Wikipedia talk:Good topics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
If you have any questions about a topic you are working on or about the criteria in general you can ask them at Featured topic questions. This page is primarily for discussion on changes to the criteria or their implimentation.

Game of Thrones, Season 1[edit]

I'm working on getting the first season of Game of Thrones (TV series) to GT. Right now, however, there is no "Season" episode, as there is only one season. This will change in the near future, as a second season will be airing beginning in March 2012. Should I...

  • 1) nominate it for GT without a list article, but then work the season 1 article up to FL once it's created, or
  • 2) nominate it for GT with List of Game of Thrones episodes as an FL, and then subsequently replace that with a season 1 FL article once that's been established and worked up to the proper criteria? Jclemens (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Annotated images[edit]

I have noticed that some of the images used for the good-topic boxes have annotations (here, here and here, and less intrusively here). Not only is the feature useless when the images are so small, but the note that appears beneath them (drawing attention to the said annotations) disrupts the formatting of the boxes in question. Is there a way to de-activate annotations for the images used in these templates? Waltham, The Duke of 18:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a screenshot of what you see? I don't see any annotations (checked on two browsers) and there's nothing to indicate that in the page's template code. --PresN 19:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay. The annotations are in the Commons files, and I understand they appear in Wikipedia because I have them activated through my preferences; I don't recall whether they are opt-in or opt-out, but it would seem that the former is the case and that not enough people have activated annotations for there to be a noticeable problem. Anyway, this is what I see. The first example shows a good topic where the annotations' boxes in the image are considered large enough to appear (and they do once I hover over the image, though it is not visible in the screenshot). In the second they are too small to be discernible at this resolution, and a less intrusive "i" icon appears with a tooltip of "This file has annotations". The template does not seem to concern itself with annotations, but I think it ought to suppress them or default to the relatively unintrusive icon, if possible. Waltham, The Duke of 16:42, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
It's been two years, and this is still an issue... Waltham, The Duke of 11:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
This is the first time I've seen this thread. I'll look more into it soon. Sorry that it took so long. GamerPro64 15:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
The problem remains, and may be spreading (because of the increasing use of annotations)—it now affects topics such as Parachutes and Boston campaign Saratoga campaign (I'd already mentioned Boston in my original post). Perhaps I ought to take this to the Village Pump... It's not just these templates, after all, but all images displayed in a small size. Below a certain threshold, annotations are likely to be useless and would be best suppressed all over Wikipedia, possibly with the option of an override for images that happen to have large, clearly defined designs. Waltham, The Duke of 20:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
God I forgot all about this. I feel like I had an answer but forgot what it was. Probably for the best to take this to somewhere else like the Village Pump. They might be more reliable than I. GamerPro64 00:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
So had I; I was just looking at pages on my watchlist and happened to find this exactly six months after my previous message. Anyway, thank you. I'll air my concern on a more public venue. Waltham, The Duke of 04:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
And done: Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 138#Annotations in small images. Waltham, The Duke of 14:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal that may promote more GA campaignes[edit]

I proposed a new class for topics that could help promote more GA topics. I made the proposal Here . It would be great to have some feedback on it. Thank you.Lucia Black (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Reducing page size[edit]

By 27 December 2013, the wp:Good_topics page had grown to exceed the wp:post-expand include size limit (of 2,000 KB), and the use of function {{PAGESINCATEGORY:}} had reached 487 of 500 maximum expensive parser functions. There are several tactics to reduce size:

  • Split large wp:Good_topics page into multiple pages, as the easiest quick reduction.
  • To show icons, use a smaller template, such as {{icon}} not {{classicon}}.
  • Reduce size of {{Featured topic box}} by simpler/shorter markup.
  • Split columns of page titles into 2nd wikitable with bgcolor=#F2FFE6 and same width/margins (width=95% style="margin:0 auto"), but setting each "column1=" through "column3=" to null and "br=" also to null.

The quickest fix would be to split the large page into multiple pages, and start splitting columns of page titles into a 2nd wikitable (in each of the dozens of subpages WP:Featured_topics/...), but also the Template:Icon could be optimized someday to reduce its use of post-expand bytes for the "GA" or "FA" icon symbols. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Can someone run a bot for the classicon thing? I have no idea how to do the last two. Nergaal (talk) 11:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
  • It's now over the maximum expensive parser functions. In Show preview: Warning: This page contains too many expensive parser function calls. It should have less than 500 calls, there are now 516 calls.Wbm1058 (talk) 17:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Just noticed this conversation. Maybe splitting the topics page into multiple pages would be the best idea here. GamerPro64 18:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree with GamerPro, and a bot for the classicons could also be implimented if we could get someone to write it.-- 21:50, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I took care of the classicon thing a while ago. Nergaal (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggest splitting only the Arts category into a subpage, but keep a mini-summary for that here. Arts takes roughly 1/2 of the page size. Nergaal (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I noticed that GAs have been reorganized. Before any split maybe have a reorganization for the whole GTs to have the same structure as GAs. Nergaal (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Danish cities[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if anybody knew how many cities we'd need to get up to GA for it to become a good article topic. It's just @Ipigott:, @Rosiestep: and myself already have 4 of the top city articles up to GA. Would something like the 10 most populated cities be acceptable for a good article topic? As far as I know no country on wikipedia is yet to achieve this with cities.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

What lead would you use? If List of urban areas in Denmark by population then at least top 4, if List of cities in Denmark by population then at least top 5. Nergaal (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, something like that. I was thinking top 5 minimum and top 10 really to be "complete".♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree. If List of urban areas in Denmark by population is the lead article, all 33 listed cities would need to be GAs and the list itself would need to be a FL. If List of cities in Denmark by population is the lead, then all 45 listed cities would need to be GAs and that list would have to be a FL. I'd have to oppose a topic that cherry-picked only the top 10 when the lists have longer scopes. Imzadi 1979  02:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Danish cities require rather a lot more work than US farm tracks for GA though Imzadi..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The criteria are very clear to me though. If you're using a 33-item or a 45-item list as your lead, then the topic needs to encompass all 33 or 45 items. All articles need to to be GAs or FAs and all lists need to be FLs. Yes, I understand that means a lot more work. Imzadi 1979  09:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Does Denmark have only 33 or 45 cities? If only the major cities would be included in an initial phase then that would be acceptable. See Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Main asteroid belt for a similar example. Nergaal (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

New categories[edit]

At GA the current categories are:

List of good articles, arranged by topic

while the current categories for GTs are:

  1. Arts (music, theatre film and drama) - split in 2
  2. Language and literature (only lit) - same
  3. Everyday life (sports, video games) - split in 2
  4. Social sciences and society (3) - same
  5. Geography and places (places) - same
  6. History (world history, war) - split in 2
  7. Engineering and technology (computing, transport) - same
  8. Natural sciences (bio, chem, meteo, phys) - same

Of all these new categories, only the 2 arts, warfare and meteo are indeed large.

The only missing categories after the split would be:

  1. Agriculture, food and drink
  2. Art and architecture
  3. Mathematics
  4. Philosophy and religion

Nergaal (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)


Split Arts, Everyday life, and History, and move the new Music, Media and drama, and Warfare to their own subpages. The remaining content should be only around 1/3 of the current size, or less than the current size of the FT page. Nergaal (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Meteo category has 42 entries. Nergaal (talk) 23:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I moved the 3. If someone has some time, they could try to make sure I did not add any errors. Nergaal (talk) 01:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)