We were missing some articles in the topic, so now it is much more complete with these three new ones. Right now, it still (barely) meets the FT criteria (more than 1/3 are featured), but I am aware of the new rules come September. I'll try and get two more featured once 50% featured is needed. However, for now it should still meet the criteria. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice to see an existing topic growing - rst20xx (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good enough. As a side note, I have a sandbox of Ignacio here, though it may not be published. Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
Support - Having (kinda?) worked on Linda's FA promotion, but otherwise I'm uninvolved. –Juliancolton | Talk 12:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Chrono titles for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
Though it was cancelled due to copyright infringement, Chrono Resurrection should be in this topic since it was supposed to be a 3D remake of Chrono Trigger. Also, Final Fantasy Chronicles should be removed since the only relation it has to the Chrono series is that it has Chrono Trigger on it. Nothing more. GamerPro64 (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support addition of Chrono Resurrection, oppose removal of Final Fantasy Chronicles - the former should obviously be added, but I don't really see the logic behind your wanting to remove the latter. It's still a title in the Chrono series, even if it's only a compilation rerelease of another game - rst20xx (talk) 00:49, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we decided to include all spinoffs, or built a topic for the spinoffs, then yes - rst20xx (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - more input from others would be appreciated - rst20xx (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also Support addition of Resurrection and oppose removal of Chronicles; it is cool having every chrono article in the topic, why take it out? One of the Chrono articles will have to be made featured to keep it a featured topic, but that is probably doable. Judgesurreal777 15:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Support addition, oppose removal- the article isn't really required, but if it's GA then why not, eh? --PresN 15:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Halo media for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
Forgot about this, but the addition of peer-reviewed upcoming/recently released items. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (I also reordered the articles in the box) - rst20xx (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - better late than never, but won't this affect the number of articles that need to be FA by September to keep this featured instead of good? -MBK004 03:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It'd increase from 1 to 2, yes. But the alternative is that this topic is demoted as being incomplete! Tough isn't it? But that's just the way things go I guess... Halo 3: ODST is a current FAC, though - rst20xx (talk) 13:42, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, ODST is at FAC right now, and I'm sure I can scrounge another one too, so it's no big issue. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Close with consensus to promote - rst20xx (talk) 02:21, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic campaign of May 1794 (1st supplementary nomination)[edit]
Hi, this is a fairly minor engagement that formed a small part of the overall campaign that needs to be added to the topic.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support - nice stuff, straightforward - rst20xx (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - erm, does Action of 7 May 1794 also need adding? Also I realise the articles in this topic need a navbox on their pages - rst20xx (talk) 04:32, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but shouldn't they all be linked together by a template or something? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the support. I have an issue with a campaign box, which is that the frigate action(s) were of vastly smaller importance to the campaign than the larger fleet engagement and I'm not sure how to effectively represent this.--Jackyd101 (talk) 21:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still think you should make one. The point of such a template is to aid navigation for the reader. The fact that there is an article on the order of battle at the Glorious First of June tells me that the Glorious First of June is more important than the unnamed actions, and this will be visible in the navbox. Also, should Action of 7 May 1794 be added? rst20xx (talk) 22:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still not convinced, but I'll have a go - perhaps I'll put the inconsequential actions in a smaller typeface. I suppose that the 7 May action should be included - it was very minor in comparision with the principal battle, and unlike the present nomination it has never to my knowledge been explicitly considered part of the campaign as such, but the ships involved were participating at the periferaries of the campaign at the time of the action. Should I just add it to this nomination?--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go ahead! :) rst20xx (talk) 22:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added in the article for Jackyd, but you need to remember that on 1 September all topics that are not 50% featured will be demoted to Good topics, and with these two GAs being added, you will need one more FA by that time to keep this featured. -MBK004 05:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That almost certainly isn't going to happen, so I guess this will have to be demoted. I've put together a template and added to the articles now (this nomination is a lot less straightforward than I was assured it would be).--Jackyd101 (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I thought it'd be more straightforward, though to be frank I don't think the complications made this sup nom any less necessary - rst20xx (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
