Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates

Featured and good topics in Wikipedia

A featured topic (FT) is a collection of inter-related articles in which at least half are featured articles or featured lists. The remaining articles must be at least good quality.

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

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

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

The featured and good topics coordinators Aza24, MaranoFan and Kyle Peake determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FT or GT status, consensus must be reached for a group to be promoted to featured or good topic status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates topic and archived.

To contact the FGTC coordinators, please leave a message on the FGTC talk page, or use the {{@FGTC}} notification template elsewhere.

You may want to check previous archived nominations first:

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Shortcuts

Featured content:

Good content:

Featured and good topic tools:

Nomination procedure

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

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

Supporting and objecting

Please review all the articles of the nominated topic with the featured and good topic criteria in mind before deciding to support or oppose a nomination.

To edit nominations in order to comment on them, you must click the "edit" link to the right of the article nomination on which you wish to comment (not the overall page's "edit this page" link).
If you approve of a nomination, write '''Support''' followed by your reasons. Supports that clearly evaluate the criteria will be weighted more than those that do not.
If you oppose a nomination, write '''Oppose''' or '''Object''' followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to fix the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored.
- To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>...</s>) rather than removing it.

For a topic to be promoted to featured or good topic status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. The FGTC coordinators are usually the ones to assess this consensus and close FGTC discussions. If there is a consensus to promote, the promote instructions are located here. If enough time passes without objections being resolved (at least one week), nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived. Nominations will stay here for ten days if there is unanimous consent, or longer if warranted by debate.

Featured topic nominations

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

3 articles

Bibliography

Awards and honours

Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie is a good article while her bibliography as well as awards and honours are featured lists.Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:42, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ – Missing the views article. NimbleNumbat (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NimbleNumbat, the views article doesn't exist at least for now because it places undue weight to the main article. I hope you could revise your comment. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support – NimbleNumbat (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose transphobic people shouldn't be promoted. Skyshiftertalk 07:20, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with her views on trans people and also don’t really love the idea of a transphobic person having a good topic, but I think we should let our views on the topic’s content be separate from our assertion of the topic’s actual quality Crystal Drawers (talk) 16:42, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is anywhere on Wikipedia where articles or even editors are judged based on their views, and citing her views as the purpose of opposing is something I will leave to the promoters because it doesn't seem like a "good will" to this project. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:42, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Articles look to be well-written and good overall Crystal Drawers (talk) 16:44, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good topic nominations

Tinashe studio albums

8 articles

Aquarius

Nightride

Joyride

Songs for You

333

BB/Ang3l

Quantum Baby

I nominate Tinashe studio albums as GT, as her studio albums articles are recently passed GA. Specially thanks to @RedShellMomentum: for the GA reviews.

Support: Albums are GA and discography is FL, so good to go. Red Shell Momentum 02:20, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support NimbleNumbat (talk) 06:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On paper this is a support, but I'm a bit concerned over the quality of the GA reviews conducted for the albums, given that all of them passed almost immediately with very few comments. Aside from the fact that none of the GA reviews indicate that a spotcheck occurred (usually the sources checked would be mentioned at some point in the review), there are lots of little things in some of the articles which probably should have been found and addressed during the GA reviews: Nightride doesn't have a Commercial performance section, Joyride lacks a composition section, many of the articles are missing complete or cited personnel sections, etc. I'm also seeing massive WP:OVERQUOTE issues in all of the articles except maybe Songs for You, where the Reception sections are almost entirely made up of direct quotes instead of paraphrased exposition. Per WP:RECEPTION, this overuse of direct quotes can be seen as a copyright violation, and it definitely should have been addressed during the GA reviews for the albums (WP:GACR6#2d). Thus, while the topic may look complete, I feel like the quality of the individual articles are not enough for me to support it just yet. Leafy46 (talk) 05:58, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Leafy46: I almost addressed the problems you've mentioned. However, should all of the album articles contain "Commercial performance" and "Compisition" sections? For now, I made "Commercial performance" on Nightride and "Music" on Joyride, but actually, they're not essential, including credits on personnel, since this good article's Personnel section is not cited either. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 09:07, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsure what you mean here by saying those section are "not essential", as any major lapse in an article's coverage makes it fail WP:GACR6#3a, and missing entire sections of an article like this are a clear violation of that rule. MOS:ALBUM clearly states that a composition section is necessary if there is commentary about the style of an album, and if there is commentary about its individual songs. Commercial performance sections are also required per MOS:ALBUM; in fact, a text version of the information is the preferred format, with the table being the optional component. Finally, credits and personnel section may not need to be cited, but they should at least be complete, and having a citation is an easy way to prove that. This is especially true for 333, as I hardly believe that the only personnel involved are the album artists and package designers.

It's these sorts of holes which make me unconfident in the quality of the GA reviews. Again, almost all of them were passed with only a few minor complaints, if any at all, despite these large issues being fairly obvious from nothing more than a skim through the articles. Especially because the review don't provide any evidence to suggest that a spotcheck has been conducted, I thus am not personally comfortable supporting this nomination until other user(s) have looked through these articles to verify their quality. Leafy46 (talk) 19:49, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear here, I'm not going to outright oppose this nomination. If other users don't see an issue with the quality of the GA reviews here and choose to support this nomination, that's fine with me. However, I also don't support this nomination either, hence why I'm leaving my vote as nothing but a "comment" for others to consider. Leafy46 (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Leafy46: As you addressed, "but they should at least be complete", Personnel section on 333 has been improved thanks to Tidal. Also, please check that I added Commercial performance and Music (working same as Composition) on Nightride and Joyride respectively. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 03:04, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Group 4 elements

The group 4 elements are a group of transition metals located in the periodic table. All the group 4 elements are silvery refractory metals, and their volatility decreases with atomic number. Each occurs naturally, except for rutherfordium, which is strongly radioactive.

Group 4 elements

5 articles

Titanium

Zirconium

Hafnium

Rutherfordium

Contributor(s): Stone, Mav, Reconrabbit, Cryptic C62, WP Elements

Now that titanium has been promoted to GA again, I believe this topic fits with the criteria for a good topic. --¹⁴¹ Pr -_\contribs/- 14:27, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support igordebraga ≠ 17:32, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Keres🌕Luna ^edits! 19:59, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, great job everyone! Choucas0 🐦‍⬛⋅📬⋅📜 22:10, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support NimbleNumbat (talk) 06:32, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest (5th supplementary nomination)

This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:

San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest 2025

San Marino in the Eurovision Song Contest

17 articles

2008

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

Renominating to add the most recent participation, 2025, which is now a WP:GA as well. Grk1011 (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support as a straightforward addition of the latest event. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: are the 2024 and 2025 entries intended to redirect to 2023? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: No, but they don't redirect there anyway. Can you clarify? I'm a bit confused. Grk1011 (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I hallucinated it. I must be turning into an AI. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support NimbleNumbat (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Baby

Quantum Baby is the seventh studio album by American singer Tinashe. It was released on August 16, 2024 through her own independent label, Tinashe Music Inc., and Nice Life Recording Company. The album was supported by three singles, "Nasty", "Getting No Sleep" and "No Broke Boys". The lead single "Nasty" received global hit through TikTok, eventually peaking at number 61 on Billboard Hot 100. Additionally, the 2025 remix of "No Broke Boys", by Disco Lines, also met global success, charting at number 2 on UK Singles Chart. The album received generally positive reviews from music critics, reaching at number 199 on Billboard 200.

Quantum Baby

3 articles

"Nasty"

"Getting No Sleep"

"No Broke Boys"

Contributor(s): Benmite, Camilasdandelions

Nominating these series for WP:GT since all of the articles above recently passed GA. Seems these articles have similar topics at all.

Support as the one who passed the album, "Getting No Sleep", and "No Broke Boys" for good article status. RedShellMomentum ☎ ✎ 16:21, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support NimbleNumbat (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Missed the concert tour article which are generally included in these types of topics. NimbleNumbat (talk) 06:36, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Match My Freak: World Tour, the concert tour supporting the album, isn't a good article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huon Peninsula campaign

From the lead: "The Huon Peninsula campaign was a series of battles fought in north-eastern Papua New Guinea in 1943–1944 during the Second World War. The campaign formed the initial part of an offensive the Allies launched in the Pacific in late 1943 and resulted in the Japanese being pushed north from Lae to Sio on the northern coast of New Guinea over the course of a four-month period."

Huon Peninsula campaign

9 articles

Landing at Scarlet Beach

Battle of Finschhafen

Battle of Sattelberg

Battle of Wareo

Landing on Long Island

Battle of Sio

Landing at Saidor

Battle of Madang

Contributor(s): AustralianRupert (one of the authors, retired); Hawkeye7 (main author, active); Matarisvan (nominator)

A chance encounter today led to this nomination. I saw the Sattelberg article at the On This Day anniversaries section, and learnt to my pleasant surprise all of the articles in the campaign were GAs. I didn't include the Battle of Madang in this topic because I believe it fits better in the Markham, Ramu and Finisterre campaigns topic. If editors want Madang to be included here, I can add it later. --Matarisvan (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both. Just checking to see if you think Battle of Madang should be in there. Someone is going to ask you, and it may as well be me. I'm guessing not, and as it is a GA anyway it makes little difference. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It should be; it was the climax of the campaign. I always included it in User:Hawkeye7#Huon Peninsula Campaign. It is no coincidence that all the articles as GAs; Rupert and I worked on turning them into a good topic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In which case could you perhaps add it? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild and Hawkeye7, added the Battle of Madang to the nomination as recommended. Matarisvan (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Excellent work. A couple of those had me wondering why they aren't at FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote Landing at Scarlet Beach and Landing at Saidor to be featured, but Rupert left and the project fell by the wayside. I also wrote Landing on Long Island but Rupert did all the rest. The one-at-a-time rule at FAC means that I cannot nominate another article until History of penicillin clears. I could add them to my work queue though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:03, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh! You can't find a conominator? Eh well, that's a shame. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even with a co-nominator I have to wait until Gordon Cooper clears. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:55, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support – NimbleNumbat (talk) 07:19, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madonna videography

American singer Madonna has released 83 music videos, eleven concert tour videos, two documentary videos, four music video compilations, two music video box sets, four promotional videos, and four video singles. Nicknamed as the "Queen of Videos" or "Queen of MTV", her music videos were often considered by critics as works of art, depicting various social issues. Her early videos also received a significant academic attention.

Madonna videography

9 articles

Madonna Live: The Virgin Tour

Ciao Italia: Live from Italy

The Immaculate Collection

Blond Ambition World Tour Live

The Girlie Show: Live Down Under

The Video Collection 93:99

Drowned World Tour 2001

Celebration: The Video Collection

Contributor(s): 11JORN, IndianBio, Legolas2186, Chrishm21

One more from the extensive work of WP:MADONNA. This only counts the music video compilations and concert tour videos without an attached album (if you think those are necessary, all four - The Confessions Tour, Sticky & Sweet Tour, MDNA World Tour, Rebel Heart Tour - are already GAs and could be included), leaving the documentaries for a planned one regarding her filmography. igordebraga ≠ 01:06, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support – I would elect to put all of the videography in this topic, even if they are in other topics (they can overlap). Idiosincrático (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Topic removal candidates

1995 Pacific hurricane season

3 articles

Hurricane Henriette

Hurricane Ismael

With the result of Talk:1995 Pacific hurricane season#Proposed merge of Hurricane Henriette (1995) into 1995 Pacific hurricane season being the article nominated be merged and redirected to the main article, the topic fails criteria 1.a which says that there has to be at least three articles or lists in a topic. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:51, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist NimbleNumbat (talk) 06:31, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per nom. JHD0919 (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf planets

10 articles

Gonggong

Orcus

Quaoar

Dwarf planet was delisted as a featured article on August 23. Therefore, this article no longer meets criterion 3.b of WP:WIAFT and the three month retention period has lapsed. Z1720 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove NimbleNumbat (talk) 03:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom. JHD0919 (talk) 12:27, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nom. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons season 1

The Simpsons season 1

14 articles

"Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire"

"Bart the Genius"

"Homer's Odyssey"

"There's No Disgrace Like Home"

"Bart the General"

"Moaning Lisa"

"The Call of the Simpsons"

"The Telltale Head"

"Life on the Fast Lane"

"Homer's Night Out"

"The Crepes of Wrath"

"Krusty Gets Busted"

"Some Enchanted Evening"

This is the first of 11 Simpsons season good topics I'm nominating for removal here, due to their main articles being delisted from Featured list status circa August 31-September 1. The retention period for most of these expired around the turn of this month, and I'm nomming them one at a time due to the community having not established a consensus in favor of bulk nominations for removal of good topics for TV seasons. JHD0919 (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remove, no sign of effort to promote article to GA or FA. Would support a bulk nomination for seasons 2–10 and 13 (all of those season articles were demoted in a bulk nomination). RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove NimbleNumbat (talk) 22:58, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per nominator. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season

4 articles

1998 FA Charity Shield

1999 FA Cup final

1999 UEFA Champions League final

1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season was demoted from Good article status on June 3. Retention period expired September 3. The article was nominated at GAN on August 11, but nobody has started the review in the 3 months since. JHD0919 (talk) 01:42, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait It the article is nominated than that's good enough. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wait for the result of the GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show

Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show

4 articles

"Take a Hint"

"Make It in America"

"I Think You're Swell"

Unfortunately, I notified this three months ago. Don't You (Forget About Me) is missing as it is part of the songs recorded for the album. "Don't You (Forget About Me)" is currently a C-class article, but no one is working on it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:21, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:You should have notified me about this, but you didn't. If you read the supports, people say it was not necessary to make the covers GA. There are so many covers from those songs that the Victorious one isn't even notable. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did it here: Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show, the right place to discuss the topic. If the supporters showed an empathic support, it is up to them, but we have had several albums that have not been promoted to GT or being demoted from GT due to them lack of all blue-link related articles. In fact, in the nomination, only one person mentioned it: "Support While the cover song could be added, better just recognize what's done already", deliberately going against the purpose of good topics. Victorious shouldn't be an exception for the rules set. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought it made sense only putting the songs made for the show. Besides, the one other blue link on the track list that you highlighted doesn't even mention Victorious in the article. igordebraga ≠ 19:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The song is a cover of the Simple Minds original, it doesn't have its own article. The song's article doesn't have anything remotely related to the topic, the Victorious show/album isn't even mentioned in the article. Thus it's inclusion in the topic would be out of place. I reference the Taylor's version topics, which despite the album having covers of her originally published songs, are not included in the topic as they don't have their own articles. There's a similar case with the Chemical Romance album topic, it doesn't include a cover of the brief Romance guitar piece for the same reasons. Idiosincrático (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying too many things at the same time. First, cover versions don't requiere their own articles, so I don't get the point. Not every cover becomes as relevant as the original song to have an independent article. But in itself, it is not a reason not to mention the versión in the original song. The article not discussing the song is not a reason not to discuss the song? I found sources discussing it (this also applies to Vol. 1 since you pointing that discussion here instead of discussing it there individually), so I don't see why the article cannot discuss it. The Taylor's Versions are irrelevant here. The TV albums are reworks of the original album. Taylor Swift is covering her own albums, so it is a new product. Thus, those re-releases are new topics that, at the time, didn't mean to be part of the original idea. You would have a point with Romance if Islands (The xx song) and Love Don't Live Here Anymore weren't part of other topics. What seams to be happening is that it exists a generalized idea that since "X" is a cover version that wasn't as important as the original version, and "X" is one of many other versions recorded by others, then nominators don't want to included those songs accordingly on the topic, despite (in the case of albums) they were meant to be part of the final product and were most likely promoted by the artist. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 01:46, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Islands has a section about Shakira's cover, ditto Love Don't Live Here Anymore for Madonna's. As one enters the song article from the album topic, it's clear why it's there. The Simple Minds one doesn't even mention Victorious. It's on a whole different level of importance/relevance, and thus it doesn't seem essential. igordebraga ≠ 14:11, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I_Want_You_Back#Victorious_version has its own section too. I'm sorry but you can't have both. You can't go to Vol. 1 and say that you oppose the delist there because of the same reasons at Vol. 2 and contradict yourself here saying that there is no subsection here, therefore it also has to be kept. Lacking it's subsection is not a reason to not include it. It simply means no one has worked on it. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 16:45, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Victorious: Music from the Hit TV Show

Victorious: Music from the Hit TV Show

11 articles

"Make It Shine"

"Freak the Freak Out"

"Best Friend's Brother"

"Beggin' on Your Knees"

"All I Want Is Everything"

"You're the Reason"

"Give It Up"

"Song 2 You"

"Finally Falling"

"Leave It All to Shine"

Unfortunately, I notified this three months ago. I Want You Back is missing as it is part of the songs recorded for the album. "I Want You Back" is currently a start-class article (C-ish in my opinion), but no one is working on it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:13, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I would have appreciated it if you had notified me about this, but you didn't. If you read the supports, people say it was not necessary to make the covers GA. There are so many covers from those songs that the Victorious one isn't even notable. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notified it at the topic's page, the venue where such discussions take place. Reviewing the nomination, no one mentioned the cover, indicating it was completely overshadowed, not discussed. You are also confusing WP:NOTABILITY with WP:NOTEWORTHYness, since I_Want_You_Back#Victorious_version does exist and shows how notable/noteworthy the cover was. Just to cite an example of many delisted/not promoted album good topics, refer to Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/Celebration (Madonna album)/archive1. Celebration (Madonna album) has 4 specific topics relating to it: the album, two new songs and a video album. But the album is comprised of 32 other songs that were not created for the album. If you'd like an example of a topic including a cover version, Wikipedia:Good topics/Sale el Sol shows it with Islands. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:35, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: See Victorious 2.0: More Music from the Hit TV Show case. Idiosincrático (talk) 00:44, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Idiosincrático: You are contradicting here what you say there. Tbhotch^™ (CC BY-SA 4.0) 01:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: While I sympathize heavily with Shoot for the Stars here, I don't really like the precedent being of "we don't need to GA covers", given how out-of-control that can become. Say if, one day, She's So Unusual gets put up for GT. Would a nominator be able to say that the articles for "Money Changes Everything" and "When You Were Mine" don't need to be GAs, simply because they are covers? Or that a GT for Use Your Illusion II wouldn't need "Knockin' on Heaven's Door" just because it was originally written by Bob Dylan? Of course not. While the Victorious cover of "I Want You Back" may not be as well-known as the original, it's clearly known enough that it has its own subsection in the article for that song, and the Victorious version has even charted in the US.

Now, I'm not entirely sure how I would approach a case like "Don't You (Forget About Me)", where the song in question doesn't have a dedicated subsection in the article. Maybe there really isn't anything to write about the Victorious cover of that song, and thus it can slip by like any other song from an album which doesn't have a dedicated page. In this case, however, I find myself agreeing with Tbhotch's assessment that this particular topic is incomplete as it stands. Leafy46 (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes to be agreed upon that "I Want You Back" needs to be GA, I am willing to make it. I will just need more time as I have never worked on a music article from the 1960s, meaning there are hundreds, if not thousands, of books and newspapers talking about the track, especially for a popular song like "I Want You Back". Shoot for the Stars (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a potential compromise option, which wouldn't require you to work through this behemoth of an article. WP:GT? says that items that are "ineligible for [...] good article status" can still be included so long as they pass an "individual quality audit". While this option is intended for unstable articles, I could see myself supporting this topic as complete so long as the Victorious section of the "I Want You Back" article has passed this quality assurance for completeness. I'll note that, if the section is truly large enough, it may warrant spinning off the cover version into its own separate article. This would resolve the issue altogether, but I'm not sure if there is enough to write about this cover version in particular. In any case, I will still lay down this "peer-reviewed section" suggestion as a path forward, even though I imagine it's probably not going to be too popular. Leafy46 (talk) 05:51, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no opinion quite yet as I've been pondering on it for a while, but I want to bring this up. The Victorious cover of "I Want You Back is", in the grand scheme of that song, relatively trivial. I was honestly shocked it even got a section. Retrospectives of the song likely don't mention Victorious any more than the multiple other covers of the song. We're looking at a song famous as Michael Jackson's introduction to the world and being the signature song of the Jackson 5. Hell, it made the Rolling Stone 500 and is a Level-5 vital article for those reasons. Leafy's argument above about how, if we assume covers are not needed for topics, then Use Your Illusion II would seemingly not need "Heaven's Door". To require or not to require a cover in a good topic should, IMO, be dependent on arguments similar to WP:DUEWEIGHT. "Heaven's Door" is a case where the Guns & Roses cover is arguably as famous as the original by Bob Dylan, or very comparable. The commercial performance between the origin by Dylan and the cover is very comparable and even leans more towards the latter. That is a case where I'd ask the topic to include "Heaven's Door". But here? The original "I Want You Back" is FAR more noteworthy as a Jackson 5 song. The Victorious cover is a footnote. Honestly the only reason I think it got a section in the article for the song anyways is because it charted.

Hell, I throw in my own experience here: I got a good topic promoted a while back for My Chemical Romance's first album. That album opens with a prelude of the "Romance" guitar piece. I made an argument there as to why I do not think that "Romance" would be required for the topic: the usage of "Romance" in Bullets is trivial to both an overview of the album and any overview about "Romance" itself. It is merely used to set the tone as effectively a glorified intro/lead-up to the actual first song, and covering the Bullets rendition in the article for "Romance" would at best be worth a sentence. And if that's all that it would amount to in the end, then it might as well not even be considered. Basically everyone agreed and the topic was promoted without "Romance". To summarize my thoughts, I don't find the idea of requiring a song be promoted to GA to make a topic for a specific album, when the album's cover of that song is relatively trivial to the history of that song, to be a very good one. But I can be swayed either way here if this question is sufficiently answered: at what point does a song cover reach the threshold of being expected for a GT? Because it certainly wasn't required for Bullets and I'd consider the importance of Victorious to "I Want You Back" as only a bit higher than the importance of Bullets to "Romance". λ NegativeMP1 02:03, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]