Open main menu

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates

Featured and good topics in Wikipedia

This star symbolizes the featured topic candidates on Wikipedia.
GA icon symbolizing Good topic candidates on Wikipedia.
A featured topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles).

A good topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles) with a less stringent quality threshold than a featured topic.

This page is for the nomination of potential featured and good topics. See the good and featured topic criteria for criteria on both types of topic. 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.

Before nominating a topic, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Featured topic questions. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FTC/GTC process. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly.

The featured topic director, GamerPro64, or his delegate Juhachi, determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FT or GT status, consensus must be reached for a group to be promoted to featured or good topic status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates topic and archived.

You may want to check previous archived nominations first:
Purge the cache to refresh this page

Featured content:

Good content:

Good and featured topic tools:

Nomination procedureEdit

To create a new nomination use the form below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Saffron/archive1) and click the "Create new nomination" button.

Once the nomination page is created, remember to transclude it in the appropriate section below, to leave nomination templates on the talk pages of the articles nominated for the topic, and to create appropriate books (see Book:Jupiter for a good example). For detailed instructions on how to nominate topics or add articles to existing topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure.

Supporting and objectingEdit

Please review all the articles of the nominated topic with the featured topic criteria in mind before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. Following the creation of the book, Cyberbot I will create a book report (see example) containing details about cleanup issues (only those that have been flagged with cleanup templates, so it may not pick up everything), and various tools to inspect external links or resolve disambiguation pages. It can be a good idea to check the report and inspect links to see if certain articles need some cleanup (doing this before the nomination is even better).

  • 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 '''Oppose''' or '''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.
    • 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 (at least one week), 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.


Featured topic nominationsEdit

Jessica ChastainEdit

3 articles
  Jessica Chastain
  On screen and stage
  Awards and nominations
Contributor(s): Krimuk2.0

An FA-class biography and two FL-class lists. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Good topic nominationsEdit

Arabian Peninsula tropical cyclones (1st supplementary nomination)Edit

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

  1. Cyclone Sagar
  2. Cyclone Mekunu
  3. Cyclone Luban
14 articles
  List of Arabian Peninsula tropical cyclones
  1977 Oman cyclone
  1996 Oman cyclone
  2002 Oman cyclone
  Cyclone Gonu
  2008 Yemen cyclone
  Cyclone Phet
  Cyclone Keila
  Cyclone Nilofar
  Cyclone Chapala
  Cyclone Megh
  Cyclone Sagar
  Cyclone Mekunu
  Cyclone Luban

Three storms affected the Arabian Peninsula last year, and they have all been promoted to GA status. I believe all existing articles still are at GA standards. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Support: Looks like a valid update, and the reasoning from the previous promotion still holds. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support --►Cekli829 18:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


Selfocracy is the debut studio album by Belgian singer Loïc Nottet, released in 2017. It is a concept album and features Nottet lyrically expressing his vision of modern society and addresses topics including toleration, harassment, stereotypes, narcissism, egocentrism and egoism

3 articles
  "Million Eyes"
  "Mud Blood"
Contributor(s): Cartoon network freak

All articles promoted for GA --Cartoon network freak (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support Aoba47 (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Looks like it covers the album and all singles. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support --►Cekli829 18:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Pure HeroineEdit

Pure Heroine is the debut studio album by New Zealand singer-songwriter Lorde. It was released on 27 September 2013, through Universal Music Group, Lava and Republic Records. A dream pop and electronica album, Pure Heroine discusses youth and critiques mainstream culture. It was recorded between 2012 and 2013 at Golden Age Studios in Morningside, Auckland. Four singles were released from the album: "Royals", "Tennis Court", "Team" and "Glory and Gore". The album has been known for its impact on present-day pop music and its challenge to modern-day artists.

12 articles
  Pure Heroine
  "Tennis Court"
  "Glory and Gore"
  "Buzzcut Season"
  "No Better"
  "The Love Club"
  "Swingin Party"
  "Pure Heroine Tour"

This topic received a nomination (mid-2018) but failed as the Pure Heroine Tour article was not at GA-status at the time. However, as of today, every article on this topic now meets the GA criteria. De88 (talk) 06:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - I can't see any issues with promoting this Spiderone 20:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support — All articles within scope are GA. — (talk) 05:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, nice topic. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Seems to cover the scope. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support --►Cekli829 18:21, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

1999–2000 Arsenal F.C. seasonEdit

3 articles
  1999–2000 Arsenal F.C. season
  1999 FA Charity Shield
  2000 UEFA Cup Final

I believe this topic meets the criteria. All articles in this topic has actually been "Good Articles" for a while. There is also such an example: Wikipedia:Featured topics/2002–03 Arsenal F.C. season. Thanks in advance for your comments. Cheers. --►Cekli829 17:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support: Seems to include all the notable matches they played in that year. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

2004–05 Arsenal F.C. seasonEdit

3 articles
  2004–05 Arsenal F.C. season
  2004 FA Community Shield
  2005 FA Cup Final

I believe this topic meets the criteria. All articles in this topic has actually been "Good Articles" for a while. There is also such an example: Wikipedia:Featured topics/2002–03 Arsenal F.C. season. Thanks in advance for your comments. Cheers. --►Cekli829 07:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Support: Seems to cover all the notable matches they played in that year. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Emirates CupEdit

The Emirates Cup is a pre-season association football invitational competition hosted by English club Arsenal at their home ground, Emirates Stadium, in Holloway, London. The two-day competition was inaugurated in 2007 and is named after Arsenal's main sponsor, Emirates. It has been held every summer except 2012 due to the London Olympics, 2016 because of pitch renovation work and 2018 because of stadium building work.

10 articles
  Emirates Cup
  2007 Emirates Cup
  2008 Emirates Cup
  2009 Emirates Cup
  2010 Emirates Cup
  2011 Emirates Cup
  2013 Emirates Cup
  2014 Emirates Cup
  2015 Emirates Cup
  2017 Emirates Cup

I believe this topic meets the criteria. All articles in this topic has actually been "Good Articles" for a while. Thanks in advance for your comments. --►Cekli829 05:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - the main article needs updating to explain that the tournament did not happen in 2018 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I added it.--►Cekli829 10:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Director Comment - Did you let the user who got all these works to their respective statuses know about this nomination? GamerPro64 18:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    • No. --►Cekli829 08:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Seems to cover all the editions of the contest. I updated the paragraph above to match the updated summary article lead paragraph. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:04, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Seasons of Adventure TimeEdit

Adventure Time is a popular cartoon that aired from 2010 to 2018 on Cartoon Network. The show follows the adventures of a boy named Finn (voiced by Jeremy Shada) and his best friend and adoptive brother Jake (John DiMaggio)—a dog with the magical power to change shape and size at will. Finn and Jake live in the post-apocalyptic Land of Ooo, where they interact with Princess Bubblegum (Hynden Walch), the Ice King (Tom Kenny), Marceline the Vampire Queen (Olivia Olson), BMO (Niki Yang), and others. This submission groups together the ten season pages, and the featured list of episodes. --Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

11 articles
  Seasons of Adventure Time
  Season 1
  Season 2
  Season 3
  Season 4
  Season 5
  Season 6
  Season 7
  Season 8
  Season 9
  Season 10
Contributor(s): --Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment: This should probably be called "Adventure Time seasons" instead since it doesn't include all the individual AT episodes. - Brojam (talk) 07:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A good suggestion. I'm not sure how to re-adjust the naming suggestion through this portal, though.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 16:55, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - Brojam (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: seconding the above, the articles in this proposal seem to be the seasons of AT, rather than the episodes; is there an appropriate top-level article for that topic? Is the currently proposed "list of episodes" a close enough match to what these articles actually cover? -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
    It seems from other FTs that it's close enough. See for example Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of Avatar: The Last Airbender or Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of Veronica Mars. However in that case the three miniseries are probably out of the scope of the topic (miniseries≠season). Armbrust The Homunculus 15:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
    You could also name it "Adventure Time seasons and miniseries" or "Seasons and miniseries of Adventure Time" if you really wanted to include the three miniseries. - Brojam (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Bryanrutherford0: How does this look? @Armbrust: I went ahead and removed the miniseries.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    To match the already accepted examples given above by Armbrust, the title of the topic needs to change to "seasons of" rather than "episodes of"; apparently it's acceptable to pipe that link to point to the "list of episodes" article. I've edited the proposal to match the examples, as near as I can tell; someone probably needs to move this proposal to the corresponding name, if everyone agrees. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Bryanrutherford0: How about this?--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Support: the proposal now seems to fit the pattern established by the other examples noted above. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Armbrust The Homunculus 07:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, can't believe this series is over! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe films (4th supplementary nomination)Edit

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

  1. Black Panther (film)
  2. Avengers: Infinity War
  3. Ant-Man and the Wasp


  1. Accolades received by The Avengers
22 articles
  Marvel Cinematic Universe films
  Iron Man
  The Incredible Hulk
  Iron Man 2
  Captain America: The First Avenger
  Marvel's The Avengers
  Iron Man 3
  Thor: The Dark World
  Captain America: The Winter Soldier
  Guardians of the Galaxy
  Avengers: Age of Ultron
  Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors
  Captain America: Civil War
  Doctor Strange
  Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
  Spider-Man: Homecoming
  Thor: Ragnarok
  Black Panther
  Avengers: Infinity War
  Ant-Man and the Wasp

This supplementary discussion is to add all of the 2018 MCU film releases, which have all been made GAs. It is also to remove the "List of accolades received by The Avengers (2012 film)", as it is felt be the active editors of these articles that, as we continue to add new film releases, an "accolades" articles is not really in the scope of this topic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support: Everything looks good to me. - Brojam (talk) 05:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support I don't see any issues. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support has the quality, is part of the topic and hits all the marks. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support the additions and the removal, which clarifies the scope. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The "Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors" article seems a little bit out of place.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now Can we not talk about this until the current copyvio concerns have been cleaned up? One of the main contributors to these articles is currently at CCI (and I've just been informed that CCI typically requires at least five examples, so I'm gonna go make sure it does that) and Black Panther (film) is currently tagged as having a large amount of close paraphrasing -- it's only one section, but that's because most of the rest of the article is a WP:QUOTEFARM. I see no reason to believe the rest of these articles aren't similar, since I picked Black Panther because (a) that's where a single instance of blatant copyvio recently occurred (I reverted it and got an admin to revdel) and (b) I really like that movie: neither of these are particularly "unique", and the editor in question is an established, respectable one, so we have no reason to assume that edits like the revdelled one haven't slipped through the cracks in the other articles. Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
    • It should be noted that Black Panther (film) went through a lengthy review process where the amount of quotes was addressed before being passed. As stated on the articles' talk page, Earwig’s COPYVIO detector only returns two sources with an elevated risk of COPYVIO. The most significant is a Wikipedia mirror site (warning: do not visit that site, it redirects to unsafe spam) and the other contains a lengthy blockquote. The rest are within the acceptable range of tolerance. Hijiri appears to be operating from a zero tolerance stance whereas WP:CLOSEPHRASING says "limited close paraphrasing is appropriate".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons and the United KingdomEdit

Covers the nuclear history of the United Kingdom from the Second World War through to the present day

18 articles
  Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom
  1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement
  British contribution to the Manhattan Project
  British hydrogen bomb programme
  Frisch–Peierls memorandum
  Gen 75 Committee
  High Explosive Research
  MAUD Committee
  Montreal Laboratory
  Nassau Agreement
  Polaris (UK nuclear programme)
  Polaris Sales Agreement
  Project E
  Project Emily
  Quebec Agreement
  Trident (UK nuclear programme)
  Tube Alloys
  V bomber
Contributor(s): Hawkeye7

I've constructed this Good Topic from Category:Nuclear history of the United Kingdom. -- Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support FT I believe that this would qualify as a featured topic. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - looks like this has it all covered as a good topic, 11 GA, 7 FA articles so not quite half at feature quality. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
24 articles
  Nuclear weapons and the United Kingdom
  1958 US–UK Mutual Defence Agreement
  British contribution to the Manhattan Project
  British hydrogen bomb programme
  Frisch–Peierls memorandum
  Gen 75 Committee
  High Explosive Research
  MAUD Committee
  Montreal Laboratory
  Nassau Agreement
  Polaris (UK nuclear programme)
  Polaris Sales Agreement
  Project E
  Project Emily
  Quebec Agreement
  Trident (UK nuclear programme)
  Tube Alloys
  V bomber
  Operation Hurricane
  Operation Totem
  Operation Mosaic
  British nuclear tests at Maralinga
  Operation Grapple
  British nuclear testing in the United States
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Support as comprehensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:55, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Support Gog the Mild (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

CMLL World Lightweight ChampionsEdit

the CMLL World Lightweight Champions is a professional wrestling championship promoted by the Mexican Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) promotion. It was originally created as the CMLL Japan Super Lightweight Championship between 1999 and 2000 and then the CMLL World Super Lightweight Championship from 2003 to 2012. The topic includes ever wrestler who has held the championship at one point in time.

7 articles
  CMLL World Lightweight Championship
  Ricky Marvin
  Rocky Romero
  Máscara Dorada
  Dragon Lee
Contributor(s): MPJ-DK

All articles in this topic has actually been "Good Articles" for a while, I simply was too busy with other stuff to realize it. This topic is about the Lucha Libre, professional wrestling championship, the CMLL World Lightweight Championship and include Good Articles for the wrestlers to hold the championship to create a complete topic here. Only champions not covered do not have articles at all. There is a navigation box that unites all subjects under one and I believe this hits all the marks for a Good Topic. Note: In Mexico the championships usually do not change hands very often (current champion won it in 2016) so it is a pretty stable topic. --MPJ-DK (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - can't see any issues -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - I believe that this would qualify as a featured topic. ►Cekli829 13:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - Seems fine as a featured topic. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: I hate to be a spoilsport, but criterion 1(d) requires that there be "no obvious gaps (missing or low-quality articles) in the topic." If the scope is the past and present holders of the title, then it looks to me like the topic is missing articles about Masato Yakushiji and Tommy Williams. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Bryanrutherford0 you are by no means a spoil sport. But that rule refers to existing articles, all written articles have to have the quality. And in this case neither individual is notable enough for their own articles. Please do double check of course, but i believe you will find that the red links do not count. In this case neither would survive n AFD. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I apologize, it does not actually mention thiz specifically, i think we will need input from GamerPro64 to comment as the topic coordinator. MPJ-DK (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Director comment - MPJ-DK is correct. If there are articles that are not notable for Wikipedia and the topic is as complete as possible then criterion 1(d) is not violated. An example of this is the Capcom Five topic. GamerPro64 02:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Thank you I thought that was the case but could not pinpoint the specifics. In this case neither Williams nor Yakushiji are notable based on what little I can find on them, I did the research when I first worked on the main championship article. MPJ-DK (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Bryanrutherford0 - Your concern has been addressed, would you care to weight in again now that the rules have been clarified? MPJ-DK (talk) 23:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
          • Support: I'm satisfied and changing my vote, AGF on the assertion that those two wrestlers are not notable (which I have not investigated); to be clear, the criterion is satisfied not because those articles have not been written (which would be a loony interpretation of the rule) but because those topics are not notable, and therefore encyclopedic articles about them are impossible to create. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 02:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
            • Thankyou, and I totally agree, if the subject was notable but had no article I would not think it complete either. MPJ-DK (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Naruto charactersEdit

15 articles
  Naruto characters
  Naruto Uzumaki
  Kakashi Hatake
  Shikamaru Nara
  Boruto Uzumaki
  Sasuke Uchiha
  Hinata Hyuga
  Itachi Uchiha
  Sarada Uchiha
  Sakura Haruno
  Rock Lee
Contributor(s): 1989, Tintor2, Flowerpiep

Support topic is complete. igordebraga 01:28, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support, great job on this. MPJ-DK (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per the above. This looks really great.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support +. Great job on this. ►Cekli829 13:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - nice work. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Gascon campaign of 1345Edit

Between August and November 1345 Henry, Earl of Derby, conducted the whirlwind Gascon campaign of 1345. Commanding an Anglo-Gascon force he carried out "the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Years' War" against the French. He defeated larger French armies in open battle at Bergerac and at Auberoche, taking numerous noble and knightly prisoners. In the border region between English-occupied Gascony and French-ruled territory morale and prestige swung England's way following this campaign, providing an influx of taxes and recruits for the English armies. The French lost numerous towns and fortifications and their remaining, large, field army fell apart and was disbanded.

Three articles
  Gascon campaign of 1345
  Battle of Bergerac
  Battle of Auberoche
Contributor(s): Gog the Mild

This is my first nomination of a Good Topic, so I doubtless have some things wrong; I hope that these will be considered sympathetically. The proposed GT covers a specific geographic area and time span and includes an article on the campaign and separate articles on each of the two main military clashes during it. There are no other articles within this period and area and no other separately notable events. I have worked up the articles covering the two battles from start class over the last three months and wrote the campaign article myself in October. Two of the articles are currently undergoing ACR at MilHist. --Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - Looks like the topic is complete and up to quality. MPJ-DK (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment Looks complete from a battle perspective, but I'm left wondering whether key commanders should be included in such a GT? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Gog the Mild: What do you think of Peacemaker's idea to include key commanders? Kees08 (Talk) 07:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Peacemaker67 and Kees08: Apologies, I seem to have been asleep at the wheel on this one. Interesting point, and probably not one I am up to speed enough to have an informed opinion on. IMO the only "key" commander was the Earl of Derby, who is already a GA (not my work), so I don't think that it makes much/any difference to this nomination. However, I am unconvinced that key commanders are needed in military campaign good topics. I will try to outline some of my thinking below. (Going out, so I will post this as a place holder and come back to it when I can.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Peacemaker67 and Kees08: I think that I am correct in saying that no other GT (nor FT) covering a campaign includes an article on a leader, with the exception of Peacemakers's 1st Army Group GT which has been promoted since I made my nomination. This seems to be a well established precedent. If there is to be a new requirement requiring commanders to be included, will all of the existing topics need to be reviewed? In most cases there is a more clear cut chain of command than existed in 14th century Gascony, so I assume the answer would be "yes".
In Gascony the situation was not at all clear cut. The French operated on a regional command basis - arguably one reason why they lost. In addition the repeated death, capture and replacement of commanders means that there is either no commander{s} to nail down or a plethora of stubs, several of which sprang from red links created when I wrote these article. Overall command was a royal prerogative, and Philip's son, Duke John, was appointed to nominal overall command late in the campaign. But he never saw action, nor came particularly near it, nor, so far as the sources I have show, made any notable decision which was actually carried out. The English situation is more clear cut, with the English King's commercial contract with Derby laying out reasonably clearly that he was in command, a role which he filled in practice.
This may not be a good reason, but I am also concerned that for earlier periods adding a requirement to include the commanders, and leaving aside discussion as to whether they can be unambiguously identified, will create a requirement to promote articles about figures for whom military activity was a small part of their notability. (This would certainly deter me from writing about them.)
While I understand that many GT noms will spark a debate as to just what should be included, I can forsee quibblingly detailed debates requiring "expert" knowledge to ascertain just who to classify as leaders in, for example, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Battles of the Greco-Persian Wars.
Leaving campaign GT and FTs as needing to cover a specific geographic area and time span and include an article on the campaign and separate articles on each of the main military clashes during it seems to me to be clearer, as well as more appropriate.
Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Support I'm happy with the rationale. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support: Seems to cover the major battles of the campaign, and I agree with the above notes re: the challenge of unambiguously determining who were the "key" commanders. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2019 8(UTC)8
  • Support. I tread cautiously here, as (i) my knowledge of the Hundred Years' War is minimal and (ii) I am unfamiliar with Featured/Good Topics as a species. But I have carefully studied the criteria and I am happy to support the nomination. I reviewed the articles on the two battles at GAN, and later supported the promotion of the Battle of Auberoche article at FAC, so am very satisfied about the quality of the whole caboodle. As to the draft introduction it looks right to me, but I defer to more expert editors on that. Tim riley talk 21:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Topic removal candidatesEdit