Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/2021 log

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept

[edit]

William Goebel was demoted on 26 June 2021, there is no effort to change that, and without it the topic fails criterion 3.b. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you've got it at GAN, then we'll wait to see the outcome of that process. Good luck! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes just to echo the above, myself and the other coordinators have no issue in holding until a GAN process can take place Thank you for taking the initiative! Aza24 (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24 and @Bryanrutherford0 – Happy to inform that William Goebel just passed it GA nomination, and is listed as a good article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

St Kilda, Scotland was demoted on 26 June 2021, there is no effort to change that, and without it the topic fails criterion 3.b. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Awards

[edit]

The article Hugo Award for Best Series has existed for five years but is not a FL like the remaining articles. As such, this topic currently fails WP:FTCR #1D. Note that the missing article is in fairly good shape, so it could probably be added to the topic easily if someone put in time, but until that happens the topic should be demoted. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it have been easier to just ask me about nominating the list instead of starting an FLRC? (also, the article was started in April 2018, so, 3 years). Anyway, yeah, it's been long enough for a while to get sent to FLC, I'll get it polished up and nominated. --PresN 03:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Honestly, I wasn't sure who to ask about updating it since most of the lists seem to have been brought to FL a while ago. I'd much rather see the list get promoted than the topic get demoted. If you're willing to update it, that would be great and I'd happily move to withdraw this. (As to the five-year comment, I was going off the first year listed in the article, but my point stands – the topic has been incomplete for a while, and I felt FTRC was justified, at least as a motivating factor to get the list done.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as a general note for future FLRCs- if you see that a set of FLs were all done by the same person, and the non-FL list was recently updated by that same person, it's fair to assume that that person is the one to contact before hitting them with a formal process. --PresN 05:20, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FGTC coordinators: Since the article in question is currently listed at FLC, I am moving to withdraw this nomination for the time being. RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wipeout

[edit]

Nominating this because Wipeout Omega Collection has been greatly sourced since the last time this was discussed and thus stands as its own article. As such this topic is incomplete. GamerPro64 01:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Jaguar I meant three months after release, as that is what the criterion says if you look. It is obviously much longer since the collection, but the pass of this topic previously was not an error since that was before the article in discussion existed. --K. Peake 11:12, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demoted

[edit]

Group 4 elements

[edit]

Titanium is no longer at FA, so the topic is ineligible for GT status. AryKun (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Armament of the Iowa-class battleship was demoted on 4 December 2021, there is no effort to change that, and without it the topic fails criterion 3.b. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James Bond films

[edit]

The grace period for No Time to Die has expired, and it is not nominated at GAN or FAC. Since the topic is not complete anymore, I don't see how it can retain featured status. (t · c) buidhe 11:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remove per the criteria. --The helper5667 (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Phedina

[edit]

The main article, Phedina, has been turned into a redirect to one of the included articles. This leaves just two articles (1a) and no lead article (2). CMD (talk) 14:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Inside No. 9

[edit]

Inside No. 9 has now run for six series; this GT listed the first two series, and the third are actually all GAs/FAs, but there's little-to-no progress for episodes in the next three series (which I believe are all notable). (So that's a 1(d) issue.) Long past any retention period, regrettably (series 4 aired in 2018). Minimum way to get this back to GT could be to create list articles for each series, get them to FL, and then make three topics for the first three series. — Bilorv (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Remove: Nowhere near complete, as the nom makes clear. Tough to keep topics on ongoing subjects up to date! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that this can't be a featured or good topic any more as there are no articles on many of the recent episodes -- I always meant to get to them, but never did! I wonder whether we could not just have three separate topics for series 1-3? Would there need to be "list of episode" articles for each series (i.e., could the main IN9 article not work as the lead article required by the topic criteria?) It seems odd to have to create those lists purely for the purpose of having the topic. Josh Milburn (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • My understanding is that if you have the main article as Inside No. 9 then the topic must be the whole show (criterion 1(d)) and so you need every episode, and if you have the topic as "Inside No. 9 series 1" then you need a main article/list that's just about the first series (criterion 2). Maybe someone else can say more definitively whether this is right or point to examples of it being done differently. — Bilorv (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes sadly for this current topic of with the main article as "Inside No. 9" you need all episodes. Alternatively, you could have possibly "Overview of Inside No. 9" with List of Episodes and Awards and nominations, (plus list of characters if it exists) though that does not seem to possible in this case since from the looks of it the awards table is not long enough to justify a split and there is not list of episodes either since it already fits in the main article. This can somewhat be difficult to do with British shows since they on average have fewer episodes per series meanining less likely for an separate award list and separate list of episodes (Example topic). Bilorv's idea of splitting the topic into different series like series 1, series 2, could work assuming a separate article could be made for each series, though can be tricky to do if there are only 6 episodes in a series (Example topic).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Sadly no longer meets 1.d. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove: per Bryan's comment. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 19:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Incomplete as it stands, and as an ongoing programme this is likely to recur even if the extant episodes are all brought up to par. However, I would not be opposed to breaking this up into seasons without the need for separate season articles; the nature of British television "seasons" feels much less conducive to separate articles, and I would personally have no issue with reusing the Inside No. 9 article as the lead, piped appropriately to earmark each topic as "Series One", etc. Others may disagree but then again that's why we have promotion candidacies and not an automatic process. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ X 13:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus to demote – Aza24 (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Physical geography of Somerset

[edit]

Sadly an article (Chew Valley Lake) was delisted due to not meeting FA requirements and the notice period has expired. (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

National symbols of Belarus

[edit]

The main article was delisted in February and the retention period has expired so this does not meet requirements for a featured topic. (t · c) buidhe 04:57, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The grace period has expired and Jupiter has since been demoted from FA nor is it a currently a GA either and it is an essential part of this topic's scope.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closed with consensus to delist--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The grace period has expired and Jupiter has since been demoted from FA nor is it a currently a GA either and it is an essential part of this topic's scope.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This topic completely overlaps with Wikipedia:Featured topics/Battleships of France. So either this should be delisted or the two members of this ship class should be removed from the Battleships of France topic (and they should be indicated as a subtopic). Regards, Armbrust The Homunculus 18:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Invincible (Michael Jackson album)

[edit]

Fails 1d. as Heaven Can Wait (Michael Jackson song) has existed for 10 years. (CC) Tbhotch 21:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Er, actually, it seems to have just been redirected to the album... If you think that song's article *should* exist, then you can revert and discuss the redirect, which was made without a discussion. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored. I expect the next step will be AFD where we will discuss if it should exist (even though Speechless (Michael Jackson song) is literally built upon the same type of sources Heaven Can Wait is citing now, but as that one is a FA, no one questions its validity). Furthermore, WP:NSONGS is clear "Notability aside, a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." If Heaven can wait, so can this FTRC. (CC) Tbhotch 02:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Heaven Can Wait" needs and AFD in the meantime. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can open one, but skimming the other articles, all of them but "Butterflies" include unsourced statements and unreliable sources (although Butterflies includes a reference to Discogs). This is a common problem I have found with several pre-2015 good/FA/FL articles, they simply don't age well. They get stuck in the year they are written as Wikipedia moves forward. If you add that the writers leave the project, that no one maintains them (through edits and updates) and that new editors add unsourced content, you end up with disasters like In My Place or Djibouti women's national football team. Removing "Heaven Can Wait" might gain the FT some time, but eventually "Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/Invincible (Michael Jackson album)/archive2" will exist because the other articles are a reflection of how articles were written in the early 2010s. (CC) Tbhotch 07:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]