Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Featured log/May 2017

Contributor(s): MPJ-DK

This Feature Topic is about the professional wrestling championships currently promoted by Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL), Some of the articles with large tables have been split into an article about the championship and a list of champions. This topic covers all active championships that have articles on Wikipedia, 15 out of the 26 are Featured work, the remaining 11 are Good Articles and thus qualifies for Featured Topic. There is a navigation box that unites all subjects under one and I believe this hits all the marks for a Feature Topic.

Since the topic here is not about the champions but the championships the topic size is very stable, and does not change from year to year. There are currently three Good Topic sub topics for this feature topic, with 2 more close to being ready for GT nomination as well. This Feature Topic is the culmination of my Lucha Libre championship work that started Featured List in April 2009 and only eight short years later it's completed. I will be creating the book in the next day or two.

And yes I'll have a "Former CMLL Championship" Feature Topic candidate at some point in the future, hopefully in less than 8 years from now.  MPJ-DK  00:03, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Update March 4 - the CMLL World Heavyweight Championship article is now a Featured Article as well.  MPJ-DK  16:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Topic seems fine, but please expand the lead. Nergaal (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nergaal: that is a fair point, I have expanded it with some detail from the main article. Better??  MPJ-DK  19:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Nergaal: - I have expanded the lead, does that work for you? If so I'd love your support.  MPJ-DK  16:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support in principle. Nergaal (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Overall, it looks good, however, there's a discrepancy in the summary. You said that the Mexican National Lightweight Championship was created in 1932, but the article says June 28, 1934, and then the Mexican National Welterweight Championship says it was created on June 17, 1934, which actually makes it older. The summary on the Welterweight title only says that it's the oldest in the U.S., Canada, and Japan, but nowhere else. That to me says that there's actually an older title that's still active, it's just not promoted in those 3 countries. The source on the article is from 2000, so that may or may not still be true. --JDC808 ♫ 21:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @JDC808: You are right about the discrepancy and that the Welterweight is actually older, I'll check my sources to see if I can figure out where the 1932 figure comes from (unless it was a brainfart - which I freely admit can happen). I'll track down the US/Can/Japan claim but I that's just an unfortunately restrictive phrase used, the scope is world wide as far as I'm aware, but again I've got the book I'll check. Side note - if it's listed as "the oldest" in 2000 and still exists today then that is still the truth unless we invoke time travel.  MPJ-DK  21:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It's listed as the oldest for those three countries, but not the world. For example, Europe or some other country may have an active pro-wrestling title that's still active, but not promoted in the US, Canada, or Japan. The other comment was that maybe it is in fact the oldest active title now. As in, maybe at that time (2000), there was an older active title in another country, but that older title has since been retired. --JDC808 ♫ 21:44, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a big old D'oh on my part for misreading the magazine comment.  MPJ-DK  22:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Cannot find the 1932 date but I have adjusted for the Welterweight being the oldest, not just older than US/Canada/Japan but world wide as far as I can find.  MPJ-DK  22:24, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I would suggest to say that it's "one of the oldest" until there's definitive evidence to support that it is in fact the oldest still active world wide. --JDC808 ♫ 22:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• So I actually did that research in the past, I just had the date for the Lightweight creation when I checked the Wrestling Titles history book a while back, not noticing that the Welterweight predated it by a little. Part of my search is also based on the age of promotions - with no other active promotins dating to 1934 I found no championships with unbroken lieage dating back that far.  MPJ-DK  22:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good!LM2000 (talk) 08:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending the creation of a book for the topic. --PresN 01:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Featured Topic.--十八 23:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first-ever Good Topic nomination and it deals with an article that I've been to work on for a long time. I've worked on both the article about the album and on each of the main singles that were released for the album. Erick (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support its nomination. Well done Erick – jona ✉ 15:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – nice to see this completed. Carbrera (talk) 23:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Support – contains the singles and the album. Kees08(Talk) 19:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 00:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For consideration for Good Topic status. These articles are concerned with the Marvel vs. Capcom series of crossover fighting video games. All articles have been promoted to Good Article status, and the currently unreleased title, Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite, has been peer reviewed. Thank you to all the editors who have contributed to the articles, took the time to peer review them, and review their GA nominations. Wani (talk) 19:16, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Meets all the criteria. I remember reviewing some of them when I was still active a year ago. Great work on the topic anyway. AdrianGamer (talk) 15:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Yep, it meets the criteria. Was going to post this earlier, but forgot about it - sorry about that.--IDV^talk 16:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Nice to see WP:VG still gets some neat topics done. igordebraga ≠ 06:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: A satisfactory collection. --ProtoDrake (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, having given mini-peer assessment reviews to several of these. --PresN 01:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic.--十八 00:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor(s): Ritchie333, Dr. Blofeld, Anarchyte, OcarinaOfTime

In summer 2015, Dr. Blofeld asked me if I fancied working on Piccadilly, which ended up with us getting it to good article status. We then had a go at Park Lane, at which point I thought, "wouldn't it be a good idea to get all the places on the Monopoly board up to GA?" We had a few initial problems; Vine Street had narrowly survived AfD, Pentonville Road hadn't even been written, and I wasn't sure if I'd have enough source material for tackling the better-known landmarks such as King's Cross station and Trafalgar Square. Still, several people chipped in to help and 21 months later it's all done, so here is a good topic for you, hopefully in name and in spirit. Enjoy! (Homage must be paid to Tim Moore for the basic concept, whose book "Do Not Pass Go" was mined extensively for all articles here. --Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Ritchie333 and everyone involved has done an amazing job at getting all these articles to GA. Anarchyte (work | talk) 23:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Must be a Bank error in their favour, but definitely collects two-hundred sovs with this. — O Fortuna ^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:12, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support it's very kind of Ritchie333 to include me, but I merely tweaked the list and reviewed two GAs, so I'm removing myself as a nom, and thereby allowing myself to vote in support of this featured topic candidate. I want to see mainline stations of London next. The Rambling Man (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is a truly impressive set of articles. Well done! --Coemgenus (talk) 13:18, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support My concerns that this is a trivial categorisation is overcome by the sheer number of affected articles. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• At risk of being sent to Jail without passing Go or collecting £200, may one ask about Go, Community Chest, Income Tax, Chance, Jail/Just Visiting, Electric Company, Free Parking, Water Works, Go to Jail, and Super Tax? Piped as appropriate. 213.205.198.67 (talk) 16:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One may, and my response is none of those are actually locations in London per se (and indeed Community Chest has never been a London "thing" full stop). The original draft of the project did have things like Metropolitan Police Service, London Electricity Board, Metropolitan Water Board (London) (and M25 Motorway for "free parking"), and I mulled over whether to do the utilities in particular, but ultimately concluded they were a bit too arbitrary a choice for what is a list of visitable streets and properties. The main list article does specifically make a point of not including these terms. Horses for courses, anyway. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you might say the topic is London locations, not squares on the London Monopoly board. I suppose it becomes a question of defining the topic appropriately. As you say, horses for courses. In any event, a significant achievement, so well done.

• Support very funny :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good work! Kees08 (Talk) 20:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is an amazing well-researched and well-written topic, across the board. Well done! --haha169 (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - one word "wow". That is a lot of Good Articles and it seems to cover the full topic, as explained above it's not all squares on the board, but all locations.  MPJ-DK  00:35, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support hilarious and downright amazing work you've done here. igordebraga ≠ 06:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64: I think this is pretty much a slam dunk. Kees08 (Talk) 14:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 00:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabian Peninsula has been affected by at least 57 tropical cyclones, several of which have been damaging or deadly.

Contributor(s): Hurricanehink

After a lot of work, I managed to get every single storm that affected the Arabian Peninsula listed in a single article. Every storm that has an article is a good article, except for Cyclone Gonu which is featured. I'll happily address any concerns you might have about this series of articles. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - As far as I can tell, all of the notable storms have articles and they're all listed here, so no concerns about cherry picking. Clear topic and an impressive body of work. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for a great collection of articles. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 15:14, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Arabian Peninsula tropical cyclones/addition1

For consideration to become a good topic: a high-quality, complete, and relatively straightforward set of articles concerning the Atlantic hurricane season of 1896. The two well-documented storms of the season have standalone articles, while the rest are discussed within the season article. Note that although Tropical Storm Seven – which doesn't have its own article – was highly destructive, it struck an impoverished and remote island, and information about it is consequently scarce. Thanks, – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support as one of the GA reviewers. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:36, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support Enough detailed articles for the season.—CycloneIsaac (Talk) 04:22, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - If 5 can have an article, then 2 should have one too. Nergaal (talk) 10:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nergaal: All of the notable info available for Hurricane Two is in the season article. Whilst I would love to have written standalone articles for each and every storm in the season, the sparse meteorological records of the 19th century don't allow us that luxury. I think you'll agree that splitting two paragraphs off into its own page would be pointless, especially since the season article is acceptably short as it is. It would be nice to do a little research or consult involved editors before opposing. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sure info from back then is sparse, but same way you found info for 5 you should be able to get info for 2 also. Nergaal (talk) 10:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I just told you that information doesn't exist. In the US, Hurricane Two had a much lighter impact in a much smaller area than Five, and only a few precious nuggets of info are available from Puerto Rico. I consulted my fairly comprehensive library of weather books, along with three newspaper archives and all the other sources I've compiled from 10 years of writing tropical cyclone articles, and could not find anywhere near enough on the storm to support its own page. It would be a permanent stub. I think you'll find that you're objecting to the balance of historical records and not to Wikipedia's coverage of this topic. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:12, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi Nergaal, do you have any outstanding concerns? – Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:50, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well written and comprehensive. No issues from what I can see. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 01:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as the reviewer of two out of the three articles. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support small topic, but hits the marks from a quality standpoint.  MPJ-DK  00:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 03:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor(s): Cartoon network freak

All article were promoted to GA status, so I think this should be promoted... ;) --Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good to me. All singles and the album itself are included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kees08 (talk • contribs)
• Needs a book, but looks good so far. Ping me if you need help with that and/or can't figure it out from one of the other GT nominations. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Director Comment - This nomination needs to have more discussion here before a consensus can be made. Otherwise this will have to be closed soon. GamerPro64 14:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Appears complete and inclusive. Jclemens (talk) 03:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as this looks complete and ready for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I think it's got all the bases covered.  MPJ-DK  00:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even Romanian pop singers get a dedicated editor fandom here. (to the point you might all Alexandra Stan topics into a single one if Mr. Saxobeat and Get Back (ASAP) ever become GAs) igordebraga ≠ 02:44, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Closed with a consensus to promote to Good Topic. - GamerPro64 03:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]