User talk:rst20xx/Archive 4

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Archive 4
• 5
• 6

Any comments made by me are in bold - rst20xx.

TennisEvents2

Hello, I saw the modifications you made to the TennisEvents2 template to avoid 'tennis' in the Dutch, Austrian and Thailand Open articles, but they seem to have created a new problem. The colors do not appear anymore in the individual draw pages using the template (see this one : 2008 Austrian Open - Doubles, or this one 2008 Countrywide Classic - Singles). I don't know enough about templates to correct the problem myself, so could you try and see what you could do to fix the problem ? Thanks --Oxford St. (talk) 09:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh man that took a while to find! It wasn't anything technical, it was a typo! Look at this change and you'll probably see how I broke it. Once I worked out it was one of the if statements not entered right, I stupidly scanned the whole jumbled list, only to find the last one was the one causing the problem :/ Sorry about that! rst20xx (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Your call for more input on tournament names

Hi! Thanks for soliciting more input into the discussion on tournament names. Why not put the same request at the talk pages of all those editors listed as memeber of the Tennis Project? In case you have already done so, sorry. Cheers!--HJensen, talk 22:50, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't, I'll do that now. Thanks! rst20xx (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and please restate your own opinion in the new section! rst20xx (talk) 23:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for wider input on discussion at WikiProject Tennis

Hi, there is an extremely long and muddled discussion going on at WP:Tennis about the tournament tables found on tennis player articles (i.e. this type of table), and I'm notifying you as you identified yourself as a member of the project. The dispute is over the "Tournament Name" column, with the options being to either use the "sponsored tournament name" - in other words, the name involving the sponsor, for example Internazionali BNL d'Italia - or the "non-sponsored tournament name" - in other words, Rome Masters. I appreciate that this conversation is very long and convoluted, so a brief summary can be found here, which is also where I request the discussion continues. Thanks, rst20xx (talk) 23:05, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks :) I have added my opinion in the section you pointed at, I'm certainly anti-sponsored and I'm glad there is discussion going on right now. Habibko (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's OK! rst20xx (talk) 23:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For designing a simple system that will let us keep track of the quality of all articles in Featured Topics and paving the way for Good Topic promotions. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! You just brightened my day :) And I hope we can find a way to solve that final step of the puzzle (the listings), so this isn't a constant pain in the ass for you - rst20xx (talk) 02:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I'd like to thank you for your effort on the names issue, but I really don't know what to say anymore in the discussion, it is getting hectic, anyway if you need any kind of support in anyway let me know Yosef1987 (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your efforts too. I'd appreciate it if you could restate your opinion at least once more in the new "Wider Input on Sponsored Names" section, as that's where I'm directing newcomers, but beyond that it's up to you! rst20xx (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, anything new on the naming issue? Yosef1987 (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It's completely apparent to me now that there is consensus against sponsored names, it's just that Tennis expert won't acknowledge it. Have a look at the conversation about Wikilinking years further down than the sponsored names conversation - the parallels are astounding. I'm now trying to work out how to proceed, I'll keep you posted - rst20xx (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Trying to acknowledge consensus, let's hope that works - rst20xx (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we any where useful now? Yosef1987 (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope... rst20xx (talk) 13:25, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey - quick request

Can you tag the talk pages of any new articles you make with {{WP-Tennis|class=|importance=}}? Importance should be mid for e.g. ATP Buenos Aires and 2006 Indian Wells Masters, and low for e.g. 2004 ATP Buenos Aires (not a Masters tournament), 2006 Indian Wells Masters - Men's Singles, 2002 Tennis Masters Cup - Singles and 2004 ATP Buenos Aires - Singles. Also, any categories you make should be tagged with {{WP-Tennis|class=Cat|importance=NA}}, and templates with {{WP-Tennis|class=Temp|importance=NA}}. I know WP:Tennis doesn't have a history of tagging its articles well but I'm in the middle of a bit of a tagging spree, and when I finish soon then hopefully all articles should be tagged. But any that have been created since I started are liable to get missed. Thanks a lot, rst20xx (talk) 20:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem - I'll do that. --Oxford St. (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! rst20xx (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Lorraine Baines McFly

Why would Lorraine Baines McFly apply to WikiProject:TENNIS? Corvus cornix_talk 23:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Fictional tennis players - rst20xx (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Not any more. Just because somebody carries a tennis racket doesn't make them a tennis player. I'll be doing more pruning of that category. Corvus cornix_talk 23:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough then! rst20xx (talk) 23:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted myself on Bette Kane.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 23:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Great! rst20xx (talk)

I've solved it!

It's so obvious! Cirt suggested we come up with something like a daily log of status changes, but we were struggling to find what. Why don't we just actually set up a daily log of status changes with the WP 1.0 bot? All we'd need to do is set up the categories it requires, and then get Template:ArticleHistory to tag each article a third time (yes, another layer of categories, but oh well). And then you just need to run the bot daily and look at the log it outputs, and you can work out if any articles have changed rating, or been added or removed, from there! And resultantly, you can work out somewhat easily if a topic has moved from good to featured :)

Obviously this will only catch "vandals" who change an article history and won't catch "vandals" who just change a featured topic box, but it will catch all legitimate topic promotions/demotions, and besides, the featured topic box "vandalism" is a problem we have already - rst20xx (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2008(UTC)

So, erm, can youi get Template:ArticleHistory unprotected so I can get to work? :P rst20xx (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Would we still need the categories that you made if we set this up using the 1.0 Bot?

I'd like to open ArticleHistory for you, but if there is consensus to lock it, I don't think that I can leave a big-name template like that unlocked. Unfortunately, I think you might have to do all your testing in a sandbox and request to have the new code added all at once. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I might try to request a temporary unlock on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Erm regarding the existing categories, we'd still need them if we want to be able to differentiate between the number of main articles and non-main articles. Otherwise, no, they'd be redundant. Alternatively, we could just scrap the non-main categories in the existing structure. Or, we could in fact set up two dummy WikiProjects, one for all articles, and one for just the main articles, and then we could scrap all of the existing cats. So it's up to you as to whether they're scrapped or not, and if so, what's scrapped. Regarding the categories for each topic etc that would be made as part of the good topics procedure, yes we'd absolutely still need them. So the question is - shall we scrap the existing cats? rst20xx (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I would recommend overhauling the whole lot, it might be simpler - rst20xx (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The 1.0 tables are two-dimensional, so rather that have a seperate wikiproject for main and non-main articles, why not just tag main articles as high-importance and the rest as no-importance. Though I guess that could be a problem for articles that are the lead in one topic and a member of another. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant idea! Though it's not as 2D as you might think, because as far as I know there's no easy way to cross-reference the number of articles in two categories. Yes, the statistics boxes are 2D, but the bots update these "manually", so we wouldn't be able to pull out the counts (i.e. number of main FAs, number of main goods, etc) like we do at the moment. To put it another way, what we have to work with is more like two 1D scales that can't be measured against each other. But don't worry, we can get round the problem like this: At the moment, we can tell if a main article is featured, good, or other - whether it is in one topic or multiple is irrelevant, it's still counted as a main article. We can set it up that featured mains get Top, good mains get High, other mains get Mid and non-mains get Low Unassessed. Job done - rst20xx (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Realised we need a fairly obvious change of plan, as at the moment there's no distinction between what is good and what is featured. Top will now be Featured topics main articles, High will be Featured topics other articles, Mid will be Good topics main articles and Low will be Good topics other articles. I think that should cover all our needs, we will lose some information (i.e. what the statuses of main articles are), but I'm not sure we need it anyway. And this has the advantage that you can now plainly see when a topic moves from good to featured, and vice versa, as the importance of the articles will change!rst20xx (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Made a request for temporary unprotection. By the way, here's something I just noticed - good articles do the same thing - rst20xx (talk) 17:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

TopicTransclude

Could you please explain what this template is doing? I've followed it to where it applies the FeaturedTopicSum template, and then that template seems to be calculating the number of articles in the good articles and featured articles categories for the topic, but where does FeaturedTopicSum spit out it's end result? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay. FeaturedTopicSum (which you should never have to use on a regular basis by the way) takes three parameters: the name of the topic, what to do if this topic is a featured topic, and what to do if this topic is a good topic. In other words: {{FeaturedTopicSum|TopicName|FeaturedTopicAction|GoodTopicAction}}. Using the topic name and by using the categories, FeaturedTopicSum works out if this topic is a featured or good topic, and then does the appropriate of the two candidate actions.

TopicTransclude takes two parameters, one of GT and FT, and then a topic name. For example: {{TopicTransclude|GT|TopicName}}. Then, it basically says, if the first parameter is GT: invoke FeaturedTopicSum on TopicName, such that the good topic action is to transclude Wikipedia:FeaturedTopics/TopicName, and the featured topic action is to do nothing. And if the first parameter is FT: invoke FeaturedTopicSum on TopicName, such that the featured topic action is to transclude Wikipedia:FeaturedTopics/TopicName, and the good topic action is to do nothing. Make sense? If you look at Wikipedia:Good topics, you will see that TopicTransclude is using GT everywhere - rst20xx (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been able to deprecate the ftstar= and fullyfeatured= parameters on Template:Featured topic box and Template:Featuredtopictalk, by the way. So no need to worry about that any more! rst20xx (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia Good topics

Hey, I was deleting the categories you listed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Working/Manual#Ready_for_deletion and I saw that Category:Wikipedia Good topics is not a speedy candidate. Please open a full CFD for this category. Thanks. --Kbdank71 16:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Arg. Okay... rst20xx (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Topic Nominations

The Good Topic Nominations that I submitted have been on my Goals page for months, which is why I submitted them – feel free to walk through the page's history. I was planning on, and still plan to, work them all towards FTC; I opposed GTC, but now that it's here, I feel like these topics should pass this hump while I still work on them towards FTC. I've made most of the edits to some of the topics that you opposed, though, too. Gary King (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that, and appreciate it, but I checked the various topics and according to your user page, you weren't the one to get the articles to GA/FA on the topics I opposed. OK, you did 50% of the Microsoft one, but not the FA. I feel you need to notify the individuals who DID get the articles to GA/FA, and if they are okay with the nomination, then we can proceed. This is all there in the rules, you can't just nominate other people's work without consulting them first - rst20xx (talk) 03:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

These are quite some double standards then, especially when comparing to FTCs such as Wikipedia:Featured topics/Galilean moons, Wikipedia:Featured topics/Gwen Stefani albums, and undoubtedly several more recent ones. If I do this in FTC, then tell me; in GTC, frankly, credit isn't worth nearly as much as it is in FTC. People can and will tag team to game GTC. Gary King (talk) 03:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Both those examples were funnily enough disputed for this exact reason, and in both cases the other editors were ultimately notified/brought on board - rst20xx (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'd like to apologize for my behavior yesterday. I slept on it last night. These FTCs were on my Goals page and I was a too enthusiastic to check whether I had contributed to any of the articles in the topics – yet. Sorry. Gary King (talk) 14:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, no harm done! I know that notifying the other editors who did the GAs/FAs is a pain, but I really can't see them saying no to a chance to have their work in a Good Topic. Conversely, if someone got someone else's work into a good topic without telling them, they might well be annoyed. It's only polite to consult the editors. But anyway, we'll get all the lot to good topics eventually, I'm sure :) rst20xx (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I make mistakes every once in a while, and I try to own up to them even though I'm not very good at that. I try my best. And on that note, I am still really curious as to whether we should include all songs in an album or only its singles? I personally think singles that were released specifically for that album; what I mean is, there are sometimes singles that are on two albums but are only released as a single to promote one of those two albums. Limiting to only singles makes it more obvious as to what to include. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would see all songs and singles related to an album included, whatever the circumstances. They're still part of the album, even if they were part of another album too. That's just my opinion - rst20xx (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh okay, just saw your response. I guess it's better to have all the bases covered. Gary King (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay; I'm going to audit my topics to see which ones are incomplete. Some of them really need to be updated. Gary King (talk) 15:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topics

Since you've recently done some formatting on Wikipedia:Featured topics, do you have any idea why Wikipedia:Featured topics/The Simpsons (season 8) and Wikipedia:Featured topics/The Simpsons (season 9) are not being displayed?

The code {{TopicTransclude|FT|The Simpsons (season 9)}} appears to be correct, so I figure it must be some template syntax problem. user:Everyme 06:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This is because they're both good topics now. That code is placed there so that if they do get enough FAs to become FTs, they can move from WP:GT to WP:FT automatically - rst20xx (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, didn't realise that those Simpsons seasons are GT, not FT (yet) and that {{FeaturedTopicSum}} checks whether the talk page of the respective Wikipedia:Featured topics subpage is included in Category:Wikipedia featured topics. Quite an elegant solution. Ok, thanks. (Or should that be Ok, thanks?) user:Everyme 15:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't use Category:Wikipedia featured topics. It uses (for example) Category:Wikipedia featured topics The Simpsons (season 8), Category:Wikipedia featured topics The Simpsons (season 8) featured content and Category:Wikipedia featured topics The Simpsons (season 8) good content and does a sum involving the number of articles in each. If there are enough featured articles, it makes it a featured topic, if not it makes it a good topic - rst20xx (talk) 15:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I should probably read more about the featured topic candidate process. I thought the promotion is determined similar to articles, i.e. users decide when a topic goes from good to featured. As I currently understand it, the topic itself is promoted to good/featured and then automatically goes from good to featured when enough articles in the topic are featured. Is that about right? user:Everyme 15:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's absolutely correct. The only difference between good and featured topics is the number of featured articles/lists, so there's no reason a good topic would need to go through another nomination process if it is ready to become featured - rst20xx (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks again for the patient explaining :) user:Everyme 17:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Renaming of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Lists of North Carolina hurricanes to Wikipedia:Featured topics/North Carolina hurricanes

I renamed Wikipedia:Featured topics/Lists of North Carolina hurricanes to Wikipedia:Featured topics/North Carolina hurricanes to fix the tranclusion at the Topic pages (it's a FT not a GT). After undoing one of your undoes, I came to realize that these two topics are identical (yet neither one redirects to the other one), and that the non-renaming still leads to wrong transclusion. What should be done? – sgeureka ^t•c 15:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Odd. Well it seems OhanaUnited for some reason made the duplicate (North Carolina hurricanes) a while back, and then replaced the original with it in various places. But the original is correct, so I shall bring the topic to requested moves, citing it as an error on the part of one of the editors, and once the move has been made, then we can go about fixing the links - rst20xx (talk) 15:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

FT transclusion methods

I was wondering if it's really necessary to have both TopicTransclude and FeaturedTopicSum. If I understand them correctly, they work like this:

TT:

if param1 = "FT" then call FTS(name,display,)
else                  call FTS(name,,display)

FTS:

if #featured > 1 then {
   if #featured*4 > #total-1 /* at least 25% featured */ then return param2; /*display*/
   else return param3;
}
else return param3;

Can't this be combined into one like this?

if #featured > 1 then {
   if #featured*4 > #total-1 /* at least 25% featured */ then {
      if param1 = "FT" then return display;
      else return;
   }
   else {
      if param1 = "FT" then return;
      else return display;
}
else {
   if param1 = "FT" then return;
   else return display;
}

Pagrashtak 16:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No, because FeaturedTopicSum is used in other places - rst20xx (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, didn't know that. Pagrashtak 16:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Video game topic

For a video game topic, if the games in the topic had expansion packs, but the topic was titled "Video game name titles", should the expansion packs be included or not? Gary King (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I would say so, yes. Sorry - rst20xx (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Gillingham F.C. FT

Hi there

As the principal editor of the topics in this FT, could you give me a quick heads-up as to the perceived issues with it which you mentioned at another FTC, so that I can see how feasible fixing them would be.......?

Cheers!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, sure. Firstly let me say that I realise that Gillingham was the first of the football club topics, so very well done for that. But now, I have to say that it doesn't appear to completely hold up to some of the others. York for example hasn't done any better in the history of football than Gillingham has, so roughly speaking, I'm applying the logic that anything the York topic can do, the Gillingham topic should be able to do too. Of course this may be wrong but I'm sure the accuracy of this logic would come out in an FTRC. Right, now, onto the issues:

1. Gillingham F.C. records. I don't see why this can't be a featured list. It hasn't even tried, and I think any audited articles of limited subject matter should at least have tried. The other topics have featured records and statistics lists.
2. A quick check of Gillingham's website indicates the club does Player of the Year awards. But as far as I can see, this information isn't in the topic anywhere. The other topics have an article dedicated to this.
3. Since the topic nom, you've created the article List of Gillingham F.C. players with fewer than 50 appearances. I feel this constitutes a notable gap in the topic, and the way the rules work is that you have 3 months from the creation of a new article to get it into the topic. This article is over 3 months old.

If you're willing to work at these things, I'd be willing to turn a blind eye for a bit, and let you improve your topic :P rst20xx (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to me so quickly. Whilst I'd certainly be prepared to work on improvements to the articles, I don't realistically think I can fix all those issues. A full list of past Players of the Year is not available in any reliable source, as far as I can tell, so that's a non-starter. And as for the "less than 50 apps" player list, I realistically don't have the time any time soon to create even tiny stubs on all the 300+ redlinked players, so it'd be unlikely to be deemed acceptable. So if the topic went to FTRC I couldn't really have any complaints. At least I'll always be able to claim I had the first footy FT :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, not sure when I'll bring it (may be a while) but thanks for understanding - rst20xx (talk) 13:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, like you say the subsequent footy FTs have "raised the bar" somewhat and I now accept that mine isn't as complete as it maybe ought to be. Not the end of the world, though :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'm not sure how valid the third complaint is, when the other two topics only have players with 100+ appearances in the first place, but I stand by the first two - rst20xx (talk) 14:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to worry. As mentioned above, the biggest sticking point would have been the PotY info anyway. -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Per your latest comment at the Aston Villa FTC, are you no longer so concerned about the absence of a PotY list in the Gillingham FT, given that the same issues apply in the case of Gillingham (it isn't considered a major award either by the club or the fans - additionally due to a schism between the club and the supporters' association the club does not even acknowledge any of the winners prior to about 1998 as "official")? If I had a bash at getting the Records article towards FL status, would that resolve the outstanding issues with the Gills FT........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

  Oh, sorry, I missed this comment, but well yes, that's right, as stated in the discussion below - rst20xx (talk) 14:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

FL v FA on SSSIs in...

Hi, I noticed you changed FA to FL on List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset, List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon and Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal. This means that they no longer appear in the featured numbers in the current status table at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset. Is this because of something wrong in my code? If not would you mind if I change them back so that they are included?— Rod ^talk 07:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the Template:WikiProject Somerset to include FLs - but it doesn't seem to be picking up Talk:List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Avon any idea why?— Rod ^talk 13:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this whole thing, but rather call an FL an FL than an FA I say so the end result is better. As for the Avon list, the job queue was just being slow - take another look - rst20xx (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all that work - Avon SSSIs now shows up it was just a server delay.— Rod ^talk 14:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I, Cirt (talk), award this Barnstar of Diligence to Rst20xx, for excellent work with getting Wikipedia:Good topics on track, and an admirable demeanor in dealing with the myriad users with questions about its rollout. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for all of your efforts in this and for your good attitude toward the project and towards others. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! And thanks for your great contributions to the process, particularly the all-GA idea and the daily log of status changes idea. And well done on becoming an admin! I'm just waiting for it all to quiet down a bit now, haha - rst20xx (talk) 14:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Heh, good luck with that. Seems we could both use things to quiet down a bit after last week - :P Cirt (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hello - request for admin-type change

Hey, can you deal with my request here for a change to Template:Historyoutput? I'm not sure why this hasn't been done yet. In the meantime, we have situations like this, where it says it was a "Featured topic candidate" in the List milestones simply because it can't say it was a "Good topic candidate" until Historyoutput is updated to cater for good topics. And if this problem is still going on when the rush of good topic promotions occurs, well, it's going to be a major problem - rst20xx (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Before I change it, do you want it to say "GTR|ftr=" or should that read "GTR|gtr="?  :--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes. Well spotted. The latter. Sorry - rst20xx (talk) 13:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

And is that line the only thing you need to make it work? I notice that other processes like FLC are mentioned later on the page too. Do you need something that says "GT=" in addition to GTC and GTR? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, where it says "FTC|ftc|FPOC" etc it needs to also have "GTC|gtc" inserted, and similarly for "FTR|ftr|FPOR" - this needs "GTR|gtr" inserted. And while we're at it, I should probably mention that we need one small change to Template:ArticleHistory - can you change where it says "goodtopic" to "good topic"? Tis a typo :P Sorry, I'm being a bit sloppy about this it seems - rst20xx (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, though I can't find the text "goodtopic" anywhere in ArticleHistory, so maybe it was fixed. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, it was already fixed! I'm having one of those days, it seems... anyway, thanks! And look! Isn't it glorious? :P rst20xx (talk) 14:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Gillingham F.C. FT again

Hi there

Today's been a very quiet day at work and I have therefore been able to do a lot of work on Gillingham F.C. records, which I feel will be ready to go for PR and potential FLC by the end of the week. Given that after further rumination you said on my talk page that the list of players with <50 appearances is not a major gap and on the Villa FTC page that the Player of the Year list is not necessarily required, would getting the records list to FL status fix the outstanding problems with the FT? As I understand it, if I get the records article up to FT status I then have to renominate the topic for FT anyway, is that correct.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm, firstly no, you wouldn't need to renominate the topic, because you're not adding or removing any articles. And secondly, in light of these recent discussions about Aston Villa, I think that if you get the records to FL, you'll be sorted actually. On reflection the <50 list I think is optional, and as for the lack of POTY stuff, well what you can find about POTYs should probably be in the Gillingham articles somewhere, but if you can't find all the POTYs, then giving the subject its own article is a bit pointless really.

I think I owe you an apology, because while the topic did need work, the fact that I've now decided that two of the three reasons I gave for the topic not meeting the criteria are largely invalid is pretty poor on my part. So sorry about that, and good luck with the records article - rst20xx (talk) 14:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, don't worry about it, no harm done :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I've now brought the Records article to PR, let's see what people make of it :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That was quick! rst20xx (talk) 21:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

....and now it's at FLC :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well done! Good luck! rst20xx (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello - please stop making FT boxes in the WP:FT namespace

I have told you before, please don't make boxes such as Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/The Simpsons (season 6), Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/The Simpsons episodes and Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/The Simpsons (season 4). You can instead make it in your Wikiproject space (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons/The Simpsons (season 6)) or your own namespace (e.g. User:Nergaal/The Simpsons (season 6)). You shouldn't make boxes in the FTC namespace until you are ready to bring them, as in the meantime, if someone stumbles across them, it is likely to cause confusion, and also there is no guarantee that you will end up bringing the topic to FTC at all - rst20xx (talk) 16:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I understand your point and I will try to limit this. This issue has started from a somewhat harsh dispute in the past and lead to not only me doing this. Anyways, I have created pages in the FT namespace only when I noticed a serious interest in driving that nomination, or when the nomination was one article away from being ready. Nergaal (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Can you point to where else this is being done? Because it's a tricky thing to spot - rst20xx (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also I think it would help if you moved any you created to other namespaces for the timebeing - rst20xx (talk) 17:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

If these are going to be moved back to the user space, then the redirects should probably be removed and the pages blanked so that the pages do not redirect when visiting them. Gary King (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm going to do that once I've finished moving them all - rst20xx (talk) 18:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. Keep up the great work! Gary King (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

(To Nergaal) Right, I went through the candidates pages and found every single page that was there but shouldn't have been. There were 14, and they all belonged to you. I moved them all to your userspace, and blanked the pages I moved them from. I fixed any links this broke. I now consider this matter closed - rst20xx (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You either missed a bunch, or you misassigned some of those to me. I don't really care but I wasn't the one who came with the idea. I did not think it was a good one, but since I saw it is done& allowed, I went for it. Nergaal (talk) 00:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Can you point me to ones I missed? Gary King made a few too, but he has since blanked them - rst20xx (talk) 01:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume that happened within the last 7h. Anyways, then it is probably only the latter (i.e. Batman). Nergaal (talk) 01:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused, you did make the Batman one... oh nevermind - rst20xx (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

---

(To Gary King) By the way, this is a bit nitpicky, but you probably shouldn't archive nominations until you're ready to bring the new nomination, as despite all best intentions there's no guarantee you ever will bring the new nomination. Archiving like this isn't common practice and as a result when it is done it looks a little bit odd. Thanks! - rst20xx (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hm well this archiving practice is how it works at FAC and FLC, which is why I did it. Gary King (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's true, though I don't think there is any big advantage to it, I think consistency within the project is more important and moving them all to archives would be a big effort now. Anyway, doesn't matter - rst20xx (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:FT2008

When topics are moved to WP:FTL, they are added to the list even if they are not featured topics but are instead good topics. Perhaps we should separate the logs – but then transclude the the good topic log to the featured log so that it still looks the same. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Would that work? To be honest I don't really care about WP:FT2008. If someone wants to see when a particular topic was promoted, they can check that topic's talk page. If someone wants to see which topics were promoted in a particular month, they can check that month's log. WP:FT2008 doesn't work accurately, for example Mitchazenia has promoted a lot of things, but not Guitar Hero. Anyway, if what you are suggesting would work, and that it works in the way I understand you're suggesting, then maybe we should do it as I don't think it would harm anything, and it would just be a back end change - rst20xx (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It only needs to be done for the promoted logs, FYI. And I imagine there's a small group of people who promote, so it shouldn't take too long to adapt. Mind if I go ahead and do it for one or two promoted GTs to show you how it's done? Gary King (talk) 23:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask Arctic gnome first, but you've got my support I guess. Good thinking - rst20xx (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay User_talk:Arctic.gnome#WP:FT2008. I'll wait for his response then. Gary King (talk) 23:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I have also pointed Rick Block to this thread: User_talk:Rick_Block#WP:WBFTN. One suggestion that I have is we could move promoted GTs to the FT log once they pass, so that the bot can automatically pick up on them. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Once they pass FT? Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Erm, the problem there is that it'd have them promoted in the wrong month, wouldn't it? So what do we do then? Anyway, there now seems to be a discussion going on on whether to scrap the two bot lists entirely, so I guess we need to wait and see what happens there - rst20xx (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt they will be scrapped. It would need a wider discussion on WP:FA2008 and WP:FL2008 then, too. The promotion dates would be correct, since they would be moved only when they are promoted from good topics to featured topics. Anyways, for now, good topics will have to be manually removed from WP:FT2008. I'd prefer not have to do that and instead, I think we should go ahead with this for now, to prepare for the future. If it is decided that we don't do what I suggested above, then it's easier to put all the topics from two logs to one rather than doing the opposite of splitting it from one to two. Gary King (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, here's what you're saying - I'll use an example. Topic A is promoted as a GT in March 09. Then in September 09 it becomes an FT. So what we'd do is go back and modify the log for March 09 to move the conversation to the Featured topic part of that month's log. The problem here is you're assuming the bot gives the month as the month it finds the topic, not the month in which the topic is given as having been promoted in the log. Do you know that this is a correct assumption? If it is, then problem solved, if not, then we have a problem.

Secondly, the discussion is just about scrapping FT2008, not FA2008 etc so, well, we'll see anyway - rst20xx (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's another level of work that people have to keep track of, but it gives the information in a more accessible fashion than the log, so I don't mind it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The bot watches WP:FTL for new transclusions, and then it will add those new transclusions to the monthly log for the month in which the nomination was transcluded. One other possibility would be that the bot checks the date in which the nomination was first created, but this is far too unreliable to be done; an example would be if a nomination is created in January 2009 but fails, and then it is renominated again in February 2009, then the nomination's creation date would be January 2009; the bot will use the date that the nomination was transcluded to the log, however, so that will be good for us. Now that Arctic is in on this, shall we proceed with it? Gary King (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Erm well it uses whoever created the page to decide who to give the credit to, so I'm not sure about this... but I guess we should give it a try. Go ahead - rst20xx (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

← Alright well I guess I could just leave it to you to setup; you have more experience dealing with WP:FTC than I do. I think all we really need is a Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Good log. Gary King (talk) 17:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't think credit goes to whoever created the page. It goes to the first username (or signature?) that appears on the page. Gary King (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Rick Block says here that it goes to whoever "created the nomination file", which I take to mean the page. I'm sure this is right, as it fits with Mitch getting the credit here, whereas first signature doesn't. Also, I don't think Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Good log is needed beyond a redirect to the Featured log, more subpages of Good log are needed. Anyway, I'll get on it - rst20xx (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean just create a redirect; I meant use that to store good topic promotions. Also, that sounds right that it's whoever created the nomination file, I suppose; although, I know that it works quite differently at FAC, then, where it uses the actual "nominators" line. Gary King (talk) 18:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well as each FT log month should be transcluding that month's GT log, and Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log should just be transcluding the current month... then I don't think Good log itself would be needed anywhere. Anyway, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log and Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log/September 2008 - does that look good to you? rst20xx (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, let's see how that works out. Gary King (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/State highways in Hamilton County, New York

Sorry to tell you this, but you ain't getting a change in article, there is literally NOTHING in Hamilton County, and I feel better off if I killed off List of highways in Warren County, New York anyway, its a crap article in my opinion, and I'd prefer this type over that one. Oppose if you wish, but it ain't happening.Mitch32^(UP) 22:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, see my reply over there. Out of interest though, why don't you like the Warren County article style? rst20xx (talk) 22:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Because its topic is way too off - only certain counties in New York use "county highway" - which is not used in Warren or Hamilton - as far as I know on Tioga and Chautauqua use them. I don't feel is a misnomered claim in an article is gonna work. And besides, if we divide it evenly it makes the topic more condensed. That was the first problem with Warren.Mitch32^(UP) 22:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a better word that can be used than "highways"? rst20xx (talk) 22:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

No, because the topic then becomes vague. I'd prefer this type of list, because it makes me featured topics better defined. Remember the trouble with Warren at its FTC? Well, this better defines a scope. And CRs are getting a type of their own soon enough.Mitch32^(UP) 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The trouble with Warren was not because of the scope of the main article, but because the definition of the scope of the topic was not properly formed. As a result, some articles were randomly included whilst others left out, until eventually a coherent definition that fitted with the articles was established. Further to this, I would say that if a suitable term can be found, then the scope of the article would not become vague. And also, I don't like the way this article is primarily written for what fits best for a featured topic, and not what fits best for the article itself - rst20xx (talk) 23:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There are 16 county routes in Hamilton County, New York - which can easily be covered in County routes in Hamilton County, New York. I refuse to change this article around. They are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 24. Mitch32^(UP) 23:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

RfAR comment

I left you a long response on my talk page. I appreciate your concern and hope that that can serve as my final summation of what this all means. Cla68 (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, please disregard, someone else left the comment that I'm referring to. On another subject, thank you for updating the banners on all the Guadalcanal articles. Cla68 (talk) 05:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ha, sorry for confusing you there... rst20xx (talk) 13:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

GTC thanks

Thankyou for your support at Wikipedia:Featured topics/Adriatic campaign of 1807–1814, the topic has now passed. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Congratulations! rst20xx (talk) 16:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously dude, ease off

You're taking the Solar System featured topic beyond the point of rationality. As it is, the current planned topic is the information equivalent of building a fair-sized pyramid. We've already said we're going to build the pyramids for you. At least let us do that before you start telling us to colonise another planet. Serendi^podous 18:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you're overreacting. I don't think my suggestion that a "Moons of Jupiter" topic would ultimately include all the moons of Jupiter is unreasonable, and I don't know why you're feeling pressurised to build such a topic RIGHT NOW in the first place - rst20xx (talk) 18:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You're the one complaining about gaps. If you knew the gaskets I've popped trying to get lists up to code, you'd understand. Serendi^podous 18:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate what you're doing is very VERY difficult, but I think that's why everyone considers the Solar System FT and its subtopics as the poster child of the whole FT process - rst20xx (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Millennium Park

Your revised assessment at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Millennium Park is welcome now that all articles have been assessed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)