Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates

2 Potential 2 topic question
So I was planning out possible topics for WP:DRWHO and had a question regarding this possible topic. . So these actors have portrayed the numbered incarnations however their are other version who could be included, Jo Martin appears as the Fugitive Doctor, John Hurt appears as the War Doctor, and Michael Jayston appears as The Valeyard. Should these articles be included? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it would probably be safe sticking to the 14 actors who played the 15 Doctors who were series leads. I've never really watched the shows but from what I've read, these actors you've selected are probably a good, practical and complete group. Maybe the topic title could be more specific, alluding to series lead Doctors? or something similar. Idiosincrático (talk) 16:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Potential topic question: Inclusion of band members BLPs to topic scope
Hi! I am in the process of overhauling articles/lists about SB19, with the intent of putting those for candidate at WP:FT. Now, each band member has their own Wikipedia articles (Josh Cullen (musician), Pablo (Filipino musician), Stell (singer), Felip (musician), Justin (Filipino singer)), and I am not quite sure if those should be included in the topic's scope, especially since I have not seen a band FTs that include each band member's biography. I want to ask for comments on whether the articles of each band member should be in the topic scope or not; this is so I can see the consensus before nominating the topic for candidacy, and I can act accordingly to meet the topic for the criteria. Thanks! – Relayed (t • c) 17:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Unless I've just completely missed others, the only band topic that exists is the Ben&Ben Overview; the band doesn't have individual articles for the members. Although, I still think that an SB19 topic should include the band members' articles, mostly because the members are not ambiguous and they're clearly defined. If there was say a One Direction topic, I'd consider the topic incomplete if it didn't include all the members' articles, as they're very-well defined: Niall, Liam, Harry, Louis and Zayn. Whereas a band like Dire Straits has a seperate article which lists the members of the band; such an article could be used as a lead for a topic listing all the members of the band. The SB19 article literally has all the band members listed in the first sentence of the lead; I feel like if there was two topics, one with the band members and another with the band details (like the one presented), it would just be an unnecessary mess. A complete combined topic with everything is probably more appropriate. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, ! I just saw your reply, which I think does make sense. Thanks for the insight! – Relayed (t • c) 13:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Voyager program
There are currently 3 GAs related to the program.Voyager 1Voyager 2Pale Blue DotCan they be made into a good topic? — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I imagine Voyager program would also need to be included as the topic itself. If the Pale Blue Dot article is also included in the topic, I believe Family Portrait (Voyager) would also need to be a GA. I used Template:Voyager program to see what might need to be included. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A complete Voyager program topic would need to include more articles from the Template:Voyager program (like mentioned above). But I think if the Voyager program article reaches GA status then we could make a "Voyager spacecraft" topic, which would include both Voyager 1 and Voyager 2. But the Voyager program is a very sophisticated L4 vital article which would be a mountainous task. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Voyager program is on my to-do list for GA and I'll pick it up soon. Maybe that Voyager Spacecraft topic sounds more feasible. Thank you both :) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Closure Request
, 3 of 4 of our FT noms have 6+ supports and have been open for about two weeks or more. We also have 6 Topic Removal Candidates that have been up for quite some time and have consensus to delist. Would it be possible for one to process these closures? Thank you :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 15:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi there! Yes, thanks, these are on my radar and I've just promoted one of them. The TRCs cannot be done by the bought and take a rather long time to do manually, so we've been purposefully putting them off :) In any case, I'll attend to them this weekend.  Aza24  (talk)   18:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 18:32, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

New FGTC Coordinator Proposal
Hi all, I would like to formally nominate as the third FGTC coordinator, alongside  and I. Kyle has been involved the FGTC project for a while, participating in discussions and contributing an impressive seven topics of his own. He is a seasoned editor with a two FAs, over 80 GAs, alongside a plethora of DYKs.
 * I formerly accept this nomination, as I would really enjoy to give back after all these contributions over the years! --K. Peake 06:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

One of our current coordinators,, volunteered in a temporary capacity until we could get this project moving again. He has enough on his plate and we can ask no more of him! Thanks for your efforts here Gog.  Aza24  (talk)   20:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Many thanks. I would like to heartily endorse Kyle, who would be a fine coordinator. Obviously, if they are endorsed I would immediately be replaced by them. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. Kyle is a regular presence in FTC and would make a fine coordinator. FrB.TG (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. I've had very positive experiences with reviews involving Kyle Peake and am confident that he would do a great job as a coordinator. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support :) Idiosincrático (talk) 23:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support, if they put in similar contributions here to their work at GAN they would make a good coordinator. CMD (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support I've nothing but the best complements to Kyle. Great reviewer, always eager to learn and improve. It couldn't have been a better choice. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)  @ 14:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Aoba47 (talk) 01:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Support Pseud 14 (talk) 21:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Article inclusion on future Good Topic
A few of us are working towards a potential good topic on Doctor Who specials (2023). I suggested that the mini-episode "Destination: Skaro" should be included in this topic as it falls within the scope of the specials. The would-be primary page for the topic includes an episode table for the mini-episode, as well as brief information on its production, release, and novelization. It's also included as a link in two navboxes, and Fourteenth Doctor stories, both of which, at this time, are limited in links to the three 2023 specials and the mini-episode. This leads me to believe that it should be included per WP:GT? points 1(B) and 1(C), and that excluding it (whether it's a good article at that time or not) leans towards failing 1(D).

said it shouldn't be included because mini-episodes weren't "historically" included in the series six good topic ("Space", "Time" and Night and the Doctor would be the relevant mini-episodes). I do disagree with the use of "historical" given that the aforementioned GT was just promoted in January. I also cited WP:OTHERCONTENT as a potential argument to move forward with it's inclusion in the 2023 specials and deal with series six at a later date, but that was shot down because it "usually applies to unrelated topics" (which is up for interpretation, because as they're part of the same programme, they are "unrelated" sets of episodes). Anyways, it could also be argued that the exclusion of "Space", "Time" and Night and the Doctor could also cause the topic to fail 1(D), but I'm not personally pushing for a delisting discussion at this moment.

That said, the only question I have at this time, is when we get to the point of nominating the Good Topic for 2023, should we include "Destination: Skaro"? (Pinging as the other main contributor to this future GT.)  The Doctor Who Public (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I personally have no preference either way. I do feel including them doesn't really have any compelling counter-arguments, so I feel it would be more comprehensive to include them, but I'm not too plussed if they end up being excluded from the GT. If we do decide to include the minisodes, I do feel we should focus on promoting Night and the Doctor in order to preserve the S6 GT, but that's a discussion for another day. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My question would be, would be be including these mini-episodes because there's a compelling reason for them to be included, or would it just be for the sake of completion? I've looked at the linked WP:GT page and 1(D) says There are no obvious gaps. I would content that leaving out the mini-episodes does not fail 1(D) because leaving them out doesn't create obvious gaps. Regarding series six, I was vaguely aware that there was some Comic Relief content at the time but I never saw it, and today is the first time I've learned the DVD-exclusive mini-episode exist. And yet, I've missed nothing by not having seem them. So for me, they're not obvious gaps. As for points 1(B) and 1(C), my reading of these is that while they suggest that the episodes can be included, they don't go far as to say they should be included. Therefore, I have a (weak) preference to leaving them out. But if the consensus goes the other way, I won't put up a fight. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding 1(D), it specifically says "A topic must not cherry-pick only the best articles to become featured together." The mini-episodes are notable enough to have articles and are important enough to include in the templates. The Infobox quite literally includes them in the episode count "No. of episodes: 13 (+3 supplemental)" (or No. of episodes: 3 (+1 supplemental) for the 2023 specials). By choosing to exclude them, it just feels like very obvious cherry-picking to me. Essentially saying "they're only important enough to include as part of the season coverage but not in an overview topic on the season". Just because some people aren't aware of them doesn't mean they're not gaps in the topic. With over two million views on YouTube alone (likely more in the actual CIN broadcast), viewership on the mini-episode is on par with or has surpassed overnight viewership on some full episodes of Doctor Who. I wasn't aware that there was a Game of Thrones soundtrack yet it's still included in the relevant good topic. Regardless, I'm still not sure why the exclusion in series six automatically means we have to assume exclusion in the 2023 Specials when they could be handled on a case-by-case basis. The Doctor Who  (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)