Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates/2008

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Weekly archiving

Although Wikipedia:Goings on needs to be archived every Sunday at 0:01 UTC, and reports Featured articles, lists, pictures, portals and topics, I seem to be the only person making the effort to archive it each Saturday night. It would be nice if some of the other processes could help with this task occasionally. The instructions are right in the top of the Wikipedia:Goings on page. I've attempted to get a bot written to to it, but there have been no takers for a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

14 days and 4 supports

With this diff Arctic.gnome changed the nomination procedure to remove the requirement that a nomination last 14 days and receives 4 supports before getting promoted. I think that this rule is very important and should not be removed. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 21:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support change. I agree with the change made by Arctic.gnome (talk · contribs), this seems to be more of the norm, and in line with what is done at WP:FAC, as well as many other areas of the project. Actually, I don't know of any other process that specificies the "number of supports" something must get... Cirt (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Although it isn't written in stone, FACs aren't promoted without 3 supports. Karanacs (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lung cancer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
That might be an example of Raul654 misusing his power. This is why we need this rule!!! Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
What if the topic nomination has gone for 14 days, but there are not yet 4 supports, such as if it didn't get many reviews. Should it be closed as fail, or extended until it gets 4 supports? If there are no opposes, but three supports, I personally think that should be promoted. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should have brought the change here first, but as User:Cirt said, I was making this project more in line with FAC and FLC. In those projects, regular contributors trusted by the project close debates based on what they see as a reasonable length of time and a reasonable consensus. If there is any disagreement about whether a nomination had consensus or enough time, any debate-closing can be challenged by anyone. Since I seem to have become the de facto debate-closer here, I can tell you that in most cases I will wait for two weeks anyway, but in cases where there is unanimous support (such as the current Ipswich Town F.C. nomination), I don't think the full 14 days is necessary. In the case of requiring four supports, I think that requirement gives the impression that this is a vote rather than being a consensus-making process. Nevertheless, I certainly don't want to be seen as abusing my de facto position here, so if most people want the rule reinstated, so be it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess one potential problem with not having a time limit is that a discussion could be closed right before someone wanted to comment. If I promoted Ipswich Town F.C. today, there could be someone who really wanted to comment on it, but was waiting until tomorrow. It might be good to have an official minimum length of debate for articles with all-supports.
User:Dihydrogen Monoxide, if you want to promote a topic, you probably have the confidence of the community to do so. But there is usually only one nomination to close per week, so it's not like I'm overwhelmed by the work. If you do close a debate, be sure to look through the full closing procedure; there are a lot of pages to inform about it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the fourteen days was ever intended to limit discussion to 14 days or to prevent the removal of topic that have no change of approval and have already have a few opposes. I was intented to require 14 days for any one to have enough time to comment. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 15:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why I'm now thinking that we should have some set minimum. We don't want something promoted while a user is in the middle of reviewing something. It does not have to be 14 days, though. If something has unanimous support from many users, it could probably be promoted after a week. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree w/ Arctic.gnome (talk · contribs), one week sounds like a good place to start for a "set minimum". Cirt (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Included more than once?

Are articles that appear in one Featured Topic allowed to be included in a second Featured Topic? For example if there was a Topic called "Blah blah, Los Angeles Metro" with 4 articles, would they be then allowed to be used in "Blah blah, California" on a second FT? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Currently there are three such articles that are in more than one FT. The common way it's done is, for example, in a "Cities of California" topic, there could be an article Los Angeles, which could then be the lead article for a "Los Angeles" topic. There currently aren't any articles that are in 2 FTs but not the lead of either, though I don't see any particular reason why they couldn't be, if they fit in both. --PresN (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone think it would be possible to create a "history of a company"-related topic? What if I had the company's article, a "History of company" article, and the articles of its (co-)founders? Gary King (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

In case you are still reading this page all these months later, iIf the company's article was the main article, you would probably be expected to include articles on both the history and the current state of the company. If the main article was the one about the history, you might get away with only including the founders, kind of like the existing topic on the Confederate Government of Kentucky. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:35, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Potential Millennium Park FTC

I am a long way from even nominating the majority of the articles for WP:GAC. However, I finally believe I have a topic that I consider close enough to my natural interests and modest enough that I might be able to pursue raising the whole topic to high quality levels. I am not sure what would be necessary for to successfully achieve WP:FTC. My thinking is that the title and the first line in the template below would be a complete topic. Advice would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. That is, if you can raise those articles to sufficient quality. I'd support it. --haha169 (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I see you've nominated some for GAN already. You do know that you have to leave a statement on the link, right? Or am I seeing an un-purged version? ...Nope... --haha169 (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Now we have Cloud Gate, BP Pedestrian Bridge, Lurie Garden, McCormick Tribune Ice Rink, Wrigley Square and Harris Theater (Chicago) all in the WP:GAC queue. The latter ones could use some more beef, but I did what I could. I still have to do the main article. What do you mean about the link? Tell me at my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You can follow along at WP:CHIFTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Revised assessment

Now that I have created all the articles for WP:CHIFTD, I need some advice. Is it possible to get a WP:FT with this topic. It appears that currently one article lacks sufficient content to produce a WP:GA and one is a redirect to another. How does this compare to recent topics considered.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 00:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, Tony. I think that your Millennium Park topic would count as a clear set of articles for the purpose of FT. You might run into people that want to see articles on the history and influence of the park. If you don't think good articles could be written about those subjects, you might want to submit the topic as "Attractions in Millennium Park". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Within the article I intend to beef up the history. However, the park is not even four years old. Could Millennium Park be the main article for a topic of an "Attractions in Millennium Park". It seems to me it would be like an album where the songs that were released had articles, but the Topic did not include producers and the artists or other influences.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Withdraw Guadalcanal Campaign

Please withdraw the Guadalcanal Campaign nomination. I'm the one who has been doing most of the work on this topic and it's not ready yet. The Operation Ke article is still under construction and the main Guadalcanal Campaign article also isn't yet ready for FAC. Once both have passed FAC, I'll renominate this topic for featured consideration. The nominator appears to be a new account. Cla68 (talk) 22:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Primary/significant contributors

I believe the instructions should be modified to ask nominators to make sure that the significant contributors to the individual articles (if someone else) are notified of the topic nomination. This could be done easily with a talk page notification on each of the articles that will be nominated as part of the topic. Of the 6 nominations currently on the list, two of them seem to have issues with this. Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates#Noble_gases was nominated without consulting User:Gary King, who put in significant work on two of the articles. Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates#The_Florida_Everglades was nominated by someone who has not worked on ANY of the articles, and who failed to notify User:Moni3, who wrote all of them and believes the topic is not currently ready. While I think ownership is bad, it makes sense to consult the significant contributors of the articles, as they are likely the content experts and should know whether a topic is fleshed out enough and ready for nomination. It is also in WP's interest to reward those who've put in the work; if you consistently see someone else get the "credit" for your work improving articles, will you be as inclined to improve a set of articles again? Not likely. Karanacs (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The instructions already include the adding of a template that says that the topic is nominated and feel free to make comments. The process needs to be simple. Zginder 2008-07-31T19:46Z (UTC)
FAC instructions are simple: you could add something similar. " Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article prior to nomination." Pretty simple: consult before, not after. In the case of the Everglades, an inappropriate redirect had to be fixed, showing one of the problems with these drivebys. By the way, who determines consensus at featured topics, and why hasn't the Everglades nomination been removed already? I'd rather see Moni3 dedicating her time to finishing the topic rather than dealing with a premature nom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Sandy- there is no "official" director of FT*, but it's unofficially Arctic Gnome. He hasn't closed the nomination yet probably because he likes to leave even doomed noms open for a little bit, for commentary on the articles. Either that, or he's busy in real life. --PresN (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Significant contributors should be notified prior to nomination. Article contributors have substantive knowledge of the topic and are in position to know if the topic really is ready. Also, having put the work into the topic, it's a good idea to allow the significant contributor(s) to nominate the topic. It's a small reward for the work they put into improving the articles. While nobody owns articles, small rewards like this are important to encourage continued high-quality contributions from editors. --Aude (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
How uncanny is this, Aude, that when I saw this nomination for Everglades topic go up, I said off Wiki, "Gee, I understand someone could be overzealous in wanting to promote a high profile set of articles related to, say, September 11, but why the Everglades?"
Recently at FAC a set of rules has been imposed to prohibit "drive-by" nominations of articles where editors with very little to no experience in the content or references. Only in a very few instances have these kinds of nominations succeeded. Many times they are abandoned at FAC and the nomination archived, in what appears to be a waste of FAC reviewers' time. To prevent this, we've asked that prior to nomination the primary contributors should be contacted on their talk pages, and that a message should be placed on the article talk page before the nomination. SandyGeorgia knows more about this than I do. I think I'm going to point her in this direction. --Moni3 (talk) 13:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly - "drive-by nominators" generally aren't familiar enough with the content and sources, and likely won't be able make changes as suggested by the reviewers. In the Everglades case, the nominator made a very questionable (but good faith) redirect to remove an article that a reviewer had thought should be in the topic but wasn't of appropriate quality. The nominator just didn't know enough about the content to realize that the redirect was inaccurate. Karanacs (talk) 14:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I would strongly support copying the FAC rules on this to FTC. I think it's easier for topics to pass problem-free here without the significant contributors having nominated (for example, the current 7th Solar System addition is doing fine), but I also think that it is common courtesy to not only ask the significant contributors but also allow the significant contributors to bring the nomination when they feel the topic is ready - rst20xx (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one from just a few days ago: Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Guadalcanal Campaign. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, well there seems to be broad consensus here, and I really don't see that changing, so I've gone ahead and rewritten it to virtually match what FAC says (which I think has it spot on) - rst20xx (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Well done :-) Now if I might offer another suggestion :-) These pages use the term "failed" throughout the archives. I try to avoid that word at WP:FAC, preferring the terminology promote/archive. The Everglades didn't so much "fail" as it was a premature nom that needed to be withdrawn. I suggest moving, renaming and correcting all of the archive files here to correct the semantics and avoid the prejudicial "fail" word, in favor of "archive". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
But to me, "archived" doesn't necessarily mean "failed", just that the nomination closed. Though I see and agree with your point regarding Everglades and similar cases. Maybe a better term is simply "not promoted", as per Template:ArticleHistory? rst20xx (talk) 01:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Also I notice that FAC says "Discussions about failed nominations are located at archived nominations" - maybe that could do with this change, too? :P rst20xx (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well I went for "not promoted". I'm not going to actually move the failed log pages though - rst20xx (talk) 16:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Milestones

I understand Featured topics has some milestones approaching. The WP:SIGNPOST Dispatch series has not yet done an article on featured topics. If one of you wants to write something, covering the process, the players, the history, the numbers, and the milestones, you can find samples of past dispatches in other featured content areas at {{FCDW}}. If someone decides to write this, Jbmurray (talk · contribs) or Tony1 (talk · contribs) typically copyedit if you just chunk in the text. Please review the Dispatch goals at WP:FCDW and keep us posted at the talk page if someone decides to write a Dispatch. We plan the slots in advance, so we need to know if you want a slot, and if you take it, um, we need you to honor the commitment (we offered a slot to someone once who said they wanted it but then dropped the ball and left us scrambling to write our weekly article at the last minute). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm doing so, and by doing so, I mean I just wrote one. --PresN (talk) 02:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

here's my rough draft, if I got anything wrong, someone please correct me.

Wonderful, PresN, thanks! Can you move the content in to Wikipedia:FCDW/TempFT so we can all begin to tweak it? Also, can you all add something about this, as soon as it becomes clear? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

FT Article

History of the Featured Topics process

By PresN, August 14, 2008

The Featured Topics process, in which groups of articles, or "topics", are nominated for Featured Topic status is three years old now, and has undergone immense changes since its humble beginnings. The project, unlike many of the other Featured processes, has no official director; although Arctic Gnome does the majority of promoting and closing topics, any user can do so. The project currently has stringent requirements for the minimum quality of the component articles of a topic, as well as for what the definition of a topic constitutes, but this has not always been the case.

The original Featured Topics process was first proposed back in August of 2005, by Violet/riga. The proposal was for users to propose groups of articles, or topics, which they felt to be as a whole of high quality, in order to encourage editors to write "good collections" of articles across a whole topic. Under the original rules, articles included in the topic did not have to be featured themselves, but were only required to be of "decent quality", such as passing a peer review with no major complaints. The articles in the topic also had to be grouped around a "central" article, in order to help tie them all together.

The first topic nominated was "2012 Summer Olympics bids" at the end of November that year, which covered all of the articles pertaining to the cities bidding to host the 2012 Olympics. The nomination was followed over the next few months by others such as "Music of the Lesser Antilles", which included the articles on the music of the Lesser Antilles region, "Stargate", which was a nomination of the several dozen articles that covered the fictional Stargate Universe, and "Saffron", which included Wikipedia's three articles pertaining to saffron, all of which were Featured class. The first topic to be promoted was "Saffron", in April of 2006, and this topic still remains today; none of the other originally proposed topics have ever been promoted.

After this first topic, no more were promoted until seven months later in November of 2006, when a handful of other topics reached featured status. Only one of these new topics, "Star Wars episodes", is still featured. At the time, the guidelines as to what made up a "Featured Topic" were still as vague as they had been a year previous when the original idea was proposed. In December 2006, however, Arctic Gnome began to revamp the project, creating guides as to how to nominate a topic, as well as codifying the general consensus of rules for topics that had been formed over the previous year. This codification included the first minimum requirement of quality for the included articles, that they had to be rated at least a "B" on the WP:1.0 assessment scale. His efforts were just in time, because only a week after he began, the project was nominated for deletion. Largely due to the recent changes, the project was kept, although various proposals were submitted to change the name of the project to remove the term 'Featured'.

By the end of January 2007, the project had begun to take off. The topics were now displayed in a box as they are now, rather than as a short list, the requirements had been adjusted to require all articles to be GA, A, or Featured quality if possible, the requirements as to what constituted a "topic" were more set, and the project covered eight topics encompassing 81 articles. The minimum requirements and size of the project have only continued to rise since then; by June 2007, the 150 articles across 15 topics could no longer be A-class, as it was deemed to not be defined well enough; and a month later it was added that the topics had to include a minimum number of featured articles or lists. In February of 2008, as the project included 293 articles in 32 topics, the minimum requirement was raised again, to be 20 percent of the topic with a minimum of two featured elements, and in August 2008 a proposal was put in place to raise that percentage to 25, as the process passed 50 topics and 400 articles.

Today, just over three years since it was initially proposed, the Featured Topic process stands tall among the other "Featured" processes. Including 429 articles in 53 topics across 15 broad categories, with 14 of the topics having every article featured class if possible, the project promotes on average just over three topics a month, adds onto existing topics once a month, and has only demoted four topics in the past year, one of which was later re-added. With the current amount of 7773 good and featured articles and lists, around five and a half percent of all of Wikipedia's good and featured content is included in its featured topics.

Wikipedia:Good topics

There is a proposed process at Wikipedia talk:Good topics which may be of interest to users who watchlist this page. Woody (talk) 18:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to stop the nominations

I suggest that stop all nominations until we figure out wait we want to do about GT's, criterion 3.c., 3.a.i, quick-failing, and Solar system. Zginder 2008-08-25T19:40Z (UTC)

I don't suggest that, because the GT discussions will surely take at least a few weeks, as it has already done so. Gary King (talk) 00:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Also I don't think any of the proposals will affect any of the current nominations, aside from maybe the proposal about overlaps affecting the Solar System noms, but not in a way that can't be resolved later - rst20xx (talk) 02:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree w/ Gary King (talk · contribs) and Rst20xx (talk · contribs) (Though hopefully the GT discussions will move faster than a few more weeks :P ). Cirt (talk) 02:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Good topics implementation plan

Following on from the prior straw poll, I've written a fully detailed, unambiguous plan as to how I would implement good topics, and all that remains is to sort out some of the finer points of it. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion here - rst20xx (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Amateur radio in India

I tried to list Amateur radio in India as a featured topic, but quickly withdrew it. I'm not sure how it has to be archived. Could someone help me out? Thanks! =Nichalp «Talk»= 06:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll get on that. By the way, just to make it clear, 1.d) says you need all articles from the start. 3 is dealing with the minimum size/quality of featured topics - rst20xx (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, please don't remove a candidate from WP:FTC if you don't know how to fully archive it. Just say on the candidacy you want to withdraw and someone will do it for you - rst20xx (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sharing with Good Topics

I don't see the need for separate GTC and FTC sections. I think they should be combined into one process where we determine basically, "is this a valid topic with no gaps", and then if it passes it's placed into GT or FT as appropriate. My apologies if this was already discussed elsewhere, I haven't kept up with all the GT discussion. Pagrashtak 17:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is not really needed, with so few nominations each month. – sgeureka t•c 18:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. Since both topics will be sharing a nominations page, perhaps we should move this page from "Featured topic candidates" to "Topic candidates." Rreagan007 (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
This was discussed here, and somewhere else too, and consensus both times was that it would just be clearer. But if a couple more people say here they want them merged then I think that would be overturned - rst20xx (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Give it a little bit of time for the waters to cool down after the startup of GTs. Nergaal (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove your requested move tag, Rreagan007, because we actually had a straw poll on that, and [Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_criteria/Good_topics_plan#Straw_poll_on_renaming_the_pages_from .22Featured_Topics.22_to_.22Quality Topics.22_or_something_similar|that came out] strongly against (in fact, even you voted against it). Whether the FTC and GTC sections should be integrated is another matter. If you feel that I was wrong in removing the tag, please feel free to readd it, but please also create a section to discuss the move. However, let me say that I feel it will fail, a la the straw poll - rst20xx (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I didn't mean to cause any problems. I just thought the poll was on whether or not to mix or keep separate the featured topic and good topic main pages (where the approved topics are actually listed, not the candidates pages. And since the candidates page is already mixed, which actually seems to make a lot of sense to do, I thought it would make sense to move this page. But if no one else thinks that's appropriate we'll just leave it where it is. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions about the Good Topics Implementation

Please address any questions you have about how exactly good topics are implemented here - rst20xx (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic log

Should we separate the FTCs and the GTCs in the log? There's nothing right now to say what type of nomination it was, and they're already mixing. (Chars of Castlevania blah is in the failed log with a failed FTC). --PresN (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

If it possible to do it why not? Nergaal (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Erm, yeah, we should probably note what they were at the time they were nommed, yeah. But having two completely separate logs wouldn't be right as topics once promoted can move freely between GT and FT, and what is more, this was opposed in the original implementation plan - rst20xx (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Since everything else between the two is automated, having a log that we had to keep an eye on seems like work we don't need. Even giving GT its own column in the log could be a problem, as new users wouldn't understand why the totals of FTs and GT didn't match up. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this satisfies your concerns somewhat, PresN. I'll go about and note it on September's archived noms, too - rst20xx (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Logging GT->FTC

I am not sure what is the process now, but there should definitely be a nomination procedure for a GT going for a FT (i.e. there should always be a FTC for a FT). Better safe and have at least someone review the entire topic before it is included in the "featured content". Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Going to answer this at Wikipedia talk:Good topics - rst20xx (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

While articles or lists might be small enough to have a single major contributor, for topics it is probably never the case. Therefore, I think it is a good practice and courtesy to add some sorts of Acknowledgments thing similar to what academic papers have. I think this can me put as a requirement or as a recommendation in the nomination procedure easily, and should not pose any problems. Nergaal (talk) 06:41, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

This only seems to matter for something like Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured topic nominations. – sgeureka t•c 08:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I oppose any topics nominated where the people who got the articles to GA/FA/FL haven't been consulted, as I think that's a bit rude. It's currently recommended that consultations are made to the major contributors of the articles, however it doesn't mention who nommed the individual articles for GA/FA/FL anywhere, and it also doesn't mention anything at all about this in the nomination procedure. I guess I would see both these things changed - rst20xx (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, now the fun begins...

We've now gotten enough information for one of the unreleased Guitar Hero games (World Tour) to expand out its soundtrack article, thus making a new article to be eventually added to the topic. Again, the game is not yet released, so fully expansion of this list article can't be done at this time.

I know we've got three months to clean both game and list up, I am 1) making sure that three months starts when the game is first released for both game and list and 2) seeing how to deal with the fact we are going to now need to add the soundtrack list to the FT (do we add it now, add it after three months, or what?) (I will note we always expected to have this list, but at the time that the topic candidate was put forward we didn't have enough to justify the split). Just let me know what steps to take here. --MASEM 18:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me you'd need to send it to PR and add it before release as an audited article. Pagrashtak 19:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, the list was created today, on 12 September 2008. So, you have 3 months, or until 12 December 2008, to get the list peer reviewed and into the topic. But it's worth noting the game comes out on 26 October 2008. So, you will also have until 26 January 2008 to get both the article and the list to GA/FL status. To reiterate:

  • By 12 December, you need the list in the topic as a peer reviewed list
  • By 26 January, you need the list to be featured and the article to be good

Of course, you're welcome to just get the list featured by 12 December and stick it straight in as a featured list. I'll update Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria#Retention to reflect all this by the way - rst20xx (talk) 20:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

    • Don't expect those dates to be a problem, just wanted to confirm this aspect; I expect the list will go straight to FL but we'll stay aware of the PR for it. Thanks for the info. --MASEM 20:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Closing discussions

Is there a bot closing discussions. I was looking at Talk:Slipknot discography and wondering what is going on.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I withdrew that manually. I've removed the GTC now. Gary King (talk) 05:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:ArticleHistory

We need to get Template:ArticleHistory in synch with the GTCs. Right now it looks like the template does not accomodate WP:GTCs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 07:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't (it's actually the sub-template at Template:Historyoutput that needs updating). I made requests for this earlier but for some reason it hasn't been changed yet> I'll ask again - rst20xx (talk) 08:26, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, Arctic gnome has now fixed this! rst20xx (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

FTC Directors?

I'm not a fan of unnecessary titles in Wikipedia, but with the increased scope of this project, I think we might want to consider having a group of users assigned the power to close nominations at FTC. Promotions here can be complicated, and I've seen several users try to promote a topic and only follow a couple of the steps necessary, or close a nomination as soon as a week had gone by even if there were still some outstanding debates going on. I think we would save a lot of trouble in the long run if the role of promotions was limited to a group of regulars of FT, with the opportunity of giving new people the power when they've been here for a while. Of course, this title would be "no big deal" and would give those who had it no extra voice in debates. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this would probably be a good idea, and obviously this is codifying the position you have in a sense already been holding. So naturally, it goes without saying that if such a position exists, you would be one of the people to hold the position. How many do you think there should be? rst20xx (talk) 21:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Have two, namely both of you. Reflects current practice at WP:FAC and WP:FLC. When one director is unavailable, the other is present. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Is it any wounder that the two top candidates suggested it and where the first to responded. Zginder 2008-09-11T22:44Z (UTC)

The top two candidates? Only one person has suggested it being the two of them, so I don't think they can be called the top two candidates yet. Well, except that I would !vote them both too. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I would have expected rst20xx to have responded first, dude's been basically living here for the past few days. --PresN (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it has been a bit hectic, implementing a new system... rst20xx (talk) 14:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Zginder, I defiantly do not want to give the impression that I am trying to seize power, so I encourage you to nominate other users or propose another way of controlling promotions. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we should go ahead and perform a formal elections process, like what we did at WP:FLC here: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured list director. Gary King (talk) 19:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Do we have an FT regular who doesn't want a nomination to run the election? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at how long it took to get a director at the other projects, we do not need them yet, true only two people are closing nominations, but a few months ago it was only one. If this election was held a few months ago Arctic Gnome wound have been elected, now there are two candidates, in another few months we could have three or more. Are we having disputes as to weather there was consensus to promote or not and someone new closing it an unpopular way? That would be the only problem this would fix and we have not observed it. In my opinion this is a solution in search of a problem, and might only hamper growth. We do not need instruction creep, we need to fight The iron law of oligarchy wherever possible. Long live the wiki. Zginder 2008-10-06T16:41Z (UTC)

I agree that wikis should generally avoid structures that have the semblance of giving users ranks. I started this thread because I figure that because the other FC projects eventually found this necessary, it was worth discussing while Topics expanded its scope, especially given the extra complexity of FT promotions. If nominations continue to come in at a steady pace, it will require vidgelence to ensure that promotions are done fairly and that the full promotion procedure is completed. Nevertheless, if the users here think that we can keep this under control while avoiding having FTC directors, we should give it a shot. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Query on GT scope, with example

I've been working on articles related to Pike Place Market. Two are GA, the main article is up next (and then on to FA there), and I think I can get a variety of the others to at least GA, one to FA, and another to a possible FA. For purposes of a Good Topic, how much of the articles listed at Template:Pike Place Market would for example be required, to get a GT certification? I'm a bit confused on the scope of it. Two of the businesses are presently GAs. rootology (C)(T) 23:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Although I am not familiar with the topic, I'd say Pike Place Market and everything listed under "Main". The "Businesses" entries are optional based on relevance; the connection between the proposed topic and Beecher's Handmade Cheese is obvious, with Manning's Cafeterias less so, and with Starbucks none. As for the people, it's either all or none. The important thing with FTs/GTs is not to cherrypick, and to have no obvious gaps (atricles of less notability can be added later, as long as it creates no new gaps). – sgeureka t•c 08:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Starbucks was founded in Pike Place Market, as were all the other businesses. OK, my take on this topic would be that, Pike Place Market and everything under Main would be fine (though 3 of the things under Main seem to redirect to Pike Place Market, so this is dependent on their being merged out, as 2 articles do not a topic make). And then the People and Businesses are both optional expansions, but if you decide to take either of them, you have to do all of that one; i.e. if you do one business, you have to do them all. Unless you can argue that some of the people/businesses are more important to the market than others, in which case you could just do those more important ones (see, for example, the current Asteroid belt nom, which just includes the "big four" asteroids) - rst20xx (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, guys! rootology (C)(T) 23:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Good Topic Log

We need a Good Topic Log.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

We discussed that, but the problem with it is that topics can move back and forth between GT and FT without nominations, so the log will won't match the actual number of GT at any given time, which will confuse a lot of people. A joint topic seems like a better idea to me. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 12:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I am talking about a log. I.e, a count of pass fails like at WP:FTL. You seem to be responding about how groups of articles may go back and forth between GTCs and FTCs which is not relevant to this issue. It may move back and forth, but in the end it will either be an FTC or a GTC at the time pass/fail is determined. GT should have a GTL like FT has a FTL so that we can keep track of the history of the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Another problem is the updating of WP:WBFTN, which relies upon the featured topic log. I would support separating the logs, unless User:Rick Block can remedy the issue. sephiroth bcr (converse) 16:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
A separate log would be preferable, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 20:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is like the fourth time this has been discussed. Erm, I would oppose the separating of the logs, as if we are logging whether a promoted topic is good or featured, we should also log whether a topic has moved from good to featured or vice versa automatically. This means a fair bit of extra work. It might mean that Rick Block's bot shows one count for good and featured topics together, but to be honest, I really despise Wikipedia:WBFTN. I find that generally it means that editors treat the whole thing as a competition to see who can get the most FTs and hence end up nominating the work of others, which is obviously a very bad thing as it's disrespectful to the people whose work it is, and it also means the editor cannot handle any issues that come up at FTC/GTC. Further to this, surely the editors who got the articles to GA/FA/FL in the first place would deserve a mention in any list of who promoted what. Also I think it's completely broken anyway. For an example of an outright glitch, it says Mitchazenia nominated Guitar Hero. As for ways in which it is broken, it doesn't mention supplementary nominations, and also if the nominating editor says it's a co-nom it won't necessarily pick up on this (example: Serendipodous isn't on the list at all, yet User:Serendipodous/Vanity closet rightly says he should have two, one for 8 million sups and one for a co-nom) - rst20xx (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My acknowledgments proposal just a few lines above was meant exactly to the editors who got the articles to GA/FA/FL in the first place would deserve a mention in any list of who promoted what, but absolutely nobody seemed to support it. As for the Serendipous's example it is odd, since the FTC included his name among other major contributors... Can't somebody manually edit the promotion log to add the extra contributors too? Nergaal (talk) 01:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
What I said there is basically that people already should be acknowledged. And we could change the log to fix it, yes, but to have to keep an eye on it and fix it every time it breaks is a real pain - rst20xx (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
...Also, it's worth noting that the current nomination procedure recommends that the nomming editor states at the top of the nom whether a topic is a good or featured topic nom. This change was brought about as a result of last time we had this discussion, 3 days ago - rst20xx (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Separate or joint, I don't much care. Just tell me what page I can go to in order to see a summary of concluded GTC discussions.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log - rst20xx (talk) 01:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
O.K. We currently have two WP:GTs. They seem to be from this month. They are not shown, if I am correct. What should I be looking for?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh no, those were both promoted as FTs ages back. But when GTs were implemented, the FT criteria went up from 20% to 25% at the same time. It was agreed that the topics no longer meeting the criteria would just be demoted to GTs, and those were the two topics that got demoted as a result. Hence, there was no discussion to look at, as it was in effect an automatic move. The only discussion is the one that occured when they originally became FTs waaaay back - rst20xx (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't the WP:FTL show 2 demoted?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Because it only logs non-automatic promotions/demotions/failed promotions/failed demotions/additions/failed additions - rst20xx (talk) 19:34, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Is this how we want it to be? Should there be a log of transfers between GT and FT?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that such as log would be very hard to keep track of when we get up to over a hundred topics each moving back and forth based on thousands of articles promotions and demotions. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
That's why a nom procedure would prevent such a huge avalanche. Nergaal (talk) 04:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(reset) No, a nom procedure would cause more work, because not only would they still all move back and fourth, but also we'd have to deal with the (otherwise pointless, may I add) noms as well - rst20xx (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If a GT that has enough FAs to be promoted can't pass a FT nom, it should be GTRed any way. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:WPFTN

Gary King let me know that about the bot adding good topics to the the by-year summaries (e.g. WP:FT2008), which also makes the bot add these to WP:WBFTN. Reading through the logs at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log/September 2008 it's not obvious to me (as a human!) which noms are for good topics and which are for featured topics. Reading through discussions of the process my understanding is a topic that was nominated as good can automatically become featured (and vice versa) depending on subsequent FACs, FARs, FLCs, and FLRCs.

Questions for you all:

1) How can you tell reading through WP:FTL which noms are "good" vs. "featured"? The nom for Final Fantasy XII says, but 47 Ursae Majoris, Upsilon Andromedae, and Gliese 876 don't. Is it obvious to you folks somehow which ones are which? Pending some way to tell, I'll disable bot updates.

2) If topics can automatically move from good to featured and vice versa is there any difference in the amount of work or effort involved in their nominations - i.e. should WP:WBFTN include both?

Given my understanding of the current good/featured topic process it's not at all clear to me WP:WBFTN has any point. It seems the criteria is pretty cut and dried given a set of articles/lists someone considers to be a "topic", i.e. the work involved is limited to defining the topic and, once it's defined, a topic can be classified as good or featured completely automatically. I've never really grokked the point of topics, but if anyone wants to simply get rid of WP:WBFTN (and presumably WP:WT2008) I wouldn't mind (WP:MFD thataway).

Aside to rst20xx: "credit" for each nomination is initially assigned by the bot to the creator of the nomination file and is reflected both in the by year nomination summary, e.g. WP:FT2008, and in the full list at WP:WBFTN. Errors in either can occur (since the creator of the nom file is not necessarily the nominator and this algorithm always misses co-noms) and should be corrected by fixing the by-year summary as appropriate. Corrections to the by-year summary lists to fix errors are permitted (encouraged even) for all the similar WBF lists. -- Rick Block (talk) 15:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I would support just dropping WBFTN altogether. Aside from the incredibly confusing mess it makes of it to have Good topics thrown into the midst, it just isn't like WBFAN. For individual articles, the nominator is invariably the person who put all the effort into it- for topics, it can be the person who happened to find it, someone who did most (but not all) of the articles, someone who did a few of the articles, etc. It's way too complex in my opinion to be reduced to a simple "# of nominations" list. --PresN (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Answers to the questions:
  1. The difference between the two is in the percentage/minimum number of articles required to be featured, and hence by knowing that featured topics need 25% FAs, or at least 2, I can tell that Ursae Majoris, Upsilon Andromedae, and Gliese 876 were Good Topic noms. However this setup has a few faults, for example it's likely that the FT percentage may go up in the future, and so then it'll become less clear what was what type of nom when. As a result, we changed the nomination procedure to request that when someone noms a topic, they state the type of nom, though annoyingly people haven't been doing this. Oh well, the best I can do then is to note what type of nom a topic was when I promote it/fail it (e.g. with Final Fantasy XII)
  2. In a sense you're right, and if we just had WP:WBFTN/WP:FT2008 list both then that would solve any technical problems. However I would suspect some editors would oppose this as they would prefer to just see the narrower FT list.
  • Ultimately, I would see the lists scrapped. The information found in WP:FT2008 can be found easily enough elsewhere, and the information in WP:WBFTN (aside from being inaccurate without manual intervention, and also as it does not include supplementary nominations) leads to excessive competitiveness and people nominating stuff they haven't worked on - rst20xx (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, one featured topic is not necessarily as good as another by any means, as they vary in number of articles (and number of featured articles!) enormously - rst20xx (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything Rst20xx said except for that with the list it encourages people to nominate topics they did not write, when in true that is the only reason we do not allow that, so that the writers can be credited. Zginder 2008-09-21T19:15Z (UTC)

That's like saying people nominate articles for FAC because they want to increase their standing at WP:WBFAN; in other words, it's nonsense. If the nomination process already prevents people from successfully making nominations on topics they have not significantly worked on (which is the same for the FAC and FLC processes), then there is no problem. If multiple people worked on a topic then you list all of them on the list. People should be recognized for their work. sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

WBFTN asides from being neat, it is not really accurate. Still, I believe that if it were to get deleted now, at some point it will get started again (possibly in a couple of years but it will nonetheless). I think a good solution is for the promoter (which supposedly will be only 2 soon) could just update the FT2008 one manually. But for this to work well, the acknowledgments or list of noms is necessary (I still don't understand why are ppl not interested in the ackn. thing since if you took time to put together a topic, the ackn. would take only a minute fraction of the overall work). Nergaal (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Good topic log (2)

Okay, following an idea from Gary King I've done some rejigging, such that the Good topics are subtly transcluded from a different page. Hopefully the bot will no longer pick up on them. Now, when a topic moves from GT to FT, Gary reckons we should just be able to move it between the two pages for the relevant month, and Gary reckons the bot will then pick up on the newly moved topic and add it as being promoted in the current month. Which annoyingly means some work for automatic promotions, but not much. Time will tell whether this approach will work, but at any rate, WP:WBFAN and WP:FT2008 should no longer pick up on Good topics - rst20xx (talk) 18:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Doing it this way the bot won't pick up the good topics (it might think the good log is a featured topic, but that's a trivial thing to fix), however unless a GT to FT move results in the transclude being the first one (most recent) in the file the bot will ignore it. Is the intent that whoever nominates a good topic show up (later) in WP:FT2008 and WP:WBFTN if the number of articles/lists in the topic pass the FT threshold? This strikes me as extremely peculiar. If the only difference between GT and FT is the proportion of featured articles/lists, it doesn't seem like the effort involved in the nomination is different. Perhaps WP:WBFTN should include both, but display something other than a star for GTs (like ). Doing this would raise the question of how to sort the users - by count of only FTs or count of both or based on some formula (e.g. FT + GT/2)? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
In order for a topic to go from GT to FT, one or more articles in the topic must be promoted from Good article to Featured article. I'm thinking that the person(s) who helped promote the Featured article should re-nominate the topic, if only for a formality. It can quickly be added to the promoted log when someone sees it. This would be the cleanest way to handle it. Gary King (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

No, no renominations, half the point is that we don't need to and I'm not in favour of introducing it for this. Rick Block, a question: How would the bot be able to tell which are good noms and which are featured noms? Or would that need doing manually? rst20xx (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, because they're now in separate logs now, duh. But then there's still the problem that the bot won't detect topics that change from good to featured - rst20xx (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking, and part of the problem with the current WP:WBFTN is it treats all FTs equally, when obviously Guadalcanal Campaign is miles better than Smallville (season 1) (no offence, but it is). So Rick Block, I have a question: Would it be possible to edit your bot to count the number of FAs, FLs and GAs in a topic being nominated? I would think it should be possible. And from this, we can award all topics a score: 1 point for each GA, and 2 points for each FA/FL (so Guadalcanal Campaign would get 36 points, Smallville would get 5 points, and everything else would get in between I think). And then each editor's position in WP:WBFTN would reflect how many points they have, not how many topics.

And while this change wouldn't do anything to discourage people from nomming each other's work, it would encourage people to work on existing topics as well as building new ones, which is surely a good thing. Also, it would mean that good topics can be included, as they can still be scored fairly relatively to FTs using this points-based system - rst20xx (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I oppose something like that. The system should be kept simple. FAC and FLC has been doing relatively well with a single star for a single nomination, even though some FAs can take weeks or months to work on, and sometimes with the help of half a dozen or more people, while others don't take as much time. Just keep it simple. Gary King (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but comparing the worth of two FAs or two FLs is pretty subjective. I suppose the same is true here in that some GAs are probably worth more than some FAs, etc but broadly speaking I think that 2 points for FA/FL, 1 point for GA, is accurate. Anyway, nevermind then, just trying to solve this problem, but I think that I've highlighted here another reason why WP:WBFTN is pretty worthless - because more than anywhere else, items vary in quality enormously - rst20xx (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. I think the most use that the page has is that it's more of an index of what someone has nominated. Gary King (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh it's obvious! So obvious! Why don't we get Rick Block to modify his bot to use TopicTransclude on each log entry/star? So at the moment, the bot codes each star in WP:WBFTN with

[[Wikipedia:Featured topics/ExampleTopicName|★]]

or

[[Wikipedia:Featured topics/ExampleTopicName|<span style="color: #B7410E;">★</span>]]

The first is for FTs, the second for former FTs (which get red stars instead of blue). Now, I've just quickly cobbled together a template: User:Rst20xx/WBFTN. What we could do is change the code in the first case to:

{{User:Rst20xx/WBFTN|ExampleTopicName}}

Let's give some examples of this template in action, with a featured and good topic:

★ ★

Look good? Then WP:WBFTN would include both GTs and FTs, but we can see which is which - rst20xx (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that this fundamentally changes the fact that it's supposed to only be for Featured topics, hence the name. Gary King (talk) 20:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, it does, but that's not a reason not to do it. I mean, everything else round here is called "featured topics" despite being shared by both good and featured topics, and you said yourself, "I think the most use that the page has is that it's more of an index of what someone has nominated" - rst20xx (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I was talking about featured topics. Gary King (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I like the idea. Good compromise to solve this as versus creating another page. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(reset) Any more opinions? rst20xx (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we just leave it how it is now, with the FT and GT logs, and then see how things go from there? Gary King (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Well did we ever resolve what happens when topics get automatically promoted in the current system? rst20xx (talk) 20:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Move it to the FTL logs. See how that goes. Gary King (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
We'll have to wait for one to get promoted then - rst20xx (talk) 17:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I recently realized that it might be a bit silly for us to ask both the nominator and the promoter to make a template containing all of the articles and their quality. If we asked nominators to propose their topic using {{Featured topic box}} rather than {{topicnom}}, it would:

  • be easier to read,
  • show the voters what the end product would look like,
  • encourage the nominator to find a suitable photo, and
  • save time in the promotions.

I do not think that the implementation would be too difficult; anyone who has gotten a topic to promotable level can probably figure out the {{Featured topic box}} template, and if they can't it wouldn't be hard to get help. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Somebody should actually go and change the instructions... Nergaal (talk) 20:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, done - rst20xx (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you interested in a Main Page section?

Hi, I'm from the 2008 main page redesign proposal and I am interested in adding a new section that will display a Featured Portal, Topic, or List daily. (I don't think there's enough to have one of each a day for several years.) However, I am not involved with any of these projects and don't want to champion the cause myself. There has already been talk of Featured Sounds on the Main Page; and we would be willing to make combinations like the Beethoven mock-up there, featuring related lists, portals, topics, etc. on one day. I would appreciate your feedback here, because I'm posting this message in a number of places and would like a unified discussion. Thanks, HereToHelp (talk to me) 18:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could do a FT section, but it would be more like choose one article from the topic and premiere it, but that is not a good idea at this time. I do also think portal and topic should be together only, rather than adding lists. Another good addition would to put Featured Sounds with portal and topic.Mitch32(UP) 20:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I see topics more like something that makes it more attractive to work on for editors. People like to work on similar articles, and get recognition for it. I'm not so sure that it would be as useful for outside readers who aren't interested in "groups" of topics, but more like specific articles, which is what the featured article box on the main page is for. Gary King (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

If you found a nice way of adding FTs, that would certainly help promote the aims of the project. As for grouping, it makes for sense to me to group topics with portals as subject-oriented FCs; group images with sounds as media-oriented FCs; and group articles with lists as page-oriented FCs. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:09, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

An interesting idea, but there are enough lists and articles to keep each one separate and never run out. Besides, lists can be grouped: Songs in Guitar Hero Songs in Guitar Hero II Songs in Guitar Hero III: Legends of Rock Songs in Guitar Hero: Aerosmith Songs in Guitar Hero Encore: Rocks the 80s. The lists are all featured but the Topic isn't quite as good. Does it make sense to give each one a day?—HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this idea, simply because I'm not sure how it would be presented. The only idea I have would be to simply display the featured topic box, or some more compact version of it. I like Arctic Gnome's conception of the three different types of content though, but perhaps there could be 4 - articles, lists, pictures/sounds and portals/topics. This seems like the most fitting set of groupings to me. Though portals/topics may ultimately run out :S rst20xx (talk) 18:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles = List ?

Can lists be used in lieu of articles for the featured topics? I ask because I was planning on bumping up Avatar: The Last Airbender, List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes, Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 1), Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 2), and Avatar: The Last Airbender (season 3) to featured content to try to get a Featured Topic - Avatar. However, four out of five of the aforementioned are lists. Would you still count this as a Featured Topic if I tried to push this for featured topic status? NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It says "featured list" right in the criteria. Gary King (talk) 00:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, there are topics that comprise entirely of featured lists. See Wikipedia:Featured topics/North Carolina hurricanes, as an example. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you guys :) NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
FYI, you wouldn't need Avatar: The Last Airbender for that topic. List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes would be the main article, and the season lists are the rest of the topic. See Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of YuYu Hakusho. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

proposals for additions

I believe List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality should go into its VC topic. Nergaal (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Chrono Resurrection in the Chrono titles. Nergaal (talk) 18:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

The former suggestion is tricky because there are lots of similar list-type articles that possibly should be included, and yet the topic is certainly complete in some scope, namely the types of Victoria Crosses. The topic maybe should be renamed. As for the latter, this is an unofficial fan game so I don't think it's required (see also: Zelda topic excluding "non-canon" games), but I agree, it would be nice to add it in, and it is a GA so no work would be required. Ask Judgesurreal777? - rst20xx (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
In terms of VC lists, I was waiting until all the lists under List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign were featured, (currently half way there) until suggesting an addition. Would renaming it now complicate things later on. Incidentally, I don't think VCs by nationality should be added as it is dependent on other lists to make it complete, most of those lists are not at FA. Regards. Woody (talk) 00:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Metroid Prime topic

This was originally posted to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_questions#Metroid_Prime_topic but that page doesn't get nearly as much traffic as this page, so hopefully this will get more attention.

I am working on a Metroid Prime trilogy topic. Is it sufficient for a topic? Three people voiced their opinions, in which each said that although it wasn't an ideal topic, it would still be acceptable. However, recently some concern was raised on my talk page, so I'd like a wider consensus.

"Metroid Prime trilogy"
Main page Articles
Metroid (series) Metroid Prime · Metroid Prime 2: Echoes · Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

Gary King (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how the lead topic really fits with this topic. Zginder 2008-11-16T04:46Z (UTC)
There were some suggestions that Metroid Prime (series) would be required. I wonder if there's enough information out there to create such an article? I could look in to that. Gary King (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This:

Main page Articles
Metroid Prime Metroid Prime 2: Echoes · Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

sounds more reasonable, but it still a bit of stretch since there are two more spinoffs in the Prime series. Nergaal (talk) 04:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If the Metroid Prime (series) article would be stubby and redundant, than either the general Metroid article or the Metroid Prime article could acceptably be used as the lead. However, if there is enough information to write a GA about this subseries in general, that would be ideal. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I will consider the suggested topic. I don't think there is enough to write a GA about the Metroid Prime series, but I do know that the trilogy is officially defined. Gary King (talk) 04:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
We can do without the pinball game, but you'll have to provide an official source showing that Metroid Prime Hunters is not part of the Prime series. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I specify that it's the Trilogy; should that be sufficient? Gary King (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether the reviewers would accept that. It would be like nominating an "Indiana Jones trilogy" topic; yes there were three core movies, but you can't just ignore the fact that a sub-par fourth one was made. For Prime, you would have to make an argument that Hunters game doesn't count. The fact that's it's handheld helps your argument, but the fact that it takes place in the middle of the Prime storyline hurts it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
You say the Pinball game can be excluded, but on what basis? If the topic is the Metroid Prime series (which it's not right now; it's the Trilogy; but let's say it is), then how can I possibly exclude the Pinball game? Gary King (talk) 16:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
The gameplay in Pinball was nothing like the rest of the series, and I'm assuming that the events in Pinball are not a canon part of the Metroid storyline. This topic is comparable to the Zelda FT. In that one, the Link's Crossbow Training was excluded because it was clearly a gimmicky one-event game with no canon status, (like Pinball). The Zelda games for the Philips CD-I were excluded despite being adventure games because they were made by a different company and were not part of the series canon. The problem with Hunters is that it uses the same kind of gameplay as the trilogy (even going so far as being first-person) and is an official part of the Prime storyline published by Nintendo. To exclude it, you'll have to put forward a cited reason why the trilogy is a self-contained topic by itself, otherwise you'll be accused of cherrypicking your articles. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

← Okay, thanks for explaining that. I don't think that it affects the stories of the other games in the series, but that's beside the point; I see where you're coming from. I'm thinking of replacing the main article, Metroid (series), with Metroid Prime. So it will look like this:

Main page Articles
Metroid Prime Metroid Prime 2: Echoes · Metroid Prime Hunters · Metroid Prime 3: Corruption

This is a similar setup to my developing Half-Life 2 topic, where Half-Life 2 is the main article for other articles in the Half-Life 2 series. Thoughts? Gary King (talk) 17:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that it's impossible to make a good Metroid Prime (series) article, this is an acceptable setup; out of the thirteen existing video game topics, there is one that already uses a game as the lead (Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow). I would recommend making the Legacy section of the Metroid Prime article a bit longer. Another few sentences about how gameplay and plot evolved over the series as a whole would make the article a much stronger lead for the topic. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks, I'll get right on Echoes and Hunters then. I'll work on the Legacy section over time while I work on these two articles. I guess it's fair to assume that you would support this topic, then? :) Gary King (talk) 17:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I would support this if the legacy section is expanded or a series article is made. Zginder 2008-11-17T23:22Z (UTC)

Sorry to say this slightly late in the day, but I disagree with Arctic Gnome. The reason Link's Crossbow Training was excluded from the Zelda topic is because there is an official Nintendo canon of Zelda games, and the Crossbow Training game was excluded from that official canon. There is as far as I know no such canon for the Metroid Prime games, beyond the three main games being identified as forming a "trilogy". I think plot concerns are subjective. Hence I would only support either with all 5 games, or just the trilogy - rst20xx (talk) 02:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I see your logic for calling all five a complete topic together, but not the three alone. The only things that they have in common with each other and not with Hunters is the number in their names. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
And the fact that they are defined by Nintendo as a trilogy? Gary King (talk) 02:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite understand why Nintendo would attach the "Prime" subtitle to a fourth game if they saw the series as a trilogy. Both on the Nintendo site and on the web at large the phrase "Metroid Prime series" gets way more hits than "Metroid Prime trilogy". Nevertheless, if there are documents publish by Nintendo suggesting that the three games alone constitute a self-contained series, than the three-article topic would work.
Hunters is specifically for the DS crowd; the primary storyline stays on the consoles. Gary King (talk) 03:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Hunters appears distinct, but as Rst20xx reminded me, storylines are subjective, as are target audiences, and we need facts that are encyclopedic. To avoid including all five games, we need something outside of the in-game universe that makes the trilogy distinct, which brings us back to needing proof that Nintendo sees the trilogy as a self-contained unit within the larger Prime series. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
How official does it have to be before it is accepted? If you use this search term you will see that they have referred to it as the trilogy multiple times, and similar things can be found elsewhere from Nintendo representatives. Is that sufficient? Gary King (talk) 03:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
It's hard to predict how picky voters will be on any given nomination, but since the citation is just for a nomination and not for article content, those mentions on Nintendo's website should probably be good enough. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

← You guys have seen enough featured topics to give an informed opinion on this, so that's still fairly useful. That means I got working on Hunters for nothing! :) Gary King (talk) 04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If Hunters is already a solid article, maybe some day a Pinball fan will improve that one and we can upgrade the topic from "Prime Trilogy" to "Prime Series"; then we'll just be five articles away from upgrading to a general Metroid topic.  :) --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I have no problem with that. Recently, when I work on an article, I prefer to bring it to FA status, which is why I take longer to build topics now. Gary King (talk) 04:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Hunters for nothing"? You improved the article, didn't you?!? rst20xx (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I find the game mediocre compared to the others in the series. Gary King (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

FTC Image

I was wondering if there should be an cluster image more like the GTC one. I have made this, sorry if someone has already done this, and a decision was made not to use it.


I propose this image replaces in the following templates.

Would people be for using it? I thought I should see if there was a consensus, before inserting it into these much used templates. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. It would help to visually differentiate between featured articles and featured topics. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 Done. I have implemented it into the above templates, and swapped the image on this FTC project page. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The only broken star should be the big one. The smaler stars (representing the component articles I think) should not be broken. Nergaal (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah good point. Same goes with Image:GA candidate cluster.svg then, actually. Gary King (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Done FTC image. I will go and do Image:GA candidate cluster.svg now, for consistency. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 Done. Both done now. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Very nice work - rst20xx (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Question

What is the maximum number of users that can nominate one topic candidate? -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 21:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No maximum, as far as I'm aware. The same goes with FAC, FLC, and probably most other processes, too. Gary King (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
In fact a whole WikiProject was credited for two featured topics in August 2008. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
A few WikiProjects have more than ten featured article credits, too. Gary King (talk) 21:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Now your just showing off :p Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, they aren't really associated with me or anything. Just pointing it out :) Gary King (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/2008&oldid=1140392003"