during the singer's Last Girl on Earth tour (2010-2011) and the filming of her first feature film Battleship (2012).

Meets all of the criteria.

--> and if there is anything wrong please comment --Piece bacon (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I noticed that you were actually missing 3 songs from the nomination, so I went ahead and added Fading (song), Skin (Rihanna song), and Love the Way You Lie (Part II). I also resorted the entries based on their order in the track list. Seems to be all encompassing, so I'd support. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for your comments Piece bacon (talk) 03:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - @Piece bacon: Loud Tour and Loud Tour Live at the O2 would be required for this topic, and it appears the former is not currently a GA.--NØ 16:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am currently nominating the loud tour article as a good article Piece bacon (talk) 03:35, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tornado outbreak of May 4–6, 2007 was a devastating tornado outbreak that took place in Kansas, resulting in the deaths of thirteen people. Eleven of these deaths alone came from the 2007 Greensburg tornado, a massive EF5 tornado and the first in the United States to be rated as such. The tornado leveled Greensburg, leaving 95% of the town damaged.

Contributor(s): EF5, Cyclonebiskit, CrazyC83

Meets all criteria, this may very well be the first tornado-related GTN on Wikipedia. --E_F⁵ 13:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to nominate when the set is complete. One is clearly still waiting the GA review! igordebraga ≠ 01:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, whoopsies. E_F⁵ 03:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if Greensburg passes, oppose if it doesn't charlotte ^👸♥ 03:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Mana series for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

1. Visions of Mana

Contributor(s): ProtoDrake, PresN

PresN created the Mana series topic in 2015, and believed it completed, but over the years it has been added to twice. Now, the latest series entry Visions of Mana has released and I managed to get the article through the GAN process within the three month limit, so it can be added to this topic. I didn't think I'd be so enthused about this game, but I have been, and I'll be more than happy if it can join its fellows in this topic. Also pinging @Judgesurreal777 and IDV: as they contributed to the first supplementary nomination with their work on Adventure of Mana. To those who weigh in on this nomination, thank you. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as original topic creator, always good to see this topic kept up to date whenever Square Enix revisits it! --PresN 12:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Idiosincrático (talk) 14:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I love to see topics stay up to date. Also small note I fixed the disambiguation link in the lead Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support — Roberth Martinez (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Hold Echoes of Mana, a recent release, has just been added and is notable, but not yet at Good Article quality. Given that this Good Topic includes mobile spinoffs like Rise of Mana, it seems to me further work could be done so that it passes the WP:WIAFT 1D criteria of no obvious gaps in coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh.... --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not to add to the bubble-bursting, but I also believe Secret of Mana (2018 video game) can and should be an article before this Good Topic could be called comprehensive. While it gets short shrift in the article, and I'm sure some fans would rather see it forgotten, it's nevertheless a full 3D remake with its own dev team and reviews, and remakes tend to be notable enough for articles, including multiple remakes in this Good Topic, such as Adventures of Mana and Trials of Mana (2020 video game). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not really sold that obscure mobile spinoff Echoes of Mana is blocking here. I get that topics should be comprehensive-ish but this could theoretically be covered as Circle of Mana is, just in Mana (series). If it is spun out, I'd be more willing to give it a pass as not required as a very minor "part" of the series - it'd be like not including video game series-themed pachislot spinoffs in a topic. That said... Secret of Mana (2018 video game) is more concerning. It looks like that's a mere one sentence in the main Secret of Mana article. I get not wanting to gunk up a featured article with unrelated stuff, but I do agree that this was a full remake akin to Adventures of Mana and should either have a full section in the Secret of Mana article, or its own separate article. SnowFire (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, SnowFire. Honestly, I didn't see much coverage of the Secret of Mana remake, so while it could be expanded, it's unlikely to be more than a paragraph or two. As to Echoes, I don't know, but I don't have the IRL time or mental energy to commit to it, so maybe Zxcvbnm would like to take it on. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      It doesn't seem tremendously hard to get to GA standards so maybe I'll give it a go. But I'd rather try to get the remake page created first given its comparatively higher priority, obvious mainline status, and general agreement it needs a page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      • @Zxcvbnm: I'd contest your reasonings on the remake. Two editors' comments don't make "higher priority", "obvious mainline status" and "general agreement". --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        Okay, maybe I was overstating it. But the fact remains there is a lot of coverage about it which makes me see it as major. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] etc. Certainly more than "I didn't see much coverage". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 19:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        @Zxcvbnm: IMO those reviews could easily make up one paragraph of the main article. I'm against creating articles on remakes which would simple reuse/repeat information. But a stalled GT nomination isn't the place for this discussion. (Small addendum, Adventure of Mana is a renamed reworking for new platforms so relevant, and Trials of Mana remake has substantial differences in gameplay so relevant, while Secret of Mana remake appears not to have that many differences from the original) --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:22, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

        To summarize ProtoDrake's concerns with a potential page for the 3D remake of Secret of Mana: The remake is just a 3D version of Secret of Mana with voice acting and not that much drastical changes compared to Adventure of Mana and Trials of Mana. Information on the 3D remake would fit just fine in the main page for Secret of Mana, just like how it was handled with Live A Live. Roberth Martinez (talk) 19:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • (de-indent) Let's add that paragraph then - expand the paragraph in Secret of Mana#Re-releases on what precisely 2018 SoM was, its differences from the original, etc. Then add a new section in Secret of Mana#Reception and legacy that discusses the reviews of 2018 SoM, both on its own merits and as a remake. SnowFire (talk) 20:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @SnowFire: I've made a start on that. The 2018 SoM remake now has its development added, and based on the info I found, the devs confirm it's basically no different from the original sans graphics and a few other smaller additions, so having a whole article for it would be redundant. (Addendum: added reception now, and...it's once again nothing much.) --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, I'll abandon the idea for the remake to get a separate article and just focus on Echoes. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:23, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold until Echoes of Mana becomes GA TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fearless (Taylor's Version) by the American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift is a re-recording of her 2008 studio album Fearless. Released on April 9, 2021, it was the first of her re-recording projects following a 2019 dispute over the masters of her back catalog. Fearless (Taylor's Version) include re-recordings of the original Fearless tracks and five previously unreleased "From the Vault" tracks, and it became the first re-recorded album to top the US Billboard 200.

Contributor(s): Ippantekina, PassedDown, Gained

This topic covers the re-recorded album Fearless (Taylor's Version) and its notable tracks, and all of the articles within scope are listed as GA. --Gained (talk) 11:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All songs covered. Idiosincrático (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - looks good -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support igordebraga ≠ 01:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023–24 College Football Playoff was a single-elimination postseason tournament that determined the national champion of the 2023 NCAA Division I FBS football season. It was the tenth edition of the College Football Playoff and involved the top four teams in the country as ranked by the College Football Playoff poll. The playoff consisted of two semifinal games, played at the Sugar Bowl and the Rose Bowl, with the winners of each advancing to the national championship game. Each participating team was the champion of its respective conference: No. 1 Michigan from the Big Ten Conference, No. 2 Washington from the Pac-12 Conference, No. 3 Texas from the Big 12 Conference, and No. 4 Alabama from the Southeastern Conference. Michigan and Washington won their respective semifinal games and Michigan won the national championship game, 34–13, to secure their first outright national championship since 1948.

I've been working on this on-and-off since the championship game in January and I'm very pleased to have all four articles now at GA status. This is a good topic nomination and my first GT/FT nomination. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Noting that 2023 NCAA Division I FBS football rankings is also in Category:2023–24 College Football Playoff. Any thoughts on the 4 team season articles for the 4 teams involved in these games being included in the scope? Hey man im josh (talk) 01:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hey man im josh I assume the ranking article is included in the category solely because the CFP rankings are listed there, since they don't have a separate article. As for the team season articles, I would argue against adding them because the playoff itself as an entity comprises just the games. While the teams, of course, do participate in the games, my instinct would be that the teams would not belong in this topic. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I thought I'd ask to pick your brain on it a bit. I get your line of thinking and I do agree that technically it's a set if you're considering just the playoff structure. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support without ranking inclusion. The rankings in the category kinda throws it slightly out of whack. But it's clear that the articles listed only cover the play-off matches outlined in the template. Maybe you could make the topic more specific by titling it "2023–24 College Football Playoff games"? Idiosincrático (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No longer meets criteria 3b due to the delisting of Maggie Simpson as a good article in July, and has only had content added once to reflect a very recent episode.

While not an immediate issue right now, Bart Simpson has been given a featured article review note; the article is currently vulnerable to eventual demotion, and the topic's WikiProject has fallen inactive, making it unlikely to be edited much before it is up for FAR. Xeroctic (talk) 10:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove – per nom. Idiosincrático (talk) 13:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove per nominator. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Bart is now up for FAR, and nobody other than me has edited the article since I created this discussion. The FAR mentions the article being outdated and issues with sources, making it likely to be the second article of this topic to be demoted. Xeroctic (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Update: The article will likely be saved at FAR, but Maggie Simpson is the only reason why this FTRC should be removed. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per nom TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove per nom -- ZooBlazer 18:23, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fails criterion 3.b as San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest 2024 is not a WP:GA, isn't being worked on, and is past the three month grace period (the Eurovision Song Contest ended on 11 May). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove – Idiosincrático (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait – Pending 2024 GAN. Idiosincrático (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I admit that I missed the 3-month grace period, but as the edit history shows, it would be untrue to say that I'm not working on it. It's certainly clear that I'm focused on getting this next one nominated, considering the edits I've made in the last 2 weeks. Probably only a few days out in fact. Honestly, the 6+ month wait for GA reviews has really slowed any sense of urgency, and I had held off to not overwhelm the GA process and add to its crazy backlog. Grk1011 (talk) 16:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  You made 5 edits to that page in the last 5 months. I wouldn't call that "working on it". Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The edits were on the last 3 consecutive Saturdays, the only day I have time to do more than just housekeeping edits. Anyway, it's nominated now, so I finished it on a Friday, one day earlier than I anticipated. Thanks for the push! Grk1011 (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold until the GAN concludes. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold until GAN review is complete TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]