Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/2009 log

Kept

Seasons of 30 Rock

Seasons of 30 Rock

5 articles

File:Tina fey mean girls.jpg

Season 1

Season 2 ^(subtopic)

Season 3

Season 4

I am nominating this topic for removal because 30 Rock (season 3) should have been a featured list by 14 August for the topic to remain comprehensive - and it is not - rst20xx (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I cannot see where season 3 ever went up for FLC. Could it be that the only problem is that they need to be cleaned and nominated real quickly? I mean, I'd hate to have to remove it just because the editors moved on and it was never nominated. I haven't looked at the page thoroughly, so I don't even know if it meets the FL criteria, but I did notice that it was never nominated.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  If someone is willing to quickly bring the article up to speed and nominate it, I personally would have no problem with letting that run through - rst20xx (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Remove. Way past its retention period, and no work currently ongoing to improve the article. Is templated, indicating significant work is needed, rather than it simply needing a FL nom.YobMod 15:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

• I can try to bring this list up to snuff. Give me a couple days to try? Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• That would be fine by me, take a crack - rst20xx (talk) 16:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ok folks, have listed Season 3 at FLC. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - 30 Rock (season 3) is no longer the only issue here. As of four days ago, 30 Rock (season 4) should have been added to the topic, following a completed peer review - rst20xx (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Update on Season 3. Now a Featured List. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it? As far as I can tell, the FLC is still going on... not saying it won't be promoted, just that I can't see that it has been yet :S rst20xx (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

But is says so in Portal:Featured content. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Huh, will it was added by The Rambling Man in this edit on the 10th, but if you look at the FLC, there has clearly been action since then, and indeed the FLC is still listed at WP:FLC. I think this was probably then a mistake by The Rambling Man, but I can now see why you thought it had been promoted - rst20xx (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it was a mistake – you'll see that it's not in the promoted log for this month. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Is the FLC still ongoing? It looks stalled: Nearly a month open and there are a lot of points still needing addressing, and no edits to the article in a week. With the peer review also still needed, this topic needs delisting and renominating in the future.YobMod 13:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

This FTR has been open a very long time now, but I'm inclined to wait until the FLC closes, and then take things from there - rst20xx (talk) 23:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Oki doke. I thought FLC was still on a 10 day or 2 week schedule, unless there are too few reviewers, but that no longer seems to apply. The season 4 list also needs a lot of work before even bothering with a PR.YobMod 12:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• Just an FYI, the FLC looks to finally be near completion (3 supports, 2 weaker/conditional supports waiting for the copyeditor review that Ottava has now done, 0 oppose). Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delist. Stax is doing a good job in addressing the problems I keep bringing up at the season 3 FLC, but even if that passes FLC, season 4 is nowhere near respectible even as an audited info. It has started airing and there will be info about initial ratings, production, cast, even some reception by now. None of which is present on that page. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• I do not understand the currently listed date at FTC retention for season 4. How can that list possibly satisfy 3c until the season is completed? Every other similar issue gives plenty of time, 2010-01-27 for DJ Hero. Or, more accurately, "From the airing of the finale of Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 9), Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation will have 3 months to meet criterion 3.a." That's the whole reason I haven't been working on season 4, I thought it had 3 months from the finale to keep the topic. I mean worst case it dies and I renominate and get an easy FT credit, but I'd really like to save the bugger. Staxringold _talk^contribs 06:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure that it is past the retention and needs peer reviewing and adding to the topic per 3c, as an audited item ineligible for featured status. The three months from the finale you are referring to, is to get season 4 to FL. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 08:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well poop Ok, I'll work up Season 4 and re-FT it then. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  Looking much better already :) rst20xx (talk) 02:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Danke. If you delist the topic oh well, I get a new FT credit come season end, but what all is needed to keep the topic right now? (in terms of a peer review or whatever) Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, just a listing on peer review for season 4, with all concerns addressed, and season 3 needs to be promoted to FL. My inclination, despite how long this has taken already, is to wait for the PR to finish, because I don't see the point in demoting a topic if it's only going to be re-promoted again pretty much immediately. And then it's up to you as to what you give yourself credit for, because you'll have done no more work if this gets demoted then repromoted than if this simply gets saved - rst20xx (talk) 13:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Mebbe I'll take contributor credit... W/e. I'll roll with whatever you do. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Season 4 is now listed at peer review. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note 30 Rock (season 3) has been promoted to FL status (the bot hasn't run yet, but you can check the log). Dabomb87 (talk) 16:43, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I've now struck my delist opinion above (I am assuming that any additional PR-identified problems will fixed). Great work by Staxringold!YobMod 11:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• <3 Thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Striking delist, just a couple of things at the peer review that spill over onto the episode list, but great work in all this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks. I copy/pasted the table to kill the copy vios. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Good work. I made some superficial changes, but I'm now happy to keep this topic. The only other thing I'd add is that it would be nice to have the S1 and S2 viewing figures as well. But change is unlikely to happen overnight! Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Updating seasons 1 and 2 is definitely an eventual goal, but right now I'm mostly trolling for featured credits and that's a more thankless job. :) 30 Rock (season 4), episodes from that season, the MLB Awards FT, and 2009 World Series are my current projects. Staxringold _talk^contribs 18:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

• Close as keep - the PR has finished, so this topic is back up to standards. Well done to Staxringold - rst20xx (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Song Dynasty

Song Dynasty

8 articles

Architecture

Culture

Economy

History

Society

Technology

List of emperors

I am nominating this topic for removal because it is missing the article List of Song Emperors, which I feel it should include. When this topic was originally promoted, it was on the understanding that "List of Song Emperors should be added as soon as that list gets FL status". However, that never happened. When the sister Han Dynasty topic was up for promotion, the lack of List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty came up as an issue, with agreement the list needed adding, and that nomination was put on hold until the Emperors list was FLed, and then the topic including the list was promoted. That was over three months ago now, and there has still been no work on List of Song Emperors, so as a result I feel the Song Dynasty topic has an obvious gap - rst20xx (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I am semi-retired now, as you may have noticed on my talk page, but let me see if User:Nlu is willing to work on List of Song Emperors. After all, he helped provide additional citations for List of Emperors of the Han Dynasty when I nominated that list for featured status.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 06:42, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It is unfortunate, but I have to agree that without the emperors list there is a hole in the topic. I hope you manage to bring the list up to featured status and save the topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Nlu says he might be able to work on this a few days from now and provide citations. I certainly hope that is the case. If he doesn't, I'll see what I can do.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I could help if you need any assistance. I know a bit about Chinese emperors.—Chris!_c/t 04:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

At Pericles's request, I've added citations to Bo Yang's Timeline of Chinese HIstory (中國歷史年表) for the era names (which should also be sufficient to serve as citations for emperor reigns). --Nlu (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you Nlu! You might have just saved this. I'll see what I can do about filling in the rest by adding the appropriate "meat" of an introduction and short body before the list. Cheers.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:56, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Announcement: List of Song Emperors is now officially a Featured List candidate. Have a look...--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Update: So far, the list of emperors has four supports in favor of it becoming featured. All it needs is a minimum of ten days since the nomination began and it will certainly pass, as there are no outstanding objections to the article's nomination.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 02:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to promote - List of emperors of the Song Dynasty is now an FL (good work to everyone involved!), and so this can remain a featured topic - rst20xx (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Final Fantasy XII

Final Fantasy XII

5 articles

Characters

Music

Ivalice

Final Fantasy XII: Revenant Wings

I am nominating this good topic for removal because it fails criterion 3.(a)(i) "All articles are at least featured lists or good articles." Characters of Final Fantasy XII was demoted from good article status down to "list"-class status on June 17, 2009 and the topic has reached the end of its grace period on September 17, 2009. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: User:Rreagan007 has reassessed Characters of Final Fantasy XII to B-class status. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Demote - Characters of Final Fantasy XII should be back up to GA by now - rst20xx (talk) 16:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Ugh. Character articles aren't really my thing, but I don't want to see the SE project lose another Topic, so I'm working on this article. No promises on how long it will take, but I'll get it to GA. I'm hoping to have it at GAN before the two weeks are up, but I don't care if the topic gets demoted and has to be renominated, GAN takes a while. --PresN 16:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Aside from Characters of FFXII, Fortress (video game) also needs to be included in the topic for comprehensiveness. It is unlikely to reach GA status since it's an unannounced game, but it satisfies the criteria of notability and is related to FFXII. A peer review would be needed for inclusion in this topic. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Good point, but Fortress has three months to get PR'd and added before it becomes a problem, since you started it on the 22nd, so I'm not too concerned about it yet. It doesn't need to get done for this particular FTR. --PresN 17:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Now at GAN. --PresN 19:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

May as well wait and see how the GAN goes then. May take a while (I am currently in a GAN queue with a backlog from July!), but is no rush to delist for something that would certinaly get relisted in the near future, imo.YobMod 22:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Same here with the backlog, but mine are in the Music section, VGames tends to move a bit faster. I agree with waiting for the outcome, but don't care either way. --PresN 00:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to update everyone, Characters of Final Fantasy XII is once again a Good Article. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - PresN, I noticed that you cut the Revenant Wings characters out of the article. These characters are no longer covered anywhere in the topic - rst20xx (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• You have a point. I changed the article from, basically, "Characters of FF12 and FF12 Revenant Wings" to just that of FF12, which is what it's actually named; I've gone back and put some information about the Revenant characters into the Revenant article. I don't think there really needs to be much more information about them; Revenant Wings was just a much less notable game than FF12. 12 has enough information and notability to support character and music articles in addition to the game article; Revenant can barely support just itself. The two articles aren't in the topic as equals for a reason; Revenant is definitively under XII in the hierarchy. --PresN 01:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK, that's fine by me, thanks - rst20xx (talk) 23:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep listed, now that the problemarticle has been brought up to standard.YobMod 09:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per YobMod. — Blue。 06:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to keep - well done PresN - rst20xx (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

  Also I put a retention on for Fortress (Square Enix) needing a PR by December 22 - rst20xx (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

X-Men films

X-Men films

5 articles

X-Men

X2: X-Men United

X-Men: The Last Stand

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

I am nominating this topic as the article for X-Men: The Last Stand failed it's own GA reassessment (Talk:X-Men: The Last Stand/GA1) recently. Despite the quality of the previous articles, without this key film in the series, the coverage is not suitable entirely. There has been no real effort to improve X-Men: The Last Stand to a GA again, after the original re-assessment failed it. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. This topic still has over 2 months left on its grace period to get the article back up to GA standards, and I see no special circumstances here that would warrant early demotion. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Ahh. I'm not familiar with this grace period. Where is that written in the rules? I'm new to Featured topic information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 19:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. You can find it here. The grace period is typically 3 months from the demotion of an article. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Close as FTRC premature - rst20xx (talk) 12:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games

Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games

7 articles

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

List of champions

I am nominating this topic for removal because it has failed to meet a retention period for 2009 ACC Championship Game in regards to the criteria for 1.d and 3.c (the topic retention period was until 22 May 2009 so the topic has had an extra three months). The topic appears to "cherry-pick" since the 2009 article is not included and the 2009 article has also not been peer reviewed. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I appreciate the intent seen here, you are following the retention period objectively laid out at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria/Retention. But I also wonder, should the 2009 ACC Championship Game article even exist yet? The match isn't for another 3 1/2 months, there's no information on it beyond where it will be held. For now, it seems like all there should be is a redirect to the ACC Championship Game article. I expect that more information on the game will start to appear in the next couple of months, at which point the article will deserve to exist, and then the topic will get a fresh 3 months for the article to be PRed. But for now, I say we just merge the article - rst20xx (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rst20xx. College football season hasn't even started yet. The 2009 article was created prematurely. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Then they were all created prematurely, see this: Category:2009 NCAA Division I FBS football season especially 2010 BCS National Championship Game, 2009 MAC Championship Game and 2009 SEC Championship Game. It seems to be standard practice to create these articles almost immediately after the previous game is completed. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know where that retention period in May came from ... it should be three months from Dec. 5, which is the 2009 game. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • From creation of the article, you have three months to get it peer reviewed and added to the topic through a supplemental nomination since the game has not been played yet. Once the game is played the three months to get to GA/FA period kicks in. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Gotcha. What are you looking for at this point in the game? JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
      • My stake is primarily just to see that the currently featured topics adhere to the criteria and continue to present the best works of our project. While I am sympathetic because the article for the 2009 game was apparently created without your knowledge and this whole retention period was definitely a surprise to you, the topic at present does have an obvious gap (even if the game hasn't been played yet). I really do not care what happens in the end (demote, merge the article, etc.). -MBK₀₀₄ 03:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Well, then would you mind doing a peer review of the 2009 article? Since it's so short and no more information is available to expand it, it shouldn't take more than 30 seconds. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm not one to rubber-stamp an article review, especially since the content is not where I specialize here and regularly review (Military history). I'll bet someone would provide a review if you listed the article for one. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Erm I put the retention period up, just following the formal procedure. And JKBrookes85, you should have known, because I told you at the time. But when it came to this nomination for topic removal, it didn't appear any more information was out there, so hence I said merge. But now the article has been expanded so it looks like maybe it could merit existence at this stage - certainly a peer review wouldn't be so pointless - rst20xx (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
              • Actually to clarify I didn't notify on the date of creation (Feb 22) because I didn't realise it was created at first, but did notify when I realised on April 1. But 3 months after April 1 is July 1 so JKBrooks85 still had 3 months (4 1/2, actually) - rst20xx (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Greetings, comrades! I've reviewed the article with comments (which JKB has swiftly addressed) at Talk:2009 ACC Championship Game. Not sure if this was exactly what you all were looking for. If not, let me know how I can help. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• I've added the peer review to the box above and to the main topic box, since it's being questioned. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Since this nom was started, the article has been expanded, and so it looks like maybe it could merit existence at this stage - certainly a peer review wouldn't be so pointless. The peer review needs to be a complete run at WP:PR so all comers can have a chance to look over it if they want to - maybe you should nominate it there, and when that closes in about 2 weeks, we can add the article to the topic and close this as keep? (Though Cryptic C62's review is very good!) rst20xx (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• ...can we get that PR? rst20xx (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• You got it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Fantastic - rst20xx (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to keep - the topic is now up to standard. And needless to say, from 2009-12-05, this topic will have 3 months to meet criterion 3.a. with article 2009 ACC Championship Game - rst20xx (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts

Kingdom Hearts series

12 articles

Kingdom Hearts

Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories

Kingdom Hearts II

Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days

Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep

Kingdom Hearts coded

Characters

Organization XIII

Music

Universe

List of media

Unfortunately, Kingdom Hearts coded has not reached GA during the topic's retention period. As such, the topic does not meet Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria and should be removed. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC))

• Weak keep - I'm not sure that the given retention period is fair. Kingdom Hearts coded hasn't yet been released outside Japan, and I question whether the fact that it is yet to be released elsewhere means that the article is in fact not yet able to become a GA at this time. If this is the case, then obviously there should be a new retention period of three months starting from the release date in North America/Europe, and the just expired retention period should be scrapped as unfair - rst20xx (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree with this reasoning. Lack of a western release makes it difficult to promote the article to the quality needed for a GA. It has undergone a PR, so it should be ok. --MASEM 16:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - What if is never released outside Japan? It strikes me as highly possible that the release may be restricted to Japan, after all it is only a mobile phone game. I would be against this article as being permentantly audited as it has in fact been released. The fact that is was only in Japan, although making the article harder to write, is just an unfortunate coincidence. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment on Western release: So far, the only games not released outside Japan are Kingdom Hearts Final Mix (rereleased version with minor content additions), Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix (another rerelease), and Kingdom Hearts coded. The first mobile game for the VCAST was released 4 months after the Japanese release. Recently, Kingdom Hearts Re:Chain of Memories (an enhanced 3D remake) made its way to North America 7 months after the Japanese release. The trend implies it will be released in outside Japan, something that has been reported by the gaming press as well. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
  • Whoops, wrong game title. "Kingdom Hearts II" → "Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix". (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:28, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
• Response to Rambo - if the game is not to be released outside Japan, this would become apparent at some point (soon I would guess). At which point, the game can go under three month audit anyway, methinks, as the article would then be known to be stable - rst20xx (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I believe games that are released only in 1 country MAY still become GAs. FAC people would have strong objections, but 90% of the information about the game is still out there and therefore ought to be able to become a GA. Nergaal (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, that 10% about the game deals with the plot and gameplay. What is currently in the article is very generic and does not really say anything substantial in my opinion. I tried searching English and Japanese sites for more info, but couldn't turn up much. Same with info about the Japanese reception.
    I guess what I'm saying is that if it could have been taken to GA, I would have already. That's why I brought it here. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC))
  • Some games can but that really depends on a lot of factors. For example, the DS game Osu! Tatakae! Ouendan has only a Japan release, but was a significant import title and lead to a Japan-only sequel (also with high import value) and a western release in the same style of gameplay. However, from the "coded" page, we're talking a cell phone game that cannot be imported and already a sequel/spinoff of a successful series. I would state that if there is no western release, a combo article that group this with the two "Mix"s might be a satisfactory replacement for individual articles. --MASEM 22:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- Yeah 'coded' is not a GA, but with only a release in Japan, I feel that the 'proper and necessary' information is not really available in the "English" language to make a GA. Although with what is available, it could possibly [with work] be added as an audit in the future.--TRUCO 01:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Keep – if it can't reach GA, it can't reach GA. Appropriate for it to stay audited. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
• Which cannot reach GA? I think none of the three have even tried. I would be very suprised if an article on a minor game with 30 independant sources would be a certain fail at GA, so i am not convinced. I've seen good GAs on novels with fewer than 10 sources, and i think one GA with only 3 independant sources that got some supports at FAC. I don't think some of the peer reviews are even in depth enough (one has just 3 minor MoS comments). With 3 of these, i will say remove.YobMod 07:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm sure Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep and Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days will be able to reach GA once they are released. But they aren't the reason the topic is here. Of the three, coded is eligible for GA because it's the only one released. I didn't send it to GA because it is not comprehensive nor have I found the information to make it so; the plot and gameplay sections say very little.
    On a different note, it's the number of sources that has prevented me from merging it to Kingdom Hearts (series). I batted the idea around in my head for a while, but think it has demonstrated enough notability to have its own article. Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC))
    • I don't think you can make an informed call on whether to merge or not until the game is out in the west. Before the game is out, I think the article should be allowed to stay audited anyway - rst20xx (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment That there is not a lot of English sources is not the problem; articles can still be built on non-English sources as long as the articles are notable and the sources are reliable. We have quite a few GAs for Japanese exclusive video games. However, I think the problem here is that there might not even be a lot of Japanese sources for this game in the first place. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep; if it hasn't even been released outside Japan, you can't expect it to be a GA already. This is one of those times when common sense comes to mind over the strict grace period rule. I think you should wait to nominate it for removal until that grace period has happened since the game's North American release. Tezkag72 (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to keep - I will reset the retention period - rst20xx (talk) 14:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

National Hockey League awards

National Hockey League awards

24 articles

Stanley Cup

O'Brien Trophy

Prince of Wales

Clarence S. Campbell

Presidents' Trophy

Jack Adams

Art Ross

Calder Memorial

Conn Smythe

Roger Crozier Saving Grace

Hart Memorial

William M. Jennings

King Clancy Memorial

Lady Byng Memorial

Bill Masterton Memorial

Mark Messier Leadership

Foundation Player

James Norris Memorial

Lester B. Pearson

Plus-Minus

Maurice 'Rocket' Richard

Frank J. Selke

Vezina

This topic on the surface appears to be complete, but I think it is in fact lacking in several ways:

1. NHL Foundation Player Award was added to this topic as an audited article of limited subject matter, but now the list is 11 items long, so it should be able to become a featured list
2. Lester Patrick Trophy, a featured list, is inexplicably missing from the topic
3. NHL Lifetime Achievement Award, a new award as of 2008, should have long ago been peer reviewed and added to the topic
4. I would be inclined to add List of Stanley Cup champions (a featured list) to the topic (though this quibble is relatively minor to nos 1 and 3)

There was a previous discussion about the Foundation Player Award which resulted in a rebuttal I didn't agree with. No previous discussion about NHL Lifetime Achievement Award has occurred but I would have hoped that the topic maintainers would have been able to work out for themselves that if a new award article is created, it'd need adding to the topic.

So yeah, all in all, this leads to a failure of 1.d) and 3.a) - rst20xx (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

1. The list item minimum is a rough guideline, and it doesn't take into account a general lack of content. Considering that no WP:HOCKEY member was even aware of the existence of this trophy until after the drive was finished, it shows just how little there is about this award.
2. That's an easy one, it's not an official NHL trophy. It's just an award usually presented to former NHLers. For example, note that LegendsofHockey.net includes it in the non-NHL trophy section.
3. I was planning on sitting on this one until the 2009 ceremony and see if they actually bring it back before trying to add it to the topic. In fact, I was considering merging it with the main trophies list. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

This request is utterly pointless. For #1, if you feel strongly enough about it, nominate it for the bronze star. For #2, I believe the reason for the omission was mentioned in the promotion discussion. For #3, we honestly have better things to do than peer-review one-sentence stubs. I personally would support merging it into the main awards page. For #4, again, if you feel strongly about it, nominate it. Don't waste our time with such a pointless removal nomination, and if you're ever going to go through this for a second time, get the league name right—it's the NHL, not the NFL. Maxim_(talk) 15:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Maxim, I disagree that this discussion is "utterly pointless" as there are some things to be considered here. Personally I would oppose the "NHL Foundation Player Award" being a FL as is. If there is sufficient information to expand its lead, provide some history etc. then that is another matter, and it should be expanded/FLCd/included. The "NHL Lifetime Achievement Award" should not have its own stubby article. It is mentioned in the main page table, so maybe just an extra line in the lead would suffice for now. According to the Lester Patrick Trophy article it "is considered a non-NHL trophy because it may be awarded to players, coaches, officials, and other personnel outside the NHL", so I guess that sorts that one. As for "List of Stanley Cup champions" possibly include it, as "Stanley Cup" is included but does not have a section for the winners. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure: I should probably point out I know nothing about NHL, am a regular at FLC and set up WP:PRIZE. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Response to Maxim: Well I'm sorry that you feel this is utterly pointless, but reading what you wrote there was a bit of a theme of "if you think it's wrong in this way, you should fix it". How is it my job to fix it?!? Why should I nominate an article I've never worked on for FL? That's not my job, that's yours. Why should I be the one to merge the Lifetime Achievement Award into the main? That shouldn't be my decision, it should be yours. Topics require maintaining, just like articles, and what you've just done is the equivalent of accusing someone who nominates an FA for FARC of not fixing the article up themselves. These are decisions you've failed to make, and so here we are.
• (Having said that, to get back to #2, my inclination would still be to include it in the topic, because official or not, it's still an NHL award, and it's not like any extra work would be required to add it, what with it already being a featured list... but whatever. Also contrary to what Maxim says, #2 wasn't discussed in the promotion discussion. And to get back to #3, maybe it should be merged instead of PRed, but in that case it DOES need merging) - rst20xx (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
  • "because official or not, it's still an NHL award", Using that logic though, why not include any award or honour that an NHL player can win? Like an Olympic Gold medal, the Triple Gold Club, or even the list of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame? The topic should be limited strictly to awards/trophies done solely by the NHL. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
    • The Olympics are ice hockey but not NHL. The Triple Gold Club as far as I can tell does not have an actual award associated with it, but is just a term. However generally speaking you do have a point though, so I guess I wouldn't oppose if you guys decided not to include it. Having said that, to make a different case for its inclusion, Lester Patrick Trophy is presented by the NHL, which sets it above any other non-official award, so I think including it would not mean you have to include any other non-official NHL awards - rst20xx (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Wrong. If you care about the bronze star so much, you should nominate it, instead nominating for removal. Or have you never nominated anything for promotion before? Trust me, especially with lists, it's not that difficult. I don't mind improving articles, but I mind doing this pointless exercise. Maxim_(talk) 16:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
• I share Maxim's frustration, but for a different reason: there was no reason at all for this to go to topic removal. Seriously, did you ever even consider bringing your concerns up on WT:HOCKEY first? You know? Collaboration? Next time, try discussing concerns first if you want to be treated with any kind of respect. Resolute 17:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• Now, as to the concerns: 1) 11 items in the list does not change the almost complete lack of history and prose that can be added. It remains too short to become featured. 2) is not an NHL award. It is, in part presented by the NHL, but it is not related specifically to NHL play. If you had read the discussions on that one, you would know that consensus was that it was not a fit for the topic. And 3) If it is a brand new award, it takes time to build. You might even have tried doing that yourself. Resolute 18:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'll help out with the NHL Foundation Player Award and List of Stanley Cup champions articles, and I hope I could nominate NHL Foundation Player Award if the main contributor(s) let. I'll try to finish both by today. For the NHL Foundation Player Award article, I could just add some sentences about the list, add more columns onto it, and I'll try to find some history about it. For the List of Stanley Cup champions article, I'll just fix it up. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Foundation player award needs substantial prose expansion, and I'm not too sure if there's a lot of info on that. The Stanley Cup list's an FL btw. Maxim_(talk) 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Fixed the paragraph. I don't preview, :(. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I finished re-writing the NHL Foundation Player Award article. I right now have one question. Why is this considered a NHL trophy? The award is not on [1], and it also isn't on [2]. Hmm... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I further expanded SREKALs work, it looks like it could pass FLC now. Wanna co-nom this with me SREKAL? As for not being an NHL award, it's technically an NHL Foundation award, a branch of the NHL. Probably why it isn't listed, but still given out by an organization owned and operated by the NHL. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

LOL. I just asked if you would like to co-nom with me and Scorpion0422. i of course accept, since I asked you. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment What happened to retention periods? At the very least, a notice about the perceived gaps could have been left at the nominators' talk pages about a week beforehand. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree especially since maintaining a featured topic takes a lot of effort.—Chris! _ct 00:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, of the four issues, issue no 1 was always realistically the only one that might result in the topic's removal. Scorpion0422, one of the people who built this topic, has been aware of this potential issue for several months now. He wasn't aware that I was considering noming the topic for removal, but as can be seen, he rejected the idea that anything should be done about the issue, as have the other people who worked on the topic and have now come to this nomination. So I'm far from convinced that notifying people would have made a difference. However, I concede that perhaps more notification may have been merited, and would happily oppose this FTRC if a consensus is built that this topic should go under retention, with NHL Foundation Player Award having 3 months to get to FL - rst20xx (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You made an assumption that nobody would respond, so you chose not to bother? I'm sorry, but that is simply pathetic, and a complete and utter failure to assume good faith. You should have expressed your concerns at WT:HOCKEY, and if no response was met, then proceeded with a FT review. Bad form on your part. Resolute 01:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I assumed that Scorpion0422 would pass on/had passed on the message to the rest of you. Look, you clearly said above "11 items in the list does not change the almost complete lack of history and prose that can be added. It remains too short to become featured", backing up my logic that notification would have been pointless, but despite this, I also clearly said "I concede that perhaps more notification may have been merited". So yes, absolutely I messed up, but your coming in here and attacking me is getting us nowhere. If someone nominates something for FAR without forewarning, do you have a massive go at them? I guess you point out to them that they have mishandled things, and they should have given forewarning, but ultimately no, you assume good faith that they messed up in not doing this, and you get on and fix it. You have now had a massive go at me, when all I wanted was to see the topic undergo the improvements it has now undergone. Complete failure of WP:CIVIL on your part and I'm not going to say anything more on the matter - rst20xx (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Has the snow melted yet around your area after the massive snowstorm? Maxim_(talk) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

...there's still the odd lump here and there, that used to be a snowman, but it's been largely gone since the weekend. I've never known anything like it! :P rst20xx (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

...actually looking at the FTRC procedure again and considering that NHL Foundation Player Award is now up for FLC, I think this should probably just be kept open until the FLC finishes - rst20xx (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment I think it should be clear that List of Stanley Cup champions should be included in the topic, since Wikipedia:Featured topics/National Basketball Association awards does include List of NBA champions. Anyone disagree? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I would support such an addition, especially since the list is already featured. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Concur—Chris! _ct 00:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Moi aussi, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe that we can actually make this change as a result of whatever consensus forms in this FTRC - rst20xx (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to make a mistake on adding the article to the topic, so could someone do this ASAP. It'll be appreciated. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry to be clear, it'd be done when this FTRC closes, not before, so that consensus has a full chance to form - rst20xx (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - given that Lester Patrick Trophy is a special case of a non-NHL trophy in that it IS presented by the NHL, would there be any kind of consensus to add it to the topic? rst20xx (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would oppose its inclusion. The trophy is awarded for work promoting hockey in the United States. It has nothing specifically to do with the NHL, and in fact, several winners earned the award for reasons completely unrelated to the NHL. It is not a fit for the scope of this topic. Resolute 01:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• I would also oppose since it could also be given to ice hockey related people outside of the NHL. Also , I think article shouldn't be on Category:National Hockey League trophies and awards. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Should it be on {{NHLawards}}? rst20xx (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• No. Maxim_(talk) 02:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• So consensus to remove the Lester Patrick Trophy from both the navbox and the category? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

So here's somewhat of a rough break of the rough agreements we seem to have reached:

1. NHL Foundation Player Award: Nominated for FLC, so I think this is resolved.
2. Lester Patrick Trophy: Doesn't merit inclusion as a non-NHL trophy
3. NHL Lifetime Achievement Award: Merged, maybe re-created if it catches on (but we're talking in years)
4. List of Stanley Cup champions: Consensus to add.

Two other things: how solid (for lack of a better word) is the rule about a list having 10 items to be considered at FLC? Because the Messier and Crozier lists are not in all that bad shape compared to the Foundation list, save a slightly lower number of entries. Should those two be considered at FLC or should they remain audited until they have 10 items (so Crozier later this year, and Messier in two years)? Maxim_(talk) 02:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think the community minimum can only be decreased if the list cannot reach 10 entries. For example, if no more entries can be added, but needs to have at least 8. For NHL awards, impossible, as they can reach 10 entries in some years or so. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

• Supportthe summary stated by Maxim above. Zginder 2009-02-17T18:53Z (UTC)

Umm...this isn't a vote...and I think all FLC contributors will agree with me on this. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

• So what is this discussion re-intended for? For a supp or demote?--TRUCO 01:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

It was supposed to be a demotion, but I believe my summary is an accurate representation of the actual result here (issues addressed as described). Maxim_(talk) 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

So what's the purpose of the nom now though?--TRUCO 22:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Waiting for the outcome of the NHL Foundation Player Award FLC before proceeding - rst20xx (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ah okay.--TRUCO 22:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

• Close with consensus to keep - NHL Foundation Player Award is now an FLC, and with this I feel that all four of my concerns have been dealt with. List of Stanley Cup champions will be added to the topic. Well done, all - rst20xx (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Demoted

Video game consoles (seventh generation)

Video game consoles (seventh generation)

6 articles

PlayStation 3

PlayStation Portable

Wii

Nintendo DS

Xbox 360

I'm nominating this for removal because I don't think having 2 FAs out of a possible 6 is enough. I also don't think having 2 delisted articles is enough for it to stay, looking at other featured topics. Also please delete this. Spiderone 08:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

• Premature - I'm sure it will be back here when its time expires, but according to Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria, this topic has until October 15 to re-GA/FA Nintendo DS, and until November 24 to re-GA/FA PSP. 2 FA's out of 6 is also 1/3, which is the minimum required to be a featured topic- and even if it did not meet that, it would fall to Good Topic immediately. This nomination should be speedy removed, as none of the stated reasons are valid (yet). --PresN 17:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree with PresN, but I think it would be simplest to hide this nomination for the timebeing, then either re-bring it come October, or close it as keep if the DS is brought up to standard - rst20xx (talk) 19:50, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep and close: What if the articles get brought back up to GA before the deadline, then this nom will just kind hang there? In all honesty, that's probably an unlikely scenario, but no reason to keep the nom open in my opinion. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC))
• Withdraw I guess I'll have to wait. I just thought it was strange to have a featured topic with two articles that aren't good or featured. Spiderone 15:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - to be clear, I hid this nomination when I wrote my above comment, so it can be considered on hold for the timebeing - rst20xx (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

---

• Restarting - as Nintendo DS needs to be GA by tomorrow, and no progress has been made towards this goal - rst20xx (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delist. The earlier nomination at least means people knew this needed work. Not done yet, and looks very unlikely to be done in a reasonable time-frame, so should be delisted.YobMod 10:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delist - the existence of this nomination should have motivated those who maintain the topic to begin work on the articles before the retention period ended. I see no evidence of any work being done to merit this topic being retained. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to demote - I think this topic might have comprehensiveness concerns now as well, with articles on new versions of the DS/PSP missing, but that doesn't matter because this topic gets demoted anyway - rst20xx (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Devil May Cry titles

Devil May Cry titles

5 articles

Devil May Cry

Devil May Cry 2

Devil May Cry 3: Dante's Awakening

Devil May Cry 4

I am nominating this topic for removal because the lead article, Devil May Cry (series) was delisted as a GA on 8 July, and hence should have been a GA again by 8 October. This topic was actually demoted once before, only to be repromoted later - rst20xx (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Remove - It is a shame that no work has been done to the delisted article because as mentioned, this topic has been demoted/re-promoted before. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Close as demote - not much in the way of response here, but non-controversial - rst20xx (talk) 15:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts

Kingdom Hearts series

12 articles

Kingdom Hearts

Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories

Kingdom Hearts II

Kingdom Hearts coded

Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days

Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep

List of media

Characters

Organization XIII

Music

Universe

I'm nominating this topic because the quality of the separate articles has been found to be compromised. Specifically, the sourcing of Universe of Kingdom Hearts has been deemed insufficient, and the remaining article share the same deficiency because they use similar sources. As such, one article currently does not meet Criteria 3 (Each article is of high quality, including the referencing) and more will be sure to follow. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

• Comment - the Universe article was only delisted today, so technically this topic has until 29 December until it needs to be delisted, but as the author of this topic, if you feel that the problems with it are insurmountable, then I'm not going to oppose the topic being delisted sooner. Which other articles do you reckon may be delisted/demoted due to the sourcing concerns? rst20xx (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  As an aside, this topic should be called "Kingdom Hearts series", in terms of page names and title parameter, as is custom, and as is reflected in the piped lead article - rst20xx (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I'm still going through the articles to determine to what extent each article will be affected, but I know each article, save for the media list, relied heavily on the same group of sources for their respective development sections. User:Axem Titanium and I were unable to find the information to properly cite the sources. Music of Kingdom Hearts might still meet GA criteria, but I don't see much hope for the others. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

So you don't think proper replacement sources could be found within the next 3 months? Rreagan007 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. We did not find the sources in a month of searching for Universe of Kingdom Hearts. Axem even tried emailing operators of some Kingdom Hearts fan sites, but turned up nothing. Searching English and Japanese sites turned up nothing on my end too. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC))

Can't the artcle be merged? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that would solve the problem, if other articles are likely to be delisted/demoted also - rst20xx (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The topic is not eligible for removal. A retention period of three months is required. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 09:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I appreciate the zeal to keep high standards, but the articles must first be shown to be deficient, and only one has so far. Organization 13 was reviewed and kept its status, and it is no sure thing they will all fall like dominos. Like I said before, it still looks like a case of one article that needs to be merged to the series article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I've seen this coming for some time now. I know for a fact the interview translations from the Kingdom Hearts fansites would not pass mustard at a current FAC. And all five of the FAs use them as sources. The only one that looks like it could survive the trimming of the sources is Kingdom Hearts: Chain of Memories. Even then I'd call it a toss up.
    If others want to take the time to do more searching, I certainly won't stand in the way. But I've searched as best I can and turned up nothing. The rest of the articles still have their quality badges, but I know they don't meet current criteria. Once the E.T. GAR is finished and I complete some other obligations I'm catching up on, I plan on taking some of the articles to FAR and GAR. I'm certain that several will lose their status. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC))
    • So these fansite interviews... can you not track down the original sources? Have you tried contacting the fansites about this? With regards to the Universe article, I really feel it deserves to exist, because this is an ongoing franchise, all the Final Fantasy games post-VII have an article (two of which are GAs) and the KH universe is comparably notable, if not more so, as it has appeared in several games. Further, if several articles are possibly going to be delisted, unless the translations are re-sourced, then merging wouldn't solve anything - better to try and re-source - rst20xx (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Axem Titanium contacted them and they either didn't reply or said they didn't have the original source. I went searching through forums trying to find the original postings and did wide google searches of English and Japanese sites a number of times. I'm not saying we did the most extensive, thorough search ever conducted, but we made a very good effort. Maybe others could have more luck. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC))
  • Unfortunately, Guy is right. We experienced the same issue in Final Fantasy X's GAR, and we were forced to remove a lot of good content because it came from an unreliable source, and we weren't able to track down the Famitsu magazine which was the original source. I believe some other Final Fantasy articles use the same source (http://flaregamer.com/), e.g. FF8#Development, and they may also be delisted because a lot of the development information is from that source. The Prince (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - also worth pointing out that Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days was released in North America on September 29, and hence needs to be a GA by December 29 (just like the Universe article!) rst20xx (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That one might be possible to get to GA. But I haven't done a real search for development info. It currently uses some fansite translations and a number of well meaning fans have littered the article with citations to forums and image galleries. At least they're adding citations now. :-\ (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC))
• Close as demote - While we have two keep votes here, and no delist votes, I am going to demote this, as the purpose of retention periods is to give the author of the topic time to bring articles up to GA/FL, if they get delisted or come out of retention. Hence, if the author nominates a topic for demotion themselves, then this says to me that the topic won't be back up to standards come the end of retention. This belief is strengthened by the statements that several more articles may be demoted/delisted shortly. Anyway, I hope you are able to eventually get round the sourcing issues, because this is otherwise a very good topic, and it's sad to see it go - rst20xx (talk) 13:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Seasons of The Office (US TV series)

Seasons of The Office (US TV series)

6 articles

Season 1

Season 2

Season 3

Season 4 ^(subtopic)

Season 5

I am nominating this topic for removal because The Office (U.S. TV series) season 5 should have been a featured list by 14 August for the topic to remain comprehensive - and it is not. (Also, The Office (U.S. TV series) season 6 needs adding, but it has received a PR so this can be done non-controversially. Also, the topic should really be named to "Seasons of The Office (U.S. TV series)", as the articles were, but this is also non-controversial) - rst20xx (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I cannot see where season 5 ever went up for FLC. Could it be that the only problem is that they need to be cleaned and nominated real quickly? I mean, I'd hate to have to remove it just because the editors moved on and it was never nominated. I haven't looked at the page thoroughly, so I don't even know if it meets the FL criteria, but I did notice that it was never nominated.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  If someone is willing to quickly bring the article up to speed and nominate it, I personally would have no problem with letting that run through - rst20xx (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Remove. If the article gets improved before closing, i'll of course reconsider, but that is the whole point of having the retention period. This had already been around a month longer than even the generous retention period, so remove and renominate if ever fixed up. The expansion template indicates that more than a copyedit is needed.YobMod 15:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Remove, increasingly overdue and not at FLC even now. Bencherlite^Talk 14:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Close as demote - rst20xx (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Seasons of Lost

Seasons of Lost

6 articles

Season 1

Season 2

Season 3

Season 4 ^(subtopic)

Season 5

I am nominating this topic for removal because Lost (season 5) should have been a featured list by 13 August for the topic to remain comprehensive - and it is not - rst20xx (talk) 19:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I cannot see where season 5 ever went up for FLC. Could it be that the only problem is that they need to be cleaned and nominated real quickly? I mean, I'd hate to have to remove it just because the editors moved on and it was never nominated. I haven't looked at the page thoroughly, so I don't even know if it meets the FL criteria, but I did notice that it was never nominated.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support: I/others in the Lost WikiProject will probably clean it up and nominate it by the end of the month, but whatever. We have not proven it yet and we are past the retention period. –thedemonhog talk • edits 20:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  If someone is willing to quickly bring the article up to speed and nominate it, I personally would have no problem with letting that run through - rst20xx (talk) 21:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I also have no problem with waiting if the nomination is soon. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support removal. Over a month passed its retention period, and no work ongoing to reach FL (no reception section, so not a trivial task).YobMod 15:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
• Remove, overdue and not at FLC even now. Bencherlite^Talk 14:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• Close as demote - rst20xx (talk) 12:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Seasons of Bleach

Seasons of Bleach

12 articles

Season 1

Season 2

Season 3

Season 4

Season 5

Season 6

Season 7

Season 8

Season 9

Season 10

Season 11

I am nominating this topic for removal because it has now failed to meet its 2 retention periods, namely that List of Bleach episodes (season 10) should have been an FL by July 7th and List of Bleach episodes (season 11) should have had a completed PR by July 14th. Neither season has aired yet or come out on DVD in the west but the same issue did not prevent List of Bleach episodes (season 9) from attaining FL status back in January. Further, I notified Sephiroth BCR of the retention periods when they were set and got no objections (note the season 11 retention start time was subsequently pushed back until when the series started airing) - rst20xx (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Except for a five-minute period mid-June, when he commented on a couple AfDs, it looks like Sephiroth BCR hasn't been online since late May, when his last actions were to solicit help finishing work on seasons 10 and 11. I suspect that pesky thing called Real Life has gotten in the way, and no one seems to have stepped up to fill his hole. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just quick glancing, it seems like the season 10 article is in fairly good shape for an FLC. Lead looks good, summaries appropriate length, and everything appears reliably sourced. Maybe a quick copyedit and someone willing to take the lead on doing the FLC and it should be good to go. Season 11...not in as good a shape, but no super hideous glaring flaws, main issue is the need for sourcing and lead work. However, it is also still airing, so may be hard to do more than a PR until its done.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Well season 11 only needs a PR, for now. It won't need to be FL until 3 months after it finishes airing - rst20xx (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a minor copyedit of season 11 so any major issues with the prose in the lead should be dealt with.陣内_Jinnai 22:31, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Note to nominator: some members of the relevant wikiproject have stepped up and are working on this: the peer review of s11 is under way and the s10 FLC should be ready shortly. How long do we have before this candidacy is over? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The 10th season FLC could be harder, since in the project there are not many copy-editors.Tintor2 (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I can look at it, if anyone feels like poking me hard enough. =) I haven't seen any of season 10 specifically, but I am keeping up with the English manga and anime release, so I *should* be able to catch any glaring errors. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd offer to copyedit but I haven't even been keeping up on the manga, and last read up to about where this starts, and haven't seen any of the series since S1. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to let this have a crack at FLC, it would be a great shame to see it removed like this - rst20xx (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Season 10 looks ready to me, from a prose standpoint. I will of course make a few tweaks, but I see no major problems. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - I see that since the 11 July there has also been a season 12 article. This means that this article needs PRing and including by the 11 October. Meanwhile, season 11 finished on the 21 July, so needs to be an FL by the 21 October - rst20xx (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Should the PR on season 12 be done even if it hasn't finished airing yet, or will the date be adjusted if it is still on-going at the time? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be done even if it hasn't finished airing yet. Once it's done, that's when there'll be 3 months to get it to FL - rst20xx (talk) 07:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - is anyone actually willing to nominate the season 10 list for FLC? rst20xx (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

  Yes, I realise no-one knows who I am, but doesn't it have to go to good article review first? Also, doesn't Bleach Season 11 and Season 12 have to go to peer review or something? --Lightlowemon (talk) 04:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

  Season 11 has been peer reviewed. Season 12 needs to be peer reviewed by October 11, and season 11 needs to be an FL by October 21. Lists go straight to featured list and not via good article, unlike articles, so season 10 needs nominating for FLC and then guiding through that process - rst20xx (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

• Lightlowemon is no longer going to nominate this list for FLC. Unless someone else is willing to do this, the topic must be demoted, which seems a shame, as the article is close to featured quality - rst20xx (talk) 10:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I would nominate it, but some seasons still need copyedit.Tintor2 (talk) 13:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh I see you have just nominated it. Sorry, I started to demote the topic but then spotted you did that, my mistake! I have updated the topic box above to reflect the current status - rst20xx (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - once the FLC has passed, this topic will have the following retentions:
  • Seasons of Bleach has
    • until 2009-10-11 to meet criteria 1.d. and 3.c. with article List of Bleach episodes (season 12).
    • until 2009-10-21 to meet criterion 3.a. with article List of Bleach episodes (season 11).
  • From 2009-10-27, Seasons of Bleach will have 3 months to meet criterion 3.a. with article List of Bleach episodes (season 12).

In other words, it might be worthwhile getting season 12 PRed now as it should be included in the topic in 10 days' time. Season 11 should be an FL in 20 days as well. After that you have til January to get season 12 to FL, and I expect there'll be a season 13 needing a PR soon, and so on and so forth... :/ rst20xx (talk) 12:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

---

• Resuming... - season 10 is now an FL, but season 12 needs peer reviewing for just 4 days' time, and season 11 needs to be an FL in just 14 days, so unfortunately I think there is still work to be done - rst20xx (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think it may not be able to stay as FT since there is now some confusion regarding where season 10 ends.Tintor2 (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe we have a few months until we can clear the issue up 100%. Until then I propose carrying on as normal seeing as the list passed this morning despite the issue being raised. Judging by the comment above, it seems unlikely, but the more we get done now, the easier it will be to get the status again in the future if necessary. Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delist This has had more than 3 months discussion, on top of the expired retention period that prompted the nomintation. Waiting another 2 weeks until the next FL, then 2 weeks for that to run, gives us 7 months minimum. This is simply too long to be keeping sub-standard topics. It should be removed for now, and renominated when all reviews and promotions are finished (preferably with more than the minimum, such as season 12 being a FL, rather than waiting until after the deadline).YobMod 08:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delist I agree with the above, it has spent far too long here, and with the current arguments at season 10, season 11 being nowhere near ready for a list yet due to lack of DVD releases, and season 12 currently being edited to fans, I can't see this being able to get back up in a week or two. Take down and renominate later. --Lightlowemon (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
• Close as demote - the efforts to save this topic produced and FL and PR so were certainly admirable, but ultimately another FL and PR are now needed, and I'm not seeing that there is the will here to do that - rst20xx (talk) 11:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III

USA PATRIOT Act, Title III

3 articles

Subtitle A

Subtitle B

I know this topic technically has 2 months left on its grace period, but all 3 articles have been demoted and they're most likely not coming back. I see no reason to keep it around any longer. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delist Nergaal (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 21:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist - I agree, in this case it looks likely the articles will be unable to come back, and I think that every single article in a topic being demoted makes for exceptional circumstances - rst20xx (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to delist - rst20xx (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani albums

Gwen Stefani albums

3 articles

Love. Angel. Music. Baby.^(subtopic)

The Sweet Escape

The list acting as the main article for this was delisted as a FL over 2 months ago. Waiting to see improvment seemed preferable to delisting, but very little improvment has been made, and no indications that anyone plans to work it back up to FL, so the topic no longer meets GT criteria.YobMod 12:58, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - erm the criteria say "If any of the criteria are no longer met, or any constituents lose quality status, such topics will be eligible for a topic removal nomination after a grace period. The grace period will be three months for a demotion of an article" so this topic actually has until June 18. You're right that nothing has been done and hence it looks unlikely that anything will be done but it's far from impossible that the article could get up to standard between then and now. So I think we should wait the 3 more weeks - rst20xx (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  Oki. If you want to remove the nom and wait, it is fine with me. I am pretty certain that previous GTRs have been started with "by the time the GTR process finishes, the grace period will be over" (eg, here, which i think applies here too (many GTRs have run for more than 3 weeks, and FL take 2 weeks). Even the most simple fixes suggested by the FL delisting were not attempted, so it seemed an obvious case of not getting to FL in time - but i don't want people to complain it was out of process! Thanks for the reminder :-) 17:04, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

  Yeah that's a good point though round here processes should theoretically run for ten days... oh wait 2 weeks, if everyone's in agreement, as I would expect to be the case here. Having said that things have been a bit sluggish round here lately so I don't really know any more, just so long as it's not actually demoted before June 18 then I don't think anyone can complain and I suppose opening it earlier draws more attention to it whilst there is still time for someone to come along and decide to fix it up - rst20xx (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• ...Delist - per Yobmod - rst20xx (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - it's now June 18 hence the topic's retention has ended - rst20xx (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Whelp, delist then. --PresN 14:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist - per Yobmod. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist - I'm back from an extended wikibreak and will be working on the lead article. However, it should be delisted in the meantime. There's a lot to do. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 00:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to delist - rst20xx (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York

Numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York

5 articles

New York State Route 22

New York State Route 343

U.S. Route 44 in New York

County Route 81 (Dutchess County, New York)

The main article of this topic, List of numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York, has lost its featured list status, and looks set to be deleted. This causes the featured topic to implode, and as a result it needs demoting - rst20xx (talk) 10:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delist — topic no longer meets criteria at all there is no valid core article/list at this time, unless the Amenia article itself is substituted, and it is nowhere near the quality level needed. Imzadi1979 (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Since the lead article no longer exists, this topic no longer exists. Is the correct procedure to just delete the topic? Imzadi1979 (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
    • If by "delete" you mean "delete Wikipedia:Featured topics/Numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York" then no, that page needs to be archived to the former featured topics page - rst20xx (talk) 00:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delist - With the main list delisted as a FL and up for deletion, there is no reason for this featured topic to remain. Dough4872 (talk) 01:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
• Remove - I opposed this topic from the beginning. Nergaal (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - lead article has now been deleted - rst20xx (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delisting as parent article is deleted (3 days ago!). —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 18:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to delist - rst20xx (talk) 09:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wilco discography

Wilco albums

8 articles

A.M.

Being There

Summerteeth

Yankee Hotel Foxtrot

A Ghost Is Born

Kicking Television: Live in Chicago

Sky Blue Sky

I am nominating this topic for removal because it does not include all of Wilco's albums, with Mermaid Avenue and Mermaid Avenue Vol. II notably absent. These albums had previously unheard lyrics by Woody Guthrie, put to music written and performed by Billy Bragg and Wilco jointly. As such they are not standard studio albums, but they are still indisputably Wilco albums, and furthermore are listed as such at Wilco discography#Albums. Additionally the first of the pair outsold 4 of the 7 albums that are in the topic (there are no sales figures given for the second), so the albums are certainly notable as well. I expressed my concerns to Teemu08 about this gap almost a month ago, and got no response, so have now decided to bring the topic here - rst20xx (talk) 23:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Often times when one list albums, one only includes studio albums. Live and compilation albums are often considered "Other". I think if the topic includes all studio albums it is pretty complete. For most popular bands including all albums would blow up the album count beyond a reasonable topic size. Wilco is still young, but if we want to keep this topic manageable we should probably only include studio albums. This would be a good precedent for topics in general if it has not been brought up before.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, this topic already includes Wilco's live album. Secondly, this is a precedent that has been established before, the precedent being "include all albums", and this precedent is one that every other "albums" topic adheres to - note that M.I.A. albums includes a mixtape jointly credited to Diplo, and Powderfinger albums includes a live album and a best of album. Thirdly, in the band's first 15 years they have released 10 albums of any fashion. Topics are generally considered to be too big if they have over about 30 articles. At this rate of growth, this topic will not become too big until about 2039. I do not think we need to worry about this. (And at any rate, if we do come across a band/artist with too many albums, it can then be broken up into multiple topics at that stage, but there is no reason at all to do so otherwise) - rst20xx (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I was unfamiliar with the precedent.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with Delisting. "Albums" should include any and all recordings larger than EPs. And since the topic's main article is Wilco discography one could argue that any EPs notable enough for articles should be included. (But I'm not making my !vote based on that.) —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 06:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

• Using a discograpgy FL for an albums topic, while exluding EPs and singles, is one thing; but all the studio albums should be included at minimum. Unforunately for this topic, i agree that this includes the collaborative albums, as they are important parts of Wilco's discography (not just a track donated to a compilation, or a guest appearance) so delistYobMod 13:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
• Closing as consensus to demote. A lot of work has gone into it, but consensus for album topics is to include all studio albums at least, and no arguments are given as to why 2 of wilco's studio albums are not included here.YobMod 20:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Lists of universities in Canada

Lists of universities in Canada

6 articles

British Columbia

Ontario

Quebec

Atlantic Canada

Canadian Prairies

Someone had to do it. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 23:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Well OK, what's happened here is that the 5 sublists have been demoted, and will be shortly merged into the main list. Obviously, that leads the topic to implode, so it needs removing - rst20xx (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

All the sub-lists are now redirects to the main list, I notice. Bencherlite^Talk 20:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist - no longer satisfy the criteria—Chris! _ct 23:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, Rambo's Revenge (ER) 23:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist, but why is this down as a "good topic" for delisting? It was a featured topic - see December 2008 log for FTs compared to the log for GTs. Bencherlite^Talk 07:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  I shared your confusion. See this. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

  Perhaps it's because the talk page says that it's a Good topic, albeit one that's fully featured. I can't spot the bug, though... Bencherlite^Talk 20:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  I could be way off, but I don't think it's a bug. I believe that the articles in each topic are counted through {{FeaturedTopicSum}} and the template automatically determines if it should be a GT or FT. In this case, the delistings caused the topic to no longer have the required percentage of featured content for FT, and thus be automatically downgraded to a GT. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  That would make sense! Bencherlite^Talk 22:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

  OK guys, there is a bug here, let me clarify what's been going on. We have two seperate things being discussed.

  1. With regards to FT vs GT: featured topics require 2 featured items and at least 33% featured. This topic no longer meets either of these requirements, so yeah, it automatically got downgraded to GT when all the articles dropped off. This was done through {{FeaturedTopicSum}}, like Rambo's Revenge said.
  2. With regards to the fully featured star appearing: this topic is still, paradoxically, a fully featured topic, in the sense that every article that isn't audited or under retention, is featured! ... and when I wrote the system, I said the star would appear if that condition was met. I didn't think about the 33%/2 articles minimum rules needing to be met too. So this is a bug - I think for a topic to be fully featured, it should at least be featured :P and so I've now changed the templates to reflect this. And so bye bye star - rst20xx (talk) 01:00, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  Although the talk page still says (my emphasis) "This page serves as a project discussion for the Good topic, Lists of universities in Canada. Every article in this topic is featured if possible." (!) Bencherlite^Talk 01:13, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

  Ack missed that. Fixed. Well, I fixed it so it doesn't say it for good topics anyway. It might still say it for featured topics with articles under retention but I think this was a policy decision some time back (based on the logic that retention is temporary, and also that the system can't distinguish between audited and retained articles) so I'm not going to change this - rst20xx (talk) 01:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delist No longer meets the criteria, and most of these lists won't even exist anymore. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist Obvious. Zginder 2009-04-19T19:26Z (UTC)
• Delist. Unfortunate, but necessary, and i do think the combined list will be better for readers.YobMod 09:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delist —Terrence and Phillip 07:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Close with consensus to delist - rst20xx (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Halo trilogy

Halo trilogy

4 articles

Halo: Combat Evolved

Halo 2

Halo 3

As per discussions at the just passed Halo media featured topic candidacy, this topic overly overlaps with that one, and so should be removed. The only article contained in this topic and not that topic is the main article, Halo (series), which can (will?) be reincluded at a later date via a future Halo overview topic. As an aside, the Halo media topic took me over an hour to promote :S Too many s :/ - rst20xx (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• Demote - No real reason for this to stick around, even if there is an additional article that wasn't included in the new one, if it will be introduced at a future date. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 17:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove per above. On a side note I think the halo media topic should have stayed as a supplementary nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Remove Zginder 2009-02-17T18:51Z (UTC)
• Remove, and comment --Since this topic is now encompassed by the List of Halo media, can we just redirect this page to the new one? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 20:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
  • You mean Wikipedia:Featured topics/Halo trilogy? I think it's meant to sit on the former featured topics page. And beyond policy, to give an argument as to why doing it that way might be beneficial, it highlights past procedure that may serve to inform future topic builders - rst20xx (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Ah. Okey dokey. (Man, I should have just left the other one a supplementary nom and saved all this trouble in the first place... oh well. :P) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 23:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
• Question and Comment Will this topic be listed on the Wikipedia:Former_featured_topics page? I don't believe that it really belongs there for 2 reasons. First, this was really just a supplementary nomination. And second, this topic will never be re-nominated as long as a larger halo topic is featured. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Well that's what I just said. But I'm getting the sense that everyone now wants the media nom to have been a sup nom. I wonder if there's consensus to bend the rules a little? rst20xx (talk) 18:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
    • Uh, which way? --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
      • Well it's too late now to have that be considered a sup nom but we could I guess merge this topic into that one like you suggest, which would include a merge of {{featuredtopictalk}} and the two talk pages in general. Actually I don't see why topics can't be merged, everything else can be merged after all! rst20xx (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
• Demote and ? -- Well like someone said it would be best to either redirect it or not list it on the former archive page.--TRUCO 01:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
• Merging - I shall attempt to merge the two in a sensible manner. Wish me luck - rst20xx (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
• OK, I am going to effectively treat this as a standard removal, except I won't list this topic at WP:FFT, I will redirect it to the media topic, and also see [3] - rst20xx (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)