Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates

Featured content dispatch workshop

2013 Jul 10: Infoboxes: time for a fresh look? 2010 Nov 15: A guide to the Good Article Review Process Oct 18: Common issues seen in Peer review Oct 11: Editing tools, part 3 Sep 20: Editing tools, part 2 Sep 6: Editing tools, part 1 Mar 15: GA Sweeps end Feb 8: Content reviewers and standards 2009 Nov 2: Inner German border Oct 12: Sounds May 11: WP Birds May 4: Featured lists Apr 20: Valued pictures Apr 13: Plagiarism Apr 6: New FAC/FAR nominations Mar 16: New FAC/FAR delegates Mar 9: 100 Featured sounds Mar 2: WP Ships FT and GT Feb 23: 100 FS approaches Feb 16: How busy was 2008? Feb 8: April Fools 2009 Jan 31: In the News Jan 24: Reviewing featured picture candidates Jan 17: FA writers—the 2008 leaders Jan 10: December themed page Jan 3: Featured list writers 2008 Nov 24: Featured article writers Nov 10: Historic election on Main Page Nov 8: Halloween Main Page contest Oct 13: Latest on featured articles Oct 6: Matthewedwards interview Sep 22: Reviewing non-free images Sep 15: Interview with Ruhrfisch Sep 8: Style guide and policy changes, August Sep 1: Featured topics Aug 25: Interview with Mav Aug 18: Choosing Today's Featured Article Aug 11: Reviewing free images Aug 9 (late): Style guide and policy changes, July Jul 28: Find reliable sources online Jul 21: History of the FA process Jul 14: Rick Block interview Jul 7: Style guide and policy changes for June Jun 30: Sources in biology and medicine Jun 23 (26): Reliable sources Jun 16 (23): Assessment scale Jun 9: Main page day Jun 2: Styleguide and policy changes, April and May May 26: Featured sounds May 19: Good article milestone May 12: Changes at Featured lists May 9 (late): FC from schools and universities May 2 (late): Did You Know Apr 21: Styleguide and policy changes Apr 14: FA milestone Apr 7: Reviewers achieving excellence Mar 31: Featured content overview Mar 24: Taming talk page clutter Mar 17: Changes at peer review Mar 13 (late): Vintage image restoration Mar 3: April Fools mainpage Feb 25: Snapshot of FA categories Feb 18: FA promotion despite adversity Feb 11: Great saves at FAR Feb 4: New methods to find FACs Jan 28: Banner year for Featured articles

What is the best way to get more comments without canvassing

What is the best way to get more comments on nominations here without canvassing? I nominated English Heritage properties in Somerset back in April and it has only received 2 comments, while Scheduled monuments in Somerset has been almost a month without any comments. I'm not a regular here and don't know how long these nominations normally take.— Rod ^talk 19:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

My 2¢: like other worthwhile corners of wikipedia, is a dying project. Don't count on regulars voting, but feel free to notify wikiprojects or users with interest in the field, or maybe some of the people that helped with the GA/FL/FA reviews you dealt with. Nergaal (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

As a start, you could a notice to relevant Wikiprojects and tag the articles with the relevant Wikiprojects banners so they get picked up by WP:AALERTS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:05, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Good advice from Nergaal, the only thing I'd add/emphasise is to make sure the invitation is neutrally worded, as in seeking comment, not support per se. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Retention period discussion

Recently there have been concern on the retention period being only three months. Complaints have been made that three months is not enough time to fix issues a topic would have in them. As such, I think it would be best to figure out how to fix this issue. The most obvious idea is to expend the retention period. So would increasing the grace period to four, five, six months be a better time period here than the current model? GamerPro64 04:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Looking in the archives, the three month grace period seems to have stemmed from a rather quick discussion in 2008, Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria/2008#Grace period again, which led to this change in the criteria. Although, seeing as Wikipedia's guidelines for WP:WIAFA, WP:WIAFL and WP:WIAGA have changed and have generally become more stringent since 2008, it probably would be a good time to update the retention period to reflect that. However, I believe it should not be more than six months.--十八 06:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In practice it has been probably closer to 6 months. Nergaal (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I was directed to this talk page to talk about retention period by GamerPro64. There has been a discussion regarding this over at the talk page for Avengers: Age of Ultron (an article in the Good Topic Marvel Cinematic Universe films; perm link to that AoU discussion is here). The reason that the discussion on retention was started, was in was impossible to meet the current deadline of 3-months, as film articles can not be nominated at GAN until they are no longer still playing in theaters. In that discussion, it was suggested that instead of the theatrical release date being used as the start of the 3-month period, that the home media release be used, as at that time the film is no longer in theaters, and if it is, it is not a significant amount of theaters that should prevent it from being nominated. This would apply not only to Avengers Age of Ultron, but any future article for this Good Topic, as well as the two other film Good Topics, James Bond films and Pirates of the Caribbean films. Now as pointed out by myself, the home media release for MCU films is usually 6 months after the US theatrical release, so that seemed like enough time to promote to GAN. As an example, the most recent article for the topic, Guardians of the Galaxy, was nominated on January 30, about a month after its home media release in the US on December 9. I'd also like to point out that I made this request for extended retention period in the nomination of the topic. I'm not sure if this change would have to apply to all topics, but for the film ones, it has to be at least 6 months (from theatrical release) or 1 month (from home media release, which equates to 6-7 months), with the contingent that if at that time the films are still in theaters and can't be nominated, an extension can be negotiated. Also pinging commenters of the AoU discussion to see this discussion: @TriiipleThreat, Adamstom.97, Ditto51, Sock, and SNUGGUMS: - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Within 1 month after home media release is more reasonable than 3 months after theatrical release for films. For this particular franchise, however, I honestly don't think it should've been promoted to Good Topic as soon as it was due to stability and coverage concerns for films unreleased or in theaters. To be honest, I feel that film franchises shouldn't even be nominated for Good Topic in the first place until ALL films have been released on home media, it is officially verified that there will be no more installments in the franchise, and every article is FA or GA (FL for lists). Film articles are not stable or broad enough in coverage to become FA or GA while unreleased or still in theaters. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

By that logic there should be no FLs on discographies of living people because those lists continue growing. Nergaal (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree with SNUGGUMS that 1 month after the home release is reasonable but disagree with the rest. The latest movie is currently scheduled for 2019 and there is no indication that they plan on stopping.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification on subtopics

Sorry for the somewhat lengthy post, but there's a bit of background to cover before I can ask my questions.

I'm hitting the home stretch of a decade-long project that will end up with 212 or so articles related to the Michigan State Trunkline Highway System at FA. FL or GA level. As that would be a bit unwieldy to nominate as a mega-GT, I think it would be best to divide that into some subtopics. Because the highways in the state are numbered as part of one of three schemes, that lends itself nicely to subdivision by designation type. As of this moment, there are 4-5 articles left to send to GAN and 2 lists left to send to FLC. There are already 24 FAs and 2 FLs and 180 GAs.

Using the designation type as a basis for division, we'd end up with one topic on the Interstates, one on the US Highways, and one on the other state highways (M-#). These would have their appropriate lists as the lead article, and the those lists, plus Pure Michigan Byway would be the entries in a topic with the system article as the lead. So far, so good. The kicker is that we have two FTs, one on I-96 and one of M-28. So once taken to the end, we'd have a topic on the system, with 3 subtopics on the types of highways in that system, 2 of which also have subtopics based around individual "parent" highways. At the moment, we'd end up with a topic composed of subtopics with another level of subtopics, but I think I've only seen two levels so far, not three.

I nominated the Interstates topic last night. It's currently a GTC (4/13), but if the rest of I-96's related articles were included, it would be an FTC (9/18) because all but one of the I-96 topic's articles are FAs. How do the regulars here want to handle these topics? The US Highways topic only needs its list and a few GANs promoted to ready for nomination, and the M list is the only thing holding up a GTC of the state highways topic. Based on my experience and expectations for editing time, the rest of the nominations should be ready yet this year. Imzadi 1979 → 02:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure what exactly is your worry, but the overview topic should include 3 subtopics + probably the Mich DoT. It doesn't really matter how many levels are there in the tree, a long as each topic and subtopic makes sense on its own. However, merging stuff like interstate with I-96 would require all the other equivalent branches of the other I-xxx in the sub-overview of the interstate topic. Nergaal (talk) 20:01, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Nergaal: the nominated topic on the state's Interstate Highways already lists every highway except those in the I-96 topic. I-96 and the link to the topic are standing in for all of them, as I understand is the appropriate procedure. So the equivalents are already there in the nomination. Imzadi 1979 → 10:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Nominating a delisted topic

I am unfamiliar with the FT or GT process, but Wikipedia:Featured topics/Halo media was previously demoted from GT because Halo 4, Halo 4 Original Soundtrack and Halo 4: Forward Unto Dawn were not GAs at that time. This concern has been addressed and this topic should now meet the GT criteria. Can anyone please help me with this? I am posting here because I am not a main contributor to articles in this topic and because I am not confident with completing the nomination process correctly. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 09:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I've contributed a bunch to Halo articles in the past, and helped get Halo 4 up to GA earlier this year. But I think this topic still fails unfortunately. I've just added a bunch of missing articles to the topic page. As you can see, there are still six articles requiring promotion to GA status, and some of them are quite a bit off the mark from that currently. --The1337gamer (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 13:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I think Halo: The Cole Protocol seems to also warrant an article. Nergaal (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

FT articles to be considered

I am planning to take Satyajit Ray who was an Indian filmmaker for FT where his article is FA and has got 2 FLs (filmography and awards). One of his directed film Pather Panchali is also an FA. Can his films be included under FT? Please explain. - Vivvt (Talk) 08:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Think of it like a pyramid- the top level is Satyajit Ray. The next level down is filmography and awards (of Ray)- the articles/lists directly having to do with Ray. A third level would be the articles/lists having to do with the second-level articles and lists- so, the movies that make up his filmography, and anything (there's probably nothing) related to his awards. You can make a topic that's just the top two levels- that's three articles, so it's big enough to count. You can also make a topic that's the top three levels (or just the filmography and the level below that, if you wanted)- but if you do so, you'd have to include every film with an article that's part of his filmography. Up to you if you want to do that. --PresN 13:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Literary creations of Satyajit Ray

My question was mainly related to his films. Do we have to bring in all the movies at the same time or one my one? Also, only one of his 39 films is FA and rest are not even GA. - Vivvt (Talk) 15:29, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It would have to be all the films or none of the films- you don't get to pick just the ones that are convenient. If you don't want to wait until you get 38 GAs (and no one would blame you for that!), then the topic wouldn't include any of the film articles themselves, just the list of them all. That said... now that I actually look at his article, the three-article topic as proposed wouldn't work either. You described him as "an Indian filmmaker", and he certainly was foremost that... but I'd be uncomfortable supporting a topic nomination titled "Satyajit Ray" that included nothing about the books/stories he wrote- given that there's 3 nonfiction book articles, 4 character articles, and a article about his written works (semi-focused more on the characters rather than the works themselves?), it's clear that his written works were a major part of his life, even if not the biggest part, so I'd want to see a "Satyajit Ray bibliography" list as a part of the topic as well- perhaps the "Literary creations of Satyajit Ray" article could be turned into one? --PresN 23:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the excellent explanation. I think its a long way to go for FT. - Vivvt (Talk) 04:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

A query

Leonardo DiCaprio is a good article, and his filmography and accolades are featured lists. However, DiCaprio owns a production company, Appian Way Productions, which does not have an article of its own as it's produced a few films, and it would be too soon to create an article about that. I want to ask if it is okay to exclude that from the topic. -- Frankie _talk 14:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The feature topic criteria only apply to articles that currently exist, so it's okay to exclude it for now.--十八 20:04, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

User indef blocked after !voting

Hi, DoDung2001 !voted at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/York City F.C./addition2, but was indef blocked shortly after. Is this !vote still valid? Mattythewhite (talk) 10:26, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason as to why he was blocked? GamerPro64 14:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

For edit warring using a sockpuppet. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that's enough reason to strike his vote. Thank you for bringing this up. GamerPro64 14:21, 20 August 2015 (UTC)