Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Byzantine Empire[edit]

This would be my first attempt on nominating a Featured/Good topic. I would like to see your feedback on this:

19 articles
Featured article Byzantine Empire
Good article Byzantine Greeks
Good article Byzantine Empire under the Komnenos dynasty
Good article History of Roman and Byzantine domes
B-Class article Byzantine music
B-Class article Byzantine calendar
B-Class article Byzantine art
C-Class article Byzantine Rite
C-Class article Byzantine army
Good article Solomon (Byzantine general)
Featured article Byzantine navy
Good article Arab–Byzantine wars
Good article Byzantine–Ottoman wars
B-Class article Byzantine–Sasanian wars
B-Class article Byzantine–Bulgarian wars
Good article Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628
Good article Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 894–896
Good article Siege of Constantinople (860)
Featured article Byzantine civil war of 1341–1347

Would it be nicer if I focus on the military aspect and avoid such a broad topic? --Mhhossein talk 07:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

As I see almost all articles except the mail one (Byzantine Empire) relate to the "military history of Byzantine Empire". Thus, the title of the topic is not suitable. In addition, I suggest to add few more articles including: Byzantine Empire under the Komnenos dynasty and Battle of Manzikert.--Seyyed(t-c) 07:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Before starting a detailed discussion on large topics it is better to create a detailed book. That helps a lot clarifying what ought to be within the topic. Nergaal (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

London Monopoly places[edit]

This is a project I've been working on for about two years (see User:Ritchie333/Monopoly). This is basically improving our articles on every property that is a square on the standard British Monopoly board (see Category:London Monopoly places) to GA. It's not too far off being done, and I plan to put this all for a Good Topic nomination as and when all are GAs. The current state is as follows:

26 articles
London Monopoly places
Monopoly board on white bg.jpg
Good article Old Kent Road
Good article Whitechapel Road
Good article nominee London King's Cross railway station
Good article The Angel, Islington
Good article Euston Road
Good article Pentonville Road
Good article Pall Mall, London
Good article Whitehall
Good article Northumberland Avenue
Good article nominee Marylebone station
Good article Bow Street
Good article Great Marlborough Street
Good article Vine Street, London
Good article Strand, London
Good article Fleet Street
Good article Trafalgar Square
Good article Fenchurch Street railway station
Good article Leicester Square
Good article Coventry Street
Good article Piccadilly
Good article Regent Street
Good article Oxford Street
Good article Bond Street
Good article Liverpool Street station
Good article Park Lane
C-Class article Mayfair

All I really want to know is - have I missed anything off? (If somebody says I have to get Free parking to GA I will bang my head against a desk...) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

This looks like a really interesting and major project! So I really hate to say this... Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria, point 2: "The topic has an introductory and summary lead article or list". Not only is there not an article/list on the London Monopoly places, there isn't even one on the UK Monopoly game version itself. I'd personally be hesitant to support this topic with a lead article of Monopoly (game)#U.K. version, though maybe others wouldn't have an issue. --PresN 15:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@PresN: I can probably "hack" that by creating List of London Monopoly places and passing it through FLC. The choice of locations by Victor Watson was a bit off-the-wall, and there is a story to tell (particularly Vine Street, which went to AfD once before somebody shouted "Monopoly!") - Monopoly (game)#U.K. version has got the gist of this. Tim Moore's book has got a lengthy introduction, and the topic has got some news sources, so we can probably create something that withstands the standard inclusion policies. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
I think if you have that, or a "London Monopoly" article, then it should be all good to go. --PresN 16:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to break the bubble but I see 2 problems:

1) needs a strong lead; I am wondering if any lead article not existent yet would ever pass an AfD

2) there is a serious discrepancy between any such possible lead and real-life places. All these 20+ places only have a footnote related to Monopoly, which makes it not seem like a natural subcomponent of a topic. Nergaal (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nergaal: As a manager once said, "I don't see challenges, I see opportunities". (I'm the guy who looks at this and thinks, "right, I like a challenge!") I have created List of London Monopoly places; as far as notability goes the related topic of the Monopoly pub crawl was sent to AfD back in 2009 and closed as "merge". The specific London set is well-known enough to be documented in several sources, particularly the pub crawl element; it is also mentioned in various promotions such as a current MacDonalds Monopoly "instant win" game that has posters up all over the place, using Mayfair as the jackpot. (All of the mentions I can find are in tabloids, so it can't go in the article). It does help that there is a critically successful book that is entirely dedicated to this very specific topic. (Sample review : "Growing up in Australia my knowledge of London was all-but restricted to the Monopoly board.") Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
"London Monopoly" is not an actual term if you google it. See wp:FORK. If you want to have a real chance at getting this, I STRONGLY suggest creating "Localization of Monopoly game in the UK". That way you can cover all the versions sold around an actual notable market, and you can discuss sales too and books such as the one you listed. With such a lead, a topic could work. I am 99% sure the current version of the article you presented will be AfDed and/or rejected at WP:FLC. Nergaal (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I did google it. If I type "london monopoly" into Google, the first hit is whose opening sentence is "The London Monopoly board is one of the many icons of our city, familiar to millions", the second is - a challenge to run every street, the third is a Google Maps overlay with all the streets. As the article says (and backed up by multiple reliable sources), the London version is orders of magnitude more significant than any other as it was sold to the rest of the Commonwealth (eg: Australia and New Zealand). None of the other boards are notable at all so there is no point in doing anything with them. If you don't live outside the US and are under 35 (so won't remember when the London set was the only one you could buy full stop) then too bad. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't get those links when I google it. Anyways, I doubt that minor references like these two are sufficient to pass wp:FORK. Again, List_of_licensed_and_localized_editions_of_Monopoly:_Europe#United_Kingdom seems like a more natural topic for a new article that would pass AfD. Nergaal (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I don't get those links when I google it So you think I'm a liar? I'm out of this conversation, have a nice life. (and don't take it out on me just because you got your rollback privileges dinged...) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Neah, nuanced jokes don't translate very well in writing. :) I was trying to say that the localization probably gives you those search results (those links might appear if I go down the results), which makes me think that those links are not of wider impact (I am assuming outside of London). I don't think the list you have now will likely pass FLC, so, at least in my head, it would make sense to expand the scope of such a list to something more easily palpable. Something like "Monopoly in the UK" would make for a sensible, split article, since, I think, should be one of the largest markets for the game. PS: the rollback think has nothing to do with it; if anything, this project helps me relax away from contentious ones :). Nergaal (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I have phoned a friend. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Never Let Me Down[edit]

6 articles
Good article Never Let Me Down
Good article Never Let Me Down
Good article "Day-In Day-Out"
Good article "Time Will Crawl"
Good article "Never Let Me Down"
Good article Glass Spider Tour
Start-Class article Glass Spider

Howdy everyone. I'm close to getting the last of 6 articles about this album promoted to GA status (it's in the nomination queue now). Since this is my first good topic, I thought I'd put out a call here first for feedback:

  • Is anything missing?
  • Anything else I need to know/do other than getting "Glass Spider" to GA quality?

Thanks! 87Fan (talk) 16:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Don't relink Never Let Me Down (album) in the box, just have it in the lead
Thanks, I will do this. I also need to add some sort of overview/lede, right?
  • Current consensus seems to be that you don't need to include cover songs unless this version is the most well-known; I'm a little on the fence here since the Bowie version was released as a single so you might have some trouble there.
You're referring to "Bang Bang", right? As it wasn't an official single release (just a promotional single) I wasn't sure if it had to be a GA article or not. What's the best way to get an answer here?
  • You've got the tour and the tour video, so I think everything else is fine (oh, you'll need to make a book befe you actually nominate- click the red book link and make something that looks like the books for other topics). --PresN 17:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I will add that. Thank you, 87Fan (talk) 17:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Pink Floyd[edit]

36 articles
Featured articlePink Floyd
Good article Syd Barrett
Featured article Roger Waters
B-Class article David Gilmour
Good article Richard Wright
C-Class article Nick Mason
Good article The Piper at the Gates of Dawn
Good article A Saucerful of Secrets
Start-Class article More
Good article Ummagumma
Good article Atom Heart Mother
Good article Meddle
C-Class article Obscured by Clouds
Featured article The Dark Side of the Moon
Featured article Wish You Were Here
Good article Animals
Good article The Wall
Featured article The Final Cut
Featured article A Momentary Lapse of Reason
C-Class article Delicate Sound of Thunder
Good article The Division Bell
Start-Class article Pulse
Start-Class article Is There Anybody Out There? The Wall Live 1980–81
Good article Echoes: The Best of Pink Floyd
C-Class article The Endless River
Start-Class article Why Pink Floyd...?
Start-Class article The Early Years 1965–1972
Good article "Interstellar Overdrive"
C-Class article "Arnold Layne"
Start-Class article "See Emily Play"
B-Class article "Echoes"
C-Class article "Money"
B-Class article "Shine On You Crazy Diamond"
B-Class article "Another Brick in the Wall"
C-Class article "Comfortably Numb"
Good article Pink Floyd: Live at Pompeii
List-Class article Pink Floyd discography
List-Class article Pink Floyd live performances

Now, I like a challenge, and one Good Topic that has been on my radar for years is Pink Floyd. A lot of articles have been taken to GA and FA already, but there's plenty more to do and a lot of the remainder can be tackled by the same core 4-5 book sources. The articles above are the ones I think we could not possibly meet the GT criteria without - the core article itself, the band members, all the major albums (I've left off a few compilations like A Collection of Great Dance Songs but that might be a mistake), songs that were either major hits or have achieved major critical acclaim, and essential lists. My question really is, what else are we missing? The book has a lot more content, but to be frank some of the individual song articles on the lesser known albums don't really meet WP:NSONG and could be reduced to redirects (though doubtless somebody will moan). Paging the Wikipedia:WikiProject Pink Floyd regulars @Parrot of Doom:, @Pigsonthewing:, @John:, @Yeepsi: for comment. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Marvel vs. Capcom[edit]

9 articles
Good article Marvel vs. Capcom
Marvel vs Capcom logo.png
Good article X-Men vs. Street Fighter
Good article Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter
Good article Marvel vs. Capcom: Clash of Super Heroes
Good article Marvel vs. Capcom 2: New Age of Heroes
Good article Marvel vs. Capcom 3: Fate of Two Worlds
Good article Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3
Good article Marvel vs. Capcom Origins
Peer review Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite

I've been working on getting these articles up to GAs for the past couple years, and this will be my first attempt at a GT nomination. Before I proceed, I'd greatly appreciate any feedback/constructive criticism about the articles or the topic as a whole. Thank you! Wani (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Infinite has to be included in the topic, since it's a part of this series; as it's unreleased, per WP:FT? it has to be an "audited article", which means a completed PR and as solid as it can get without the game being released. It also needs to get bumped up to GA+ within 3 months of release. --PresN 16:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Okay. I already have a completed peer review for Infinite. Which icon do I use for it in the topic box? Wani (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Peer review --PresN 17:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed. Wani (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@PresN: Should I just go ahead and list the nomination, or should I wait a week or so for more feedback? Wani (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
@Wani: You'll need to make a Book (sorry, forgot about that- just check any other VG topic for an example) but then I think you're good to go for nominating. --PresN 14:46, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Spanish conquest of the Maya[edit]

5 articles
Good article Spanish conquest of the Maya
Lienzo de Tlaxcala Tecpan Atitlan.gif
Good article Chiapas
Featured article Guatemala
Featured article Petén
Good article Yucatán

This became a Good Topic just over two years ago, and I have since then been steadily increasing the geographical area covered by Spanish Conquest articles. Honduras and El Salvador both had a "Maya fringe", although the majority of the territory now included in these countries was non-Maya. The Spanish conquest of Honduras article in particular details the conquest of Maya parts of the country, with named Maya leaders, battles etc. The Spanish conquest of El Salvador article mentions the presence of Maya groups in the conquered area, but without any detail. Both of these articles have passed GA. Should either (or both) of these articles be included in the topic? Thanks, Simon Burchell (talk) 08:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

17th century papal conclaves[edit]

Never done this before, so the template syntax is causing problems here, but I created a book at Book:17th century papal conclaves, which lists all of the articles that would be a part of the proposed topic. I've done 4/12 of the 17th century ones to GA, and I should have two ready for GAN within the week, bringing it up to 50% that are at GA or in progress.

Realizing that, I supposed its about time to ask questions on the technical nature of the criteria. My main question here is re: the lead article. Papal conclave is already at GA status, and seems like a good lead for the topic. In terms of feedback, do people think that would be a good lead or would it be necessary to make a featured list of the 17th century ones? @Ritchie333 and PresN: pinging the two of you since you seem to be the most active on this board. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Having reviewed the Papal conclave article, I think that a list article of 17th century papal conclaves (hence implying that a per-century division is appropriate for other papal conclaves) would really clean up and sharpen Template:Papal elections and conclaves from 1061. Seems like 10-15ish per (completed) century is a really good number per sub-topic. On the other hand, List of papal conclaves already exists and is already FL, so that might be a good parent article as well, even though it extends well beyond this specific century. Do we have precedent of one "list" article ever being used for two or more, potential or actual, constituent, discrete and non-overlapping featured/good topics? Jclemens (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Just using an expanded list as the lead is not uncommon; starting from the top of WP:FT I see Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn, whose lead list is actually about all of the listed buildings in the area, not just Grade I ones; it potentially could also be used for e.g. a topic on Grade II buildings in the area. I couldn't find anywhere where two topics actually used the same list as the lead, though that's likely just an artifact of how few areas actually have multiple topics. I believe prior "precedent", as far as it stretches, would be that you could use List of papal conclaves as the lead list for multiple single-century topics, though if you actually ever got every conclave promoted the topics would all get merged into a single mega-topic, as happened to the German Battleships FT. --PresN 02:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest using List of papal elections, rather than creating a by-century sub-list, which is perhaps unlikely to pass FL as it risks being regarded as an unnecessary content fork. BencherliteTalk 07:48, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks all for the advice. Never done this before, so the help is appreciated. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Group 3 elements[edit]

I haven't looked too much into the process, but could Group 3 elements become a good topic? The main issue I see is that there is no consistent definition. It could include Scandium, Yttrium, Lanthanum, and Actinium, or Scandium, Yttrium, Lutetium, and Lawrencium. Or all of them? What about Unbiunium? --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 18:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)