This is a featured topic nomination. After being delisted a while ago after the discography page was unfeatured, I have improved the discography page a lot, getting it promoted back up to FLC, and added the now-Good Article Harajuku Lovers Live, a video album, to the topic. It is essentially the same topic that was delisted here, so there shouldn't be any problems with structure. -- EA SwyerTalkContributions 00:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Personally, I have some doubts about the quality of the FL as there is absolutely no mention of the Video album in the introduction. Nergaal (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good to see this back from the dead. Harajuku Lovers Live is the first DVD we've had in an "albums" topic - as a general question, what differentiates a "video album" from any other feature length DVD a band puts out? Or can all feature length DVDs be called video albums? I'm just trying to understand the terminology. Finally, if you get South Side (song) and Let Me Blow Ya Mind to GA, then IMO this topic could become "Gwen Stefani discography" - rst20xx (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the terminology exactly. I'd call any DVD released by a band that wasn't clearly a documentary and contained music a "video album". -- EA SwyerTalkContributions 20:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh yes documentaries aren't video albums. DVD singles aren't either of course - rst20xx (talk) 21:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - it'd be better if this got more feedback, but I think it's non-controversial (certainly no article concerns) so any issues people find can be resolved later - rst20xx (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm no expert on FTs, but should the articles have a navbox linking them? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When there's only a small number of articles in the topic, a navbox isn't required. See for example Wikipedia:Featured topics/Hardy Boyz, which has the same number of articles as this topic (4). There was a navbox, Template:Hardy Boyz, but it was deleted as it was deemed unnecessary. I would surmise the same would happen if I created a navbox for this template. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can you create a book on this topic? Just click on the link in the top left of the topic box and create a book there, copying the formatting used in other existing books - rst20xx (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating the Invincible class battlecruisers for GT because I believe that it meets the criteria. All four articles are at GA and they share a common layout and navbox.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sturmvogel 66 (talk • contribs)
Support - excellent work on such an innovative class of vessels for naval warfare. I am a participant in WP:OMT, of which this topic is a part of. -MBK004 02:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - meets the criteria, good work Sturm. Your articles are always good for a fun read! ^am also an OMT member —Ed(talk • majestic titan) 07:27, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Great. Two 'invincible' nominations at the same time. Great effort by Sturm. - DSachan (talk) 13:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good to see a British class! I too find the two "invincible" nominations ironic - rst20xx (talk) 03:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentSupport Great job! Just a couple consistency concerns: Armour or Armor? For Invincible, put the three battles under "World War I" like the others. Notes or References? Reywas92Talk 20:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These vessels are British, so armour should be used. -MBK004 23:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Armour is used consistently, now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support it's good to see that GTs have caught onto the WPShips and WPMilHist projects, one of the most prolific ones around wikipedia. Nergaal (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another triumph for OMT. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can you create a book on this topic? Just click on the link in the top left of the topic box and create a book there, copying the formatting used in other existing books - rst20xx (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having succeeded with a genus FT previously, an entire subfamily this time, albeit with just two members. I'm aiming for GT, and the three articles are all at GA. The articles ahave the same layout and a navbox. Inevitably, there's a certain amount of overlap, but I've tried to incorporate some different bits into each article. Thanks, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why the top left corner isn't working? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? rst20xx (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bit that should read "edit-topic discussion-book" is just showing redlinked "book" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's how it should be, you can't edit or discuss a topic until it's promoted, but you can create the book for it - rst20xx (talk) 14:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thanks, I didn't notice that last time around Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the book link wouldn't have been there before, that's a new change. Sorry, I should have said that before - rst20xx (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I like the animal genus/subfamily topics, they fit so well in the "tree" structure of a Ftopic or Gtopic. --PresN 15:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks complete—Chris!c/t 20:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice topic, I find it interesting the m in Martin is capitalised in the species name but not the subfamily, never noticed that before - rst20xx (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for support. The bird project policy is to fully cap species English names, but not higher taxa, so Tawny Owl, but "owl" for the group as a whole (or an unnamed owl) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support go science! Nergaal (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the support from the outer realms of the solar system {: Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can you create a book on this topic? Just click on the link in the top left of the topic box and create a book there, copying the formatting used in other existing books - rst20xx (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, could you please check that I've got it right. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, thanks :) rst20xx (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating Oslo Metro rolling stock for GT because I feel it meets the criteria. The system has had three types of rolling stock, and the articles on these have all reached GA, along with an overview article. Arsenikk(talk) 20:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is an honest question, as I'm unclear on the precise way the FTC criteria are applied and I'm new to this particular topic. Does History of the Oslo Tramway and Metro belong in this topic? It appears to be too general an article to really warrant it, but it is given a long section in the lead article. Assuming that article doesn't belong, easy support. Staxringoldtalkcontribs 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All four articles are built around a 'history' and a 'specifications' section. For the main article, I included the history article as a {{main}} to show readers that the full history is available in another article. The rolling stock article is of course only related to the history of the rolling stock, and makes up perhaps a tenth or less of the scope of the main history article. Arsenikk(talk) 16:31, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think that excluding the history article is fine. While it is summarised at length in the lead, its scope does indeed cover a lot of things not covered by the lead. I think the two articles would be better placed as subarticles of a future Oslo Metro topic, as opposed to having the former appearing in the latter's topic - rst20xx (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks complete—Chris!c/t 20:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Great job! I just have some consistency concerns: History or Background? Why don't 1000 and 3000 have Construction or legacy? Reywas92Talk 22:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is more an issue of why I chose to have a separate Construction, Background and Legacy for T2000, and not instead just merge them into History. As for Legacy, the other two don't really have one, since it mainly talks about why the T2000 was a failure and no further orders were made. The GT criteria could dictate that I merge the T2000 sections into one; I don't have a problem doing that, but as a whole I think it is best as it is. Arsenikk(talk) 22:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning support a bit weird of a topic but appears to comply with the requirements. Nergaal (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - can you create a book on this topic? Just click on the link in the top left of the topic box and create a book there, copying the formatting used in other existing books - rst20xx (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I don't know if supports are actually allowed from the main contributors, but if they are I'll support this. I can't think of another article to go in this topic. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks as complete as it's going to get? BOZ (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support One could argue that the topic should be "Neverwinter Nights", i.e. both the first and the second game or even the whole series but there is no reason why NWN2 can't be a subtopic in its own right. All articles are GAs, connected with each other and form a distinguishable sub-topic of NWN with no missing articles. Regards SoWhy 16:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Icosahedron or D20 is a dice often used for playing Dungeons & Dragons and thus became associated with D&D as a sort of symbol. NWN is a computer game that is based on D&D rules and as such a subtopic of D&D which explains the association. The NWN logo would be better of course but that is copyrighted. Regards SoWhy 17:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looks good to me - rst20xx (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
_British_Battleship.jpg)
