Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Archive 5

FT #100

was Wikipedia:Featured topics/Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Nice coincidence. Nergaal (talk) 20:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

heads up: road topics!

Considering the outcome of this discussion and this AFD, our artificial topics on county roads may soon come to an end. Nergaal (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Topic moves between FT and GT in AHs

At WP:FTQ, I inquired why the T:AHs have not been updated for Millennium Park now that it has transitioned from WP:GT to WP:FT. I was informed that it is currently a matter of policy only to update the templates at the time of the intial discussion. Subsequent moves between the approved topic levels are not documented. I believe that this is faulty record keeping. I was told that the reasons are that 1) it cuts down on work and 2) since no new discussion occurs it is unnecessary. My belief is that any important stages of an article have no formal discussions to link to, but should be included in the templates. For example, both WP:PROD (See Zak Kustok for example) or WP:TFA (Richard Cordray) are part of a well-formed and well-documented T:AH. I think a bot could manage the updates and enable people to figure out what is going on with article histories. I would like to see all the templates in the Millennium Park topic and other transitioned topics be updated. I appreciate opinions on the matter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If a bot could do it automatically then I think it would probably be a good idea to add a line in the article history for the automatic promotions and demotions between good and featured topics. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree that it is more informative to record this. I suppose also when GT was first created there were worries that topics would move between the two all the time, but this has in fact been very rare. I'm inclined to say we should do it even IF a bot isn't created - rst20xx (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if something happened on the talk page to trigger WP:AALERTS. It would be nice for WP:CHICAGO to see something at WP:CHIAA when something like this promotion occurs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:15, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I strongly recommend implementing this after the September upgrade of rules. I sincerely do not see any major upgrade after that that does not involve an actual nomination, while having 20 or so pages with date1 GT, date2 FT, Sept1 down to GT again beause of change of rules would look pretty bad. Nergaal (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't look any worse than all the pages that get delisted in GA Sweeps or something. The point is to document the history of the article whether it be good or bad. I think sooner is better than later.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:31, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I would have thought we'd backdate it anyway, to get the full history down? Anyway, it strikes me as useful to write down the topics that have already moved from one to the other. When I did that graph of number of topics over time I had to produce such a list, so it only needed updating for mid-July 2009 to present:

• September 2008: The Simpsons season 8 from FT to GT (GTs created, %age goes up to 25% from 20%)
• September 2008: The Simpsons season 9 from FT to GT (GTs created, %age goes up to 25% from 20%)
• October 2008: StarCraft titles from GT to FT (article promotion)
• January 2009: Adriatic campaign of 1807–1814 from GT to FT (new FL added)
• March 2009: Gwen Stefani albums from FT to GT (FL loses its star)
• April 2009: Star Wars episodes from FT to GT (%age goes up to 33% from 25%)
• April 2009: Wilco albums from FT to GT (%age goes up to 33% from 25%)
• April 2009: The Legend of Zelda titles from FT to GT (%age goes up to 33% from 25%)
• (July 2009: Galilean moons FT merged into Jupiter FT. It appears I listed this in the AHs though, using the promotion discussion for the latter twice - see eg Talk:Galilean moons)
• September 2009: The Legend of Zelda titles from GT to FT (GA swapped out for an FL)
• September 2009: Derfflinger class battlecruisers from GT to FT (article promotion)
• November 2009: Chough from GT to FT (article promotion)
• November 2009: 1941 Atlantic hurricane season from GT to FT (article promotion)
• January 2010: Millennium Park goes from GT to FT (article promotion)

So in summary in the first 16 months of good topics, we've had 6 from FT to GT, of which 5 were due to standards going up and 1 was due to an article demotion. On the other hand, we've had 7 from GT to FT, of which 2 were due to supplementary nominations and 5 were due to article promotions. So on average, slightly under 1 of these a month.

If we note these changes in AH, should we also note them in {{Featuredtopictalk}} and WP:FTL? In these last two cases, it would be possible to also give a cause for the change - rst20xx (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, {{Featuredtopictalk}} should be incorporated into T:AH.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Err, that doesn't make very much sense, in practice. Go and look at the former in use - the result entries are just plain text, so that it is possible to describe which articles were included, which was the lead, which were excluded, etc. T:AH cannot do this at all. There's no need to integrate the two anyway, they are perfectly fine performing separately on their separate pages - rst20xx (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I confess that I looked at it cursorily. I misunderstood its use. Is each main aritcle suppose to have this template. Why doesn't Millennium Park have one?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see. It is at Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Millennium Park. Why does this not explain the promotion date? I guess that is your point. Yes please include this detail in the {{Featuredtopictalk}} and WP:FTL.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(Here's some random facts for you: The gap between the number of FTs and number of GTs shrank from 56 at the end of August 2008 to 25 at the end of August 2009, with the size decreasing every month. However since then the shrinking has stalled out, with it going from 25 at the end of August to 23 at the end of December, and there being 2 months where the gap actually increased. Having said that, the total number of topics only grew by 16 over these 4 months, vs 105 in the 12 months before that (so 35 every 4 months then). There were however 6 demotions in the last 4 months, vs 7 in the 12 months proceeding - rst20xx (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC))

So what is the final resolution here?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the agreement is to go ahead and make the change, but to be frank I don't have time to do this myself for about the next month or so, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

O.K. Whenever you get to it is fine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Keeping records:

• March 2010: 2009 Giro d'Italia goes from GT to FT (article promotion)
• March 2010: State highways in Warren County, New York goes from FT to GT (sup nom)
• March 2010: Delichon goes from GT to FT (article promotion)

- rst20xx (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

• (March 2010: Derfflinger class battlecruisers FT merged into Battlecruisers of Germany FT. Like with Galilean moons/Jupiter, I will list this in the AHs though, using the promotion discussion for the latter twice - rst20xx (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC))
• April 2010: Yamato class battleships goes from GT to FT (article promotion) - rst20xx (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, revisiting this... what should it be called in the article history? "Featured topic candidate" is obviously inappropriate. What about "Featured topic promotion"/FTP and "Good topic demotion"/GTD? Hmmm doesn't seem quite right (the latter especially may suggest the topic is demoted from good, not to good) but I can't think of anything better - rst20xx (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

• • What is the latest on this issue. I am revisiting the Millennium Park articles and see nothing in the T:AHs.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I haven't got round to doing anything yet. Sorry. This is going to take quite some time, and my degree is keeping me busy. But I finish in 6 weeks so if you can hold on another 6 weeks, then I should be able to get round to it then. Having said that, there is still an open question, directly above your question, which I'd appreciate feedback on... :) rst20xx (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

How about

→FT - Featured Topic Transition

←FT - Good Topic Transition --TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Well to be honest including an arrow in the abbreviation is a bit silly seeing as how it doesn't appear on standard keyboards. Transition - is it transitioning TO FT or from it? Hmm - rst20xx (talk) 00:48, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought it would be clear. A topic going to Featured Topic could be designated as Featured Topic Transition in the AH and one going from FT could be designated Good Topic Transition.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I'm trying to say that I got what you meant but I'm not convinced other people will - rst20xx (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

O.K. the clearest solution is to have two new Action#results. 1 being Demoted from FT to GT and the other Promoted from GT to FT. All other action results are one word so it may be the case that spaces are not allowed. Thus, we may have to make 1 fttogt and the other gttoft. You would have to talk with the coders of the template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK so how about "FTGT - Featured to good topic" and "GTFT - Good to featured topic"? rst20xx (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I like that and think it is intuitive enough that most who are versed enough in the article history template would understand it immediately. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I personally think FTtoGT and GTtoFT would be less problematic, but you are driving and I am happy just to see the change enacted regardless of the coding quibbles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the abbreviation needs to be that clear, more concise. It's the text that actually appears on the talk page that needs to be clear. But anyway, as I said I'm not going to have time to do this for a while, sorry - rst20xx (talk) 15:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

*July 2010: Quietly Confident Quartet goes from GT to FT (article promotion)

• July 2010: Tosa class battleships goes from GT to FT (article promotion) -MBK₀₀₄ 03:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

Please see WP:VPP#Featured whatever. Simply south (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved – parallel discussions to move FAs and FLs have been quickly closed as "no move" given the level of opposition, so I'm closing this now for consistency. Bencherlite^Talk 22:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Move to Portal namespace rather than having it in project namespace. It is of interest to the readers of WP (as well as editors of course) and so it should be in a namespace that is for content. It should follow the Portal:Featured content layout. The move also establishes consistency with similar pages.

Wikipedia:Featured topics → Portal:Featured topics — Move to Portal namespace rather than having it in project namespace. It is of interest to the readers of WP (as well as editors of course) and so it should be in a namespace that is for content. It should follow the Portal:Featured content layout. The move also establishes consistency with similar pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The same proposal is being discussed (and, at the time of writing, heavily opposed) at WT:FA and WT:FL. There's no reason that I can see why the outcome here should differ from the outcome at those two pages. Bencherlite^Talk 14:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Question

Hello

I am looking for person with who i can talk about idea "what to do when you want to start FT on your wiki and what errors you can avoid - lesson from en.wiki". I can`t find such person - can you help me ? PMG (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I quite understand your question—do you mean it to be advice for other language versions of Wikipedia that want to start an FT process? Ucucha 20:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I want start FT on pl.wiki. I have some candidates for first FT and maybe you have some advice for new project ? As far as I know on en.wiki there was change of percent value from where start FT and where ends GT. Maybe something about that ? Or other info ? PMG (talk) 20:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured and good topics here are well-defined series of articles in which every article (with a few narrow exceptions) is either good or featured (WP:GA, WP:FA, or WP:FL). The difference between good and featured topics is only in the proportion of articles that need to be featured. As you say, this was recently changed; previously, one third of the articles in a topic needed to be featured, and now it is one half.

I don't have very much experience with FT and GT, but I hope I can offer some useful advice. If you set up an FT project, you will need rigorous, objective criteria to define featured topics. Those we have here are probably a good example, but perhaps different criteria work better on pl.wiki (for example, I don't know whether you have a well-developed GA project). Ucucha 20:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

2003 Atlantic hurricane season

I was wondering how to go about updating that topic. Two articles were merged, so that needs to be reflected. Hurricanehink (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Featured topics articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Featured topics articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Total topics: 200+

Chart showing number of good and featured topics per month.

Happened a while ago. For those interested here is how things have evolved until a year ago: Nergaal (talk) 02:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Automatic moves from FT to GT

Could somebody go through the 20-or-so topics demoted to GT and add a note to their history about their demotion? Nergaal (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

also, I think Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/2003 Atlantic hurricane season was missed because it had the wrong total number of articles. Nergaal (talk) 04:34, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, automatic moves from GT to FT do not get logged at Wikipedia:Featured topics promoted in 2010. Nergaal (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In order to fix the latter I think something like Wikipedia:Good topics promoted in 20xx need to be created. Nergaal (talk) 05:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Total count

I think there are 93 FTs but only 91 are counted. Nergaal (talk) 00:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The opposite actually was true. The two Victoria Cross topics were on FT twice, so I removed the duplicates. We're at 91 now. (Actually we're at 90, but Wikipedia:Featured topics/Chrono titles is showing up as an FT for some reason when it's a GT). Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Figured it out, an article had the topic removed, so it was showing as over the threshold. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Sweet! GTs seem to be off by one though. Nergaal (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Criteria 3.a.i

Before I go ahead and change it, I am going to mention that the current statement is repetitious: At least one half of the articles are featured class (featured articles or featured lists), with a minimum of two featured items. Due to the new bump to 50%, it is implied that 2 is the minimum. Nergaal (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Featured/good topics and Wikipedia Books

I'm not sure if this has been raised before, do correct me if so. Merging Featured/good topics and Wikipedia Books together might be a good idea and should be considered; both are highly similar in concept and nature after all. We can come up with something like 'Featured books'. Apparently, this is already mentioned in the Wikipedia:Books page. What do you think? ANGCHENRUI _WP:MSE♨ 10:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong link

The “book”-link for the dwarf planets refers to Book:Solar syolar_Systemstem. --Chricho (talk) 12:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)