Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates/2009

Active discussions

bumping up from 25% anytime soon?

Nergaal (talk) 04:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason to do that? There was a rather large discussion about this three or four months ago. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, we have GTCs now. –thedemonhog talkedits 04:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I think those two discussions occurred in conjunction with each other. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria/Good topics plan. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, the intention was that with GTs, we could move the bar for FTs up, as people were worried that moving the bar would result in a horde of FTs having a deadline to improve 1-3 more articles to FA/FL status or be demoted. Now, they're just sent down to GT, so it's not that big of a deal. 33% seems like a reasonable increase, but I wouldn't move it any farther than that. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 15:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not opposed to a small increase either, but I do not want a redundant discussion. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Article count 25% FA 33% FA
3 – 6 2 2
7 – 8 2 3
9 3 3
10-12 3 4
13 – 15 4 5
16 4 6
17 – 18 5 6
19 – 20 5 7
21 6 7
22 - 24 6 8
25 - 27 7 9
28 7 10
29 – 30 8 10

(reset) Should this discussion be on the criteria page? Anyway, well if I recall, in addition to the above-mentioned discussions that occurred during the GT implementation process, there was a discussion about this immediately after GTs were set up - see here, or to summarise, it was agreed to bring this up again around about now. Well, I would probably support an increase to 33%, but I don't think I would support any further increases after that, as:

  1. Some topics (eg TV shows!) find it harder than others to get enough featured articles, and the more we move the criteria up, the more we push these topics out
  2. It is unfair to continuously move the goalposts. People think they have finished with a topic only to find they must come back to it, or they are working on one when they find that their job has just got harder

See table on right for what this proposal will mean, in real terms. The topics affected would be:

  • 1997 Pacific hurricane season (7 articles, 1 FA short)
  • Star Wars episodes (ditto)
  • Half-Life 2 titles (ditto)
  • Wilco albums (8 articles, 1 FA short)
  • Category 5 Pacific hurricanes (13 articles, 1 FA short)
  • Legend of Zelda titles (ditto)

Hmmm, looking at this, all these topics are one article short. Maybe we should agree to raise the criteria in 3 months, and notify the topic makers (and put it on WP:FT? somewhere!), and then the topic makers have time to improve the topics before the 3 months is up, so won't have to see them demoted to good in the meantime? rst20xx (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Three of those topics are mine. Zelda should be fine, as I'm working on one of the articles in the topic right now to prepare for FAC. Half-Life 2 has Half-Life 2: Lost Coast at FAC right now, and so if and when that passes, the topic will be fine, too. I will have the biggest problem with Star Wars. Gary King (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
If you all are really serious about raising the bar again, could I ask for six months instead of three -- say starting June 1? I've got a 20+ article FT that I've been working on for almost a year now, and it's become rather frustrating to see the finish line keep moving away again. Thanks. JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, what is your potential featured topic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SRE.K.A.L.24 (talkcontribs) 09:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Not sure who this is, but it's Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games. There's six items (of 23) remaining to get to GA, and one of those won't take place until Jan. 1. I do have another FAC related to it, and would love for you to take a look at 2003 Insight Bowl if you get a chance, too. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Though if Insight Bowl passes, then your topic will have 7 featured articles, so would only need one more... having said that, I'm really not bothered about the timeframe of the raise, as after all, as I said, I think this will be the last one I will support - rst20xx (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the only thing this will effect is a possible increase in the number of Good topics. So the new criteria sounds reasonable, especially if it's a few months before the change is implemented. Six feels like a long time to wait, but I can understand the reason if the topic has been a year in the making. Three to Four months sounds like a better time frame to me though. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:49, 23 December 2008 (UTC))
Three sounds good, considering the most work that any topic will have is one more featured article. Gary King (talk) 16:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to people who have worked hard to get a topic featured only to see the standards go up and their topic being moved down to a good topic, but almost the exact same thing happens with featured articles. People work hard to get an article featured, the standards go up, and the article is eventually brought to FAR and delisted. At least here topics are not automatically dropped but are simply sent down to good topics. I also understand it is harder for large topics to meet the standards, but that comes with the territory of larger topics. For me it all comes down to 25% being too low for featured topics, especially now that we have good topics. I think 33% is a reasonable increase. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

  • I would be in favour of a raise to 33%, and think 3 months is reasonable. It is not like the current FT's that fail to meet this 33% lose recognition, as they become GT's. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Though I don't have experience editing good/featured articles, I think it is fairly easy to get good articles promoted to featured ones. So I'll just Support the bumping to 33%. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 21:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • The gap between a GA and a FA is pretty big. Try it. There's a reason I have only two FAs as versus 50+ FLs (same thing with Gary, who has ten times more FLs than FAs). ;-) — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Easy is the wrong word to use, definitely. That is the reason why I still have no FA right now.—Chris! ct 00:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Although I do not like the idea if you want it I will not stop it, but why go to 33% and not 30%? Zginder 2008-12-23T23:25Z (UTC)
    I think it's because it's easier to calculate the number of required FAs, since you just take one-third of the total articles. Gary King (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I support this proposal of 33%.—Chris! ct 00:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I support. I'll help with the hurricane ones. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Natural wiki evolution, always raising the quality bar. GT covers the quality middleground now. – sgeureka tc 09:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up from the hurricane project. An article is currently on FAC which is in both hurricane topics, so if it passes than neither will be affected by this change. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

is anybody opposing bumping to 1/3?

Starting with March 1, or April 1? Nergaal (talk) 01:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I think April 1st would be best, to give a full three month, sassuming we implement this on January 1. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good Gary King (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:33, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. –Juliancolton Happy Holidays 14:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll go along with that - rst20xx (talk) 15:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I like March 1, but April Fool's is fine too. –thedemonhog talkedits 01:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the April 1 deadline is reasonable. Teemu08 (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll support that. Pagrashtak 19:35, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I will reiterate, I do not like the idea, but will not oppose. Zginder 2008-12-30T20:10Z (UTC)
  • Motion passed - I shall put a note on WP:FT? to state the future rise, and re-notify the topic maintainers that the motion has passed - rst20xx (talk) 17:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Does "limited subject matter" in the featured topic criteria imply *temporarily*?

The goal of this discussion is to clarify whether the criterion includes permanently audited articles, or only temporarily audited articles.

Per Arctic.gnome's comment at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Slipknot discography, I'm starting this discussion.

From what he said:

I think I should give some reasoning for my ruling on this one. I normally give little weight to oppose votes that do not cite a specific violation of WIAFT, and the opposes here are both concerned about criterion 3c, which this topic technically passes by the criterion's current wording. I'm closing this as no consensus because the wording of 3c is vague enough that one could make an argument that it implies temporarily limited subject matter. I recommend that we have a discussion about what that rule means, and depending on the outcome of the discussion, this topic could be renominated.

— Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 21:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The full criterion is:

(c) Items that are ineligible for featured or good article status, either due to their limited subject matter or due to inherent instability, must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed. Such items do not count towards criteria 1.a., 3.a.ii., or 3.b.i.

So, does this imply that "limited subject matter" only includes articles that temporarily have a limited subject matter? Or not? Gary King (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not see where someone would get that it means temporary; the whole criteria, is used to allow topics that would not otherwise qualify. If nothing else can be done it is audited. Zginder 2008-11-25T23:24Z (UTC)
Oh I think it is not that hard to see where someone gets that; it comes from the fact that not one audited article has yet been added that doesn't have a strong potential for future growth into a GA/FA/FL. All of them have been new provinces where there will be more elections in the future, video games that haven't been released, seasons of television shows that haven't aired yet, and awards that will be awarded again. No article has yet been added as "audited" that is simply unpromotable to GA/FA/FL due to notability/reliable sources issues, and undeletable, which is an issue for the recent Slipknot topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

We are in charge of the wording, and the wording has to change to be less ambiguous, so the question shouldn't be "what does it mean", but rather "what do we want to change it to". --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 00:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No one has a problem with the wording, they have a problem with the lack or precedent. The precedent is lacking because until now there has been no need for it to be used this way. Criterion 3c is a none of the above criteria in which interpretation lies with the reviewers. Zginder 2008-11-26T02:29Z (UTC)
(edit conflict) Right, that's what I intended on happening. Anyways, so, thoughts? Hopefully this doesn't just turn into a longer version of the discussion at the Slipknot FTC. I'm not as familiar with the development of the FT criteria as some of you guys are, so this discussion would benefit from input from more people who are familiar with it. Gary King (talk) 02:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I propose that the wording be changed to say that any audited articles must have clear potential to grow beyond a stub and into a GA/FA/FL, and that permanent stubs should be merged. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
FT/GT have no authority to change policy. FT/GT should recognize the best topics that meet the site policies and guidelines, not write our own. Also, I would not say that either of the articles in question would qualify as stubs. User:Zginderginder 2008-11-26T07:09Z (UTC)
I agree with Zginder. The FT/GT process should not be distorting the other policies of Wikipedia. It is not our place here to say which articles should be merged/deleted any more than it is our place to say which articles should be good or featured. Leave that to AFD, GTC, and FTC. Also, the main purpose of Wikipedia is to cover a huge range of topics, many of which are of limited subject matter. There is no other place in Wikipedia (at least that I have ever seen) that requires articles that can't become good/featured articles to be either merged or deleted. Wikipedia has over 2.6 million articles and there is no way every single one of them could become a good article. To say any article that can't become a good article should be deleted/merged is to say the article has no value, and that thinking is incorrect. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what policies would have to be changed. The only GA criterion that might be impossible for some article to attain is having sources, and if it can't get sources the existing AfD criteria say that it should be deleted. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 16:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to be a devil's advocate here and say that I oppose indefinite PR status. I don't see any reason why an article couldn't make GA. The GA criteria don't have a length requirement, and there are already a few short GAs. As long as a short article is well written, cited, stable, and all that, it should be able to get GA status. In the example of Slipknot discography, articles failed GA because they didn't have enough sources, but if there are no available published sources, the article fails the existing notability requirements, so we wouldn't have to make any new rules to delete it. I know in this case the article did go through AfD, but I believe that there must be a published source for this one somewhere out there, though you might not find it with a quick Google search. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 16:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that audited does not mean just PRed if someone has a problem with an audited article it should be addressed. Zginder 2008-11-26T22:59Z (UTC)

Sorry I'm a bit late here, but here's my opinion on the Slipknot audited articles. I think that the GA reviewer was wrong to fail the articles - if the articles are as well-sourced as they possibly can be, then they should be GA-able. Welcome to Our Neighborhood has many more sources than Half-Life 2: Survivor, but the latter passed GA, whereas the former didn't, simply because the two articles had different reviewers. As a result I see the Slipknot articles as being de facto GA quality, which is probably why I would be willing to allow them in as audited articles.

I think that there should be two things to note here, then. Firstly, my opinion is that in such circumstances as the Slipknot nom, when an article has gone through AfD, GAN and PR, then they should be allowed in topics, because the article is notable enough to exist, and yet there's nothing more that can be done to improve the article. Secondly, I would note that I don't think that it should be possible for an article which is as good as it can possibly be should be able to get a pass on AfD and then a fail on GAN, and I would pin the blame here on failures in the GAN process - failures which I think we should take back to them - rst20xx (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

And round and round we go :) I'm going to renominate both for GAN with a note about the voyage that both articles have endured. Gary King (talk) 02:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that sounds sensible - rst20xx (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
One just failed GAN again. Gary King (talk) 04:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Very annoying, a completely unfair fail IMO where the guy didn't even ATTEMPT to look at the article. And now he's followed through and is trying to get Half-Life 2: Survivor delisted. What a nice thing to do! rst20xx (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The other one also failed: Talk:Slipknot Demo/GA3. Gary King (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
New section below - rst20xx (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

A topic with a permanently audited lead article?

I've been considering working on the timeline of music in the United States as a featured top. It consists of several substantial timelines for each era, with the main timeline of music in the United States being just a placeholder - probably useful mainly as a convenient place to link to. I assumed that that main placeholder page could be the parent page for the topic, even if there's no real content or reason to have real content in the future. Would you say this is an inappropriate featured topic? Tuf-Kat (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That bring up another issue, can we have the lead be audited? There was one nomination in which this was so, but it failed for other reasons and it is unknown whether there is consensus for a audited lead. Zginder 2008-11-27T05:36Z (UTC)
I hope you don't mind but I put this discussion in its own subsection as it's a related but different issue. To be honest, this article probably isn't in the same boat as those in Slipknot; the main article can be written in a featured list or even featured article. Just include summaries of music from each timeline. Gary King (talk) 15:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that Timeline of music in the United States could easily be made into an FL/GA, by having it summarise its subarticles, and indeed I actually think this is what would be best for the quality of the encyclopedia, as well - rst20xx (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Rst20xx on this one, but what do you think about a topic (I have none in mind at the moment) potentially having an audited lead. Zginder 2008-11-28T17:39Z (UTC)
Make sure that it actually is fully cited before nominating it, even if that means finding some non-internet sources. I don't know the GAN process, but it would suck to have the article fail due to some technicality of theirs. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 02:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Continuing...

Okay, so they've both just failed GAN again. I'm going to lay out three statements for what I think about these two articles:

  1. Both are notable enough to exist, as evidenced by their passing AfD
  2. It seems neither can get to GA, as they are not comprehensive enough, as there are not enough reliable sources available for them to be comprehensive enough
  3. These articles could possibly be merged into some other article, but I believe it would give them undue weight in that other article. Also there is no need to do this, in that these articles are notable enough to exist on their own (see: passed AfD)

What does everyone else think about these three statements? rst20xx (talk) 17:21, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe experiment with a merge in a sandbox, to see how it would look. That seems to be the most logical option. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
A few people tested different possibilities; here's one where Slipknot Demo was merged into. Gary King (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that merge works very well. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
It was reverted afterward by User:Rezter. It was also discussed briefly here. Gary King (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, trying to put this another way... how will merges improve the quality of the Slipknot articles on Wikipedia? To my mind, it wouldn't, as the exact same content will be left behind afterwards. It wouldn't make any difference at all. So bearing this in mind, can someone who opposes the FT with the unmerged articles please explain how their oppose looks to improve the quality of the encyclopaedia? rst20xx (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Didn't the merge add slightly more useful info to the Slipknot (album) article? It improves the content because it's more accessible. Why be forced to go to another article for one to two paragraphs of info, when it all can be in the main article? ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Well okay, you're right about accessibility, but overall information was lost, such as track lengths and personnel. Also this is all assuming there's somewhere equally appropriate to merge Welcome to Our Neighborhood to as there is for Slipknot Demo.
...What I was trying to say before is that under normal circumstances, these articles would be left unmerged, probably indefinitely, and to have the merge carried out just for the FTC seems slightly off to me - it seems like the FTC process isn't working, if it leads to mandatory merges, when otherwise there would be no calls for merges at all. But maybe you're right, maybe the merge is actually a good thing ANYWAY, if it's done respectfully, so... where could Welcome to Our Neighborhood be merged to? Slipknot (album), as well?
But this brings up another question: if Welcome to Our Neighbourhood can't get GA, can all the singles? rst20xx (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

...I shall propose a new vote, below - rst20xx (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Moving pages

Now that good topics have been around for a while and seem to be a permanent addition, I think the following shared topic pages should be moved:

Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria to Wikipedia:Topic criteria

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates to Wikipedia:Topic candidates

Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates to Wikipedia:Topic removal candidates

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure to Wikipedia:Topic candidates/Nomination procedure

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log to Wikipedia:Topic candidates/Featured log

Wikipedia:Former featured topics to Wikipedia:Former topics

Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions to Wikipedia talk:Topic questions

Note: I am not proposing moving either Wikipedia:Featured topics or Wikipedia:Good topics. I believe they should still have separate main pages where their respective topics are listed. But the ancillary pages that are already shared by both should be moved to reflect this. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Support. Nergaal (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Featured has a connotation on Wikipedia that shouldn't be interfered with. WP:GTOP exists to distinguish good topics and that's fine. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
I am NOT proposing moving WP:GTOP. See my note above. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
...I never said that you were. I said that WP:GTOP exists to separate out good topics, and that's as far as we need to go. Nothing needs to be renamed. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Not convinced. A set of articles can be a topic without being either Good or Featured, so dropping the "Featured" just shifts one misnomer to another. – sgeureka tc 21:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
These are my two ideas. We could move them to Wikipedia:Good and featured topic ****, or we can split the two and make Wikipedia:Featured topic **** and Wikipedia:Good topic ****. Just suggestions. -- signed by SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 spell my name backwards on 23:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Right now good topics appear under the address "wikipedia:Featured Topics/X". Because of this I would support switching the "Featured part to something like assessed or anything like that. Nergaal (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Well, back when good topics were set up, consensus was to leave the other pages where they were because there was a fear that the featured topic brand would be damaged, much as sephiroth bcr is saying now. I think that that was the right decision - rst20xx (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes I do remember that, but I think (at the time) I was thinking the question was whether or not to merge everything together, including the main pages, just like I think some people thought I was proposing here. I went back and looked at the good topics plan and I must have just been confused. Back when good topics were first being discussed I think there were fears that changing things by adding good topics would cause featured topics to lose its "featured" wikipedia status. Now that things have settled down, that isn't a concern I still have. Featured topics status is secure in my mind, especially with the coming increase in standards. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Erm okay, well I guess I would be open to moving the "non-front pages", if the right location to move them to can be found. But at the moment, I don't see what that right location could be. Moving things to just "topic" doesn't work IMO because WP:Topics is taken already (and rightly so). Moving things to "good and featured topic" is too wordy. Splitting things is pointless, don't support that at all. Any more suggestions? Or am I reviving a dead conversation? rst20xx (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topics/Smallville (season 1)

Is this really comprehensive enough? It includes the main article, the season opener, and the finale. To me, that seems rather short, especially compared to the 30 Rock or the Lost season featured topics. I was thinking of nominating this for Featured Topic removal, but since I'm not a regular here, I thought I'd ask you guys first. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 17:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Check the nomination to read the lengthy discussion on how the featured topic passed. Gary King (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It has also already been nominated once for topic removal and the result was to keep it. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, that's interesting. I'd disagree with some of the rationales to support promotion in the first place, but no need to stir up trouble just for the sake of doing so. Off I go back to creating my Avatar Featured Topic. NuclearWarfare (Talk) 19:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Creations of mine...

I have created Template:User FL just in case if anyone wants that wording for it. I have also created Category:Wikipedia Featured topic contributors. Happy editing! -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 08:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant Template:User FT? --PresN 15:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
{{User Featured topics}} and {{User Featured lists}} already exist. Gary King (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
It looks like User FL is an alternate wording of User Featured Lists which has been around for a while, and he went ahead and create an FT version of it. --PresN 18:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
O gosh...I made Category:Wikipedia Featured topic contributors, but there was already another one created called Category:Wikipedia Featured Topic contributors. It's now nominated for speedy deletion. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24 review me 06:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Definition of an Overview Topic

Following up on Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/2008#Overview topics...

I've been doing some thinking, and I believe I've worked out how we should define an overview topic - I think it's basically been along the lines of this definition that my recent votes at WP:FTC have largely been decided, anyway. I think we should add the following to the Recommendations section at WP:FT?:

First, define an overview topic:
"An overview topic is one in which there are too many articles within the scope of the topic to consider including them all in the topic."
Then, the rule of what needs including in such a topic for it to meet the good/featured criteria:
"If you are considering nominating an overview topic, then you should ensure that every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic, is also within the scope of a non-main article that is included within the topic."
And finally, a bit of advise could be provided:
"If it seems natural, you may consider creating summary style articles to reduce the number of articles needed to be included in your overview topic."

Right, some elaboration on what this means. Basically I think what many of us like to see in an overview topic is that if a (directly related) article within the scope of the topic isn't included in the topic, then the door is left open for the article to be included in a subtopic of the topic. And by requiring that all such articles are also within the scope of a non-main article in the topic, this is what this ensures.

This also works out quite nicely in the sense that it means that the most important articles are still included within the overview topic itself, whilst also providing some guidance as to which exactly the most important articles are (it's not always clear).

To give an example of this theory in practice, take the current Texas A&M nomination. Using {{Texas A&M University}} as a rough guide, I would say that the direct subarticles of Texas A&M University, ie the ones that would need to be included for the definition of an overview topic to be met, are Texas A&M Aggies, Campus of Texas A&M University, History of Texas A&M University, Texas A&M University at Galveston (note this is a branch of the Uni, and so not part of the campus), Texas A&M University at Qatar (ditto), Traditions of Texas A&M University, List of Texas Aggie terms (though this could possibly be in a Traditions subtopic?), List of Texas A&M University people, List of Texas A&M University presidents, and then everything in the "Academics" and "Student Life" portions of the template. However, to remove these last two (particularly difficult) requirements, it would seem very natural to me to create summary style articles Academics at Texas A&M University and Student life at Texas A&M University - indeed, by a complete coincidence, one of these two proposed summary articles was about a year and a half ago under construction anyway.

And then other articles within the scope of Texas A&M University, such as Aggie Bonfire and Fightin' Texas Aggie Band, do not need including in the main topic, because they are within the scope of one of the subarticles within the main topic, and as a result, may be potentially included in future subtopics to the main topic (in the case of these two examples, Traditions and Student life subtopics, respectively).

So, what does everyone think? Does this make sense, or am I just rambling? :P rst20xx (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, make that both - here's a WIP of the Academics article too - rst20xx (talk) 18:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Anybody? rst20xx (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying and it makes sense to me because I've looked at a lot of topics, but I think the average wikipedia user probably wouldn't really get it at first sight. So I'm not sure adding it to the official criteria would be very helpful. It would probably just raise more questions than it would really answer. A more general way to say everything you've said is to say a topic should have a well-defined scope, and that is already in the criteria. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, to be clear, I was suggesting adding this (or something like this) to the recommendations, not the criteria itself. You say that "the average wikipedia user probably wouldn't really get it at first sight", and that may be true, but the thing is, I think it is somewhat important that users DO come to understand that this is how things work, because otherwise we'll continue to get confused nominators and confused voters. And as things stand, they have even less hints to fathom it out.
Do you think there is some way to make the definition a bit more explicit, maybe through use of an example? rst20xx (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sure an example would be helpful. In fact I think several examples would be helpful to fully demonstrate the concept, but I'm a little concerned that fully defining and explaining what an "overview topic" is in the recommendations section will take up a lot of space. Perhaps we could just put the overview topic rule in the recommendations section and wikilink "overview topic" to a separate page that explains in detail the concept of an overview topic and how they should work. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yep, that sounds sensible. Or we could have a show/hide - rst20xx (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

What if instead of putting it in the recommendation section we add it up in the main criteria section by adding

1.(e) For overview topics, every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic should also be within the scope of a non-lead article that is included in the topic.

and then putting all the examples and definitions on the linked overview topics page. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd be for that (altho have the link pipe to something like Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria/Overview topics instead? Or maybe even it could have its own section beneath the recommendations, i.e. link goes to Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria#Overview topics) - rst20xx (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd prefer Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria/Overview topics as I favor the linking to a separate page approach. I just have a feeling it will take a decent amount of space to adequately explain the idea with definitions, explanations, and examples so everyone will understand it. We can always start the page as a proposal to try to hammer things out first before we add it to the official criteria. And if it turns out we can fully explain it in less space than I'm anticipating then maybe it would work as a separate section on the main criteria page. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created the proposal page. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
If you look the example topic, it does not even follow this rule, for Discovery and exploration of the Solar System and Interplanetary medium are major sub-topics and are not include in the topic. I think A better more practical definition of an overview topic is that "every non-trivial article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic should also be within the scope of a non-main article that is included in the topic." Zginder 2009-01-10T15:11Z (UTC)

(reset) Yeah, I was wondering when this would come up - our one major overview topic doesn't currently meet the definition. I think Zginder's inclusion of "non-trivial" might be a good idea, but I would further argue however that neither Discovery and exploration of the Solar System nor Interplanetary medium (or Interplanetary dust cloud - one of the two) are trivial. So I would say that Solar System still doesn't meet the criteria. Also there are two other gaps - Jupiter Trojan, and the fact that the topic doesn't contain any lists (An example, then, of something I would call a trivial gap would be Neptune trojan). I happen to know however that the Solar System guys are working on these things, and as a result I think it would be extremely bad taste to remove the topic (plus also there's the whole thing about rule changes meaning topics get 6 months' retention, might that apply here?), but as a result of these shortcomings, I don't think we can really use the Solar System topic as an example. It would be better to construct some ourselves, I think, out of things like France.

I guess the fact that even the SS topic doesn't meet the overview definition shows in part how hard it is for very important topics to meet it, but I think meeting the definition is the only way for a topic to meet comprehensiveness and no-gaps rules - rst20xx (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I used the solar system topic as an example because it is the best actual example we currently have. Adding "non-trivial" or something else that injects subjectivity into overview topics is not a bad idea, because overview topics by their nature are going to be somewhat subjective. This is probably the lawyer in me, but I actually tried to do this already, as I anticipated this issue. If you notice I wrote the criterion with the word "should" instead of "must". Even if the solar system topic should technically include the articles that are pointed out as missing above, I think the topic has "no obvious gaps" and is complete enough to give thorough coverage of the topic to the average reader. It therefore would meet the proposed criteria in my mind. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well it depends on what you're looking for, doesn't it? The layman may not have heard of the articles we're talking about here, but let's take Discovery and exploration of the Solar System for example. That's basically covering the human side of the history, complimenting Formation and evolution, which covers the physical history. They both seem pretty important to me, from a human point of view. Or take Jupiter Trojan. Every other major group of small solar system bodies is included in the topic, so excluding that one looks like something of a gap.
But anyway, these are my opinions and they seem not to agree with yours, but do you see that, given that it is possible to argue that SS doesn't meet the criteria, it might be better to create our own examples? - rst20xx (talk) 17:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I do understand what you're saying, and you're right it is possible to argue it either way. I think this just demonstrates overview topics are going to be somewhat subjective no matter how we write the criteria. I think I'd still be for keeping the solar system example, but if you'd like to take a stab at creating an example from scratch that's fine with me. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Well the whole comprehensiveness thing is subjective from the start, isn't it? I don't think this extra rule actually makes opposes possible that weren't possible before, it just makes the logic behind things a bit clearer. Anyway, I'll take a stab at something then, expect to see me create a big tree of topics and subtopics soon - rst20xx (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I've made a start - this is proving to be a big job, but that's what I expected. I promptly shot off in a depth first search manner down the first path I found, it's hard to tell how far to go but I think everything under "Administrative divisions" is somewhat finalised. Sorry that the page has been left in such a mess in the meantime.
The advantage of doing something as big as France is hopefully we can get examples of all sorts of nuanced stuff thrown in there, eg an article appearing in multiple topics, etc. etc. and so then we might only need the one example. Anyway, I'll continue tomorrow. Topic outline of France is quite useful, because if you look at it you quickly realise its sections/indentation system is similar to our subtopicing system - rst20xx (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
OK... done. Very rough round the edges (lots of non-existent articles,  s everywhere...) 24 topics - bloody hell. Well, I think I've learnt a lot - I have a pretty good idea of what I'd expect to see in a France overview topic now, but also that's probably (i.e. definitely) too unwieldy to use as an example - rst20xx (talk) 04:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

(reset) - OK Rreagan007, you were right. I've moved the French example to the talk page. Shall we use say Hurricane Isabel as the other example then? It would be nice to have an example where articles were actually created to meet the overview topic definition, but I don't think this has happened yet. I suppose that bit isn't too confusing anyway - rst20xx (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm not really sure that Hurricane Isabel would be a great example to use either. I think you had a good idea in creating a hypothetical overview topic, but a France topic was a bit ambitious. Perhaps something a little simpler like a university overview topic would be a nice example, as I can envision people wanting to create overview topics about organizations like a university. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, how about Michigan State University? Looking through the top end of Category:Universities articles by quality, I think MSU and Texas A&M are the two Universities that are closest to being ready, and we need something that's close because otherwise there will just be redlinks and proposed article creations all over the place. Anyway, I'll do MSU - rst20xx (talk) 22:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Sounds good. And if I'm not mistaken that used to be a featured topic and was removed due to concerns it was not comprehensive enough. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Alright, I've done the main topic. Want to take a look? It seems to be fairly clean-cut to me. There generally doesn't seem to be as much on Traditions at MSU, when compared to Texas A&M - is this just less of a big deal at MSU? At any rate, I think that Traditions could be suptopiced to Student Life, anyway. Similarly I included the Presidents list there but at the moment, if you actually look at the articles, that's currently covered in the general people list, so maybe that should be removed. Anyway, the need to create "Student Life" and "Colleges" articles is nicely demonstrated - rst20xx (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. I think you're correct that "Presidents of Michigan State University" could fit under people. I also think "Colleges of Michigan State University" could fit under academics. You could also possibly put Michigan State University Libraries in the overview topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm OK about colleges. Libraries IMO fits cleanly under academics - rst20xx (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Hmm really you'd put libraries under academics? If I had to put libraries under something else I'd probably put it under campus. But I think you're right it's not important enough to be put in the overview topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Well I suppose it could go under Campus but in much the same capacity that the Colleges could. They're places for academics first and foremost, the fact that they're on-campus is IMO of secondary importance - rst20xx (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Wait, we're being stupid here. Why can't Libraries just go in both subtopics, like how it's in both sections on the template? rst20xx (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You're right. It can go in both. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

(reset) OK, I think we should make example subtopics on Campus, Academics, Athletics and Student Life. We could comment in the text part on how Libraries fits into two topics, and this is fine.

Also on an unrelated note, it might be worth transcluding the Solar System and Dwarf Planet topics, instead of copying them, because then any changes they undergo are reflected automatically in the Overview topics page. I have made this change. (Of course, if they change to the point that they are no longer useable as an example, then we can deal with this at that time, but I don't forsee this happening in a hurry) rst20xx (talk) 03:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure we really need to create that many subtopics for example purposes. I think making 1 or 2 subtopic examples would probably be enough to convey the idea. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, I wanted to make Academics because then we can show where the colleges have gone - for a Brit, it's not instantaneously obvious they'd go off into an Academics subtopic at all. And I wanted to make Campus to show that an article (Libraries) could be in two. And I wanted to make Student Life just to show clearer what would go under the non-existent article. I guess I have no reason for wanting to make Athletics :) rst20xx (talk) 08:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
If you really want to make up that many there really isn't any reason you can't. My only point was I didn't think that many were really needed to demonstrate the concept. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Did all bar Athletics (which my last message was meant to imply I wasn't going to make, sorry). I think that's fine, 3 example subtopics isn't a huge number - rst20xx (talk) 14:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Move to vote

Shall we vote on this? So, in summary, we'll add

1.(e) For overview topics, every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic should also be within the scope of a non-lead article that is included in the topic.

to the criteria, with Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria/Overview topics also being new - rst20xx (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Support... well I may as well start then!!! rst20xx (talk) 14:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. I think adding this is a good idea. It will at least give some guideance and notice to people trying to create an overview topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Pass - it is a shame only two of us voted, but it is now 10 days later, so I think the new rule should be passed. I shall add it now - rst20xx (talk) 15:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Ups, forgot this. For the sake of future clarity support too. Nergaal (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

hmmmm

when was the last time there were no candidates at one time? Nergaal (talk) 01:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Quickly going through the archives, I think the answer is either "never" or "never since April 2007". Gary King (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
[1] Nergaal (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Vote on permanently audited articles of limited subject matter

I propose we hold a vote on whether to allow the inclusion of permanently audited articles of limited subject matter, as I realise a vote has never been held on this before. The current rules imply to me, at least, that audited articles should be allowed. However, I know several other prominent editors disagree with this. I think the rules need clarifying one way or another - either to explicitly allow for them them, or to explicitly disallow them, because it is unfair on prospective topic builders whilst the situation remains in limbo.

So, to be clear, I think that WP:FT? 3.c) should be clarified, based on whether this motion passes or fails. If this vote comes back "allow", then the clarification will be to be more explicit about allowing for them, and if this vote comes back "disallow", then the clarification will be to explicitly ban them.

As I think we are collectively unsure as to whether the rules currently allow for them or not, and hence whether this is (a) a proposal to change the rules to allow for them or (b) a proposal to change the rules to ban them, I think a majority, not consensus, should be sufficient to carry this vote either way - rst20xx (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Allow inclusion as nominator - while I do not think many of this type of article exists, I think in certain extreme cases, for example the Slipknot discography, such articles should be allowed - rst20xx (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Allow. Allowing the possibility of a permanent audit will still make it judgment call done on a case by case basis, but to outright ban the possibility of a permanent audited article would remove all discretion and be far too restrictive. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I am inclined to oppose. Based on my reading of WP:GA? and WP:NOTABILITY, any subject that is worth having an article about can reach GA status. In the case of Slipknot discography, for example, nominators claimed that the article had too few notable sources to qualify for GA, yet enough to not be deleted due to lack of coverage. I can't buy this argument; the GA requirements for notability seem to be more lax than the deletion ones. I think that there are sources out there for articles like that, albeit they might not be found by simple googling; and if there truly are not, the article should be merged into another or deleted based on our existing policies. --Arctic Gnome (talkcontribs) 00:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Rather oppose per Arctic.gnome. If an article cannot even become a GA, not enough work has gone into it, or it doesn't have sufficient notability and shouldn't have an article in the first place. – sgeureka tc 09:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Opposing for the same reasons as Arctic.gnome. Nergaal (talk) 18:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Arctic.gnome makes sense—I also oppose. Pagrashtak 19:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Artic.gnome. If the article can't pass GAN, then either the authors aren't putting enough work into it or it's better off merged somewhere else. Simply because something passes WP:NOTE does not mean that it has to have an article. Merging it somewhere may be the better method of presenting the material. As it stands, the only permanently audited items the criteria should allow are lists that are too short to pass FLC (and show no signs of expanding in the future). — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think we can safely say that the majority wants to disallow audited articles due to inherent shortness. I shall change the criteria to reflect this - rst20xx (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


Does everyone agree that permanently audited lists should be allowed? Rreagan007 (talk) 22:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Allow until the status of lists are clarified. Lists cannot go through GA, but there is an un-codified rule of having at least 10 items in a list before it can be featured. Such a list is perfectly valid as a "limited subject matter" article. Without the issue lists, I still believe that there are limited cases where this can be applied, and has been applied. Regards. Woody (talk) 22:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Although my mind could be changed, I cannot think of any situation that would allow a permanently audited list. If the list is going to be permanently too short for FL, it should be merged into an appropriate article (It must have one as we are talking about topics here). If it has potential to grow it is not permanently audited. My only question is how do we audit ones with potential to grow. For example in a list of annual awards, if seven have been presented do we allow an three year retention period on a 7 item list (to meet the unwritten 10 item FL criteria). Rambo's Revenge (talk) 14:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    Or we could just say "until three months after the list obtains 10 items", until we know a date the 10th item will be added, and then say three months after that date - rst20xx (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    That is fine by be, it just means that this (part of a topic on working on) may have over four years as an audited article. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    So you're suggesting we just don't bother listing them? Well, they are also listed here anyway (penultimate list, with 5 items) - rst20xx (talk) 20:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    No i'm not suggesting we don't list them. I am happy with all of them being listed. Thanks for pointing out those considered under permanent retention. I was unaware those would be considered permenant. I would of considered them long-term audited lists as there will be more Nunavut general elections and NHL awards in the future. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    Well you can't say for sure there will be more of either of those. Nunavut elections could always be stopped by the Canadian federal government and the NHL could always eliminate a particular award. Let's say the NHL did get rid of one of the awards that is currently an audited list and there were not yet 10 items in the list. Would you be for or against allowing the article to remain audited in the topic permanently. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
    I had to think about this one. I originally thought they should be merged elsewere. However, I think that if, for example, the Mark Messier Leadership Award was cancelled today, it has nowhere to be merged to, and so should be allow to remain an audited part in the topic. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Allow I can think of topics for which an audited list may be necessary. For example, within Tree of Life, one may want to create a topic on North American canids or Panamanian monkeys. The topic might include articles on each species, but would need a list-class article to bring the topic together. But there are less than 10 species in each of these classifications, and thus the list article would not qualify for FLC. I suppose one could say that it is possible that new species will be discovered or described, and if and when that happens the list will be able to be expanded, but that seems a bit of a stretch.

Such lists may also be important to create topics for groups of species that have more than 10 items. For example, if one were to create a topic on Colombian primates (a subject on which books have been written), Hernández-Camacho's Night Monkey would somehow need to be included. But this is a newly described species, and virtually is nothing is known about it. So there is no way to get its article to GA status for years and years to come, if then. And, per Tree of Life, it is notable and the species article, albeit tiny, cannot be merged. So one way to cover it would be a list of night monkeys in Colombia, but again, there are less than ten such species. Rlendog (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Avatar: The Last Airbender

Can you guys check out Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Seasons of Avatar: The Last Airbender and see if you can improve what needs to happen for a topic expansion please? NuclearWarfare (Talk) 01:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/USA PATRIOT Act, Title III

Is it in the wrong section? It is a Featured topic candidate but is under the GTC section. I think this should be fixed, but I want to make sure. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:40, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

No, it is a good topic candidate. If you're talking about the name of the page, that's the way good topic candidates are. Gary King (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Featured topics require at least 2 FAs/FLs, or at least 25%. As this has one FA only, it is a good, not featured, topic candidate - rst20xx (talk) 20:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for clarifying. The base page name confused me. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Rage Against the Machine

My eyes glazed over while reading the instructions, but Rage Against the Machine (GA), Rage Against the Machine discography (FL) and List of Rage Against the Machine awards (FL) would seem to qualify if anyone is interested in nominating it. Obrigado, Skomorokh 02:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I did the Awards list, so I'm curious as to whether this is a topic or not? Gary King (talk) 02:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the main article, Rage Against the Machine, be a FA in order to qualify? Cla68 (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
No, only 33% of the articles in the topic have to be of FA quality; the rest just need to be GA. Gary King (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
A tour article/list article needs to be added also. Nergaal (talk) 03:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I suppose a list of members too? Gary King (talk) 04:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Would there be a list of concert tours, such as List of Metallica concert tours? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nine Inch Nails looks like a good model. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, in addition to a tour article I'd say the other thing you'd need is the members, somehow. Also I would want to see the demo tape added to Rage Against the Machine discography - rst20xx (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay demo added. Gary King (talk) 19:27, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Also, I think that both the list of members and the list of tours will be permanently audited lists, as they have four and five items respectively, I believe. Is that acceptable? Gary King (talk) 07:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, firstly, are you sure about that? There are only 5 tours with Wiki articles, but does that mean there'll be 5 columns in the "Tours" article? There are only 4 band members, but has the band ever used live members? Secondly, it's far from certain that the Tours article won't grow anyway (so I hope you'd get no opposition there). Anyway, I would be sceptical that people would accept permanently audited lists, and I think a members list with just the 4 would certainly be seen as such, so I guess that means you'd have to get the four band members' articles up to speed :/ Or alternatively I suppose the summary-style "members" list could actually be a summary-style "members" article...?
Although see Numbered highways in Amenia (CDP), New York which has 4 "items" and is an FL - rst20xx (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not sure if there are more items for each list, I haven't checked yet. Okay, I guess this is related to the Overview topics update to the criteria, in that everything needs to be covered one way or another (except the lead?). Gary King (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes. But hey, what's a band without their members? What's a band without their performances? rst20xx (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

← I'm pretty sure there has only been four members for RATM, since its inception. I don't see how an article about the members could be made into an FA, as it would just summarize information from RATM and the four individual member articles. Gary King (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, If the list of tours & members would be so short, why spin them out from the main article? A FT should cover all the information, i don't think creating stubby audited articles that will not grow should be needed to FT, if the information is already covered in the main article.
But, If the band members are notable they should have articles and be included - if there is not enough to write about them, then they should be merged to the main article imo. Similarly, notable tours either have to be included or merged or a parent FL made.YobMod 08:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, in my opinion, with RATM, a tour article would be substantial enough (and so should be included), but a members article would not be (and so the four members should be included) - rst20xx (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. That's what fans get for wanting individual articles on their favourite bands' members :-).YobMod 13:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Question on rearrangement of articles from existing FT

For the Guitar Hero FT, we are looking to possibly reorganize some of the articles (specifically merging the various DS games, which there will be 3 of soon, all with the same basic gameplay) and the songlists into different articles; we're waiting to confirm how much this third DS game is like the others before we do so. In any case, from an FTC process, I'm trying to figure out the steps that would be done. None of the current two articles (On tour and On tour decades) are better than GA, so we'd not be changing the ratios negatively, so what it seems like we'd have to do is if we go through with it, make up the new articles, remove the old ones from the topic but then add the 3-month requirement to get the new articles up to snuff for inclusion in the topic (at least a peer review). If we do this before the game is out, then it would seem that we'd then have 3 months from game release to get the articles to the quality needed (GA/FL) to maintain the FT. Do I have the basic gist down right? (And fwiw, we are working on promoting a GA to FA in this as to help boost the numbers correctly). --MASEM 16:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Erm if you want to do it that way, that sounds about right, but one thing you could do instead, that seems easier to me, is you could merge one of the two existing game articles into the other one, then keep the enlarged, renamed other. Then, well, you've already got the GA passed! Or at most you'll need to put the resultant article through GAR. Seems easier to me. Less hassle - rst20xx (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh sorry, but you're thinking of making a separate songlist article, too? That's sensible. Well I guess then yes, you should do what you said for the songlist article, but possibly you can still do what I said for the non-song article. Would the songlist article not be able to get to FL until the third game is out? rst20xx (talk) 23:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Working on the assumption (details are minimal right now) that Modern Hits is basically the same game and the like, there's no reason the combined song article couldn't get an FL, but I don't want to do this reorganization until I know its the right thing to do and that's making sure that all three games can be covered better comprehensively in a single article before attempting to change things around. --MASEM 00:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
Right, that makes sense. Well, whatever decision you come to - reshuffle or no reshuffle - I think WP:FT will be able to accommodate it :) rst20xx (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

List of universities in the Canadian Prairies at WP:FLRC

List of universities in the Canadian Prairies is currently at WP:FLRC. The featured list is part of the Wikipedia:Featured topics/Lists of universities in Canada featured topic, and the recommendation to merge the lists into one was originally brought up at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Universities in Canada/archive1, so comments at the FLRC are appreciated. Gary King (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

New Featured List criteria having a knock-on impact here

Please see here for a subtle rule change proposal to deal with the changes coming in to WP:FL? - rst20xx (talk) 21:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Directors?

Given that Artic.gnome and rst20xx make practically all the closes at FTC, isn't it a rather simple step to place them as directors for FTC? Granted, it's merely a title for what they're already doing, but given that practically all of the other featured content processes (FAC, FAR, FLC, FLRC) have their own directors or delegates, consistency would be nice, and it would reduce confusion on who makes the final decision on closes. This has been brought up in the past, but I don't think it ever got off the ground. Thoughts? — sephiroth bcr (converse) 09:21, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As an outside observer (I've never participated here), I wouldn't think a director is really necessary. I mean, there are at most 5 nominations at a time. The process can go on fine without a director. Noble Story (talkcontributions) 23:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
I also think it is not needed, and consistancy is not a good enough reason to add official buraeaucracy. The current closers are keeping up with demand easily, so if it ain't broke.... I don't think i've ever seen a close i disagree with (even when i've !voted the other way), as they are intended to read consensus, which any decent editor could do in theory.YobMod 06:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yorktown class gunboats(?)

I was wondering if there's anything more needed for the nomination of Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Yorktown class gunboats? It's been open with no objections since 30 April… — Bellhalla (talk) 05:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be promoted. Arctic gnome seems to have gone AWOL and I don't have time to cover for him at the moment (exams...) - rst20xx (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
No problem. I figured it was something like that. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Backlog?

I know the FT "directors" are really busy, but some of the FTC noms are more than 40 days old! Can we have someone else who is familiar enough with the closing procedures close...? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I'll be back on it in a week... rst20xx (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Alright. Just wanted to be sure. I'm not too worried, since there is no deadline, but I wouldn't want to see potential nominators turned away. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it's time we assign directors. User:Arctic.gnome used to be busy here, but he hasn't been around nearly as much anymore. Gary King (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd support that idea. I'd even volunteer if needed. –Juliancolton | Talk 03:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
How would limiting the amount of people that can close a nomination speed the process up? If the consensus is clear there is nothing stopping any one of you from closing it. I would guess that many don't close in time as there are not enough reviewers, not because of a limit in closers. (the oldest nom has only 3 supports to one oppose - i think closing noms as "no consensus" would put off more potential editors than giving it a chance to pass. If all the people who plan to put themselves up as a potential director commented there, it would be much easier to close. YobMod 13:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
As F/GTC receives more activity, the organizational benefit of having directors increases. I agree with Yobmod that deciding if something has consensus isn't that hard, but the actual closing procedures are quite complicated, which is partly why I suspect editors haven't just BOLDly closed F/GTCs themselves. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I just tried closing one, and wow... that is confusing as hell. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I just closed the 2 oldest ones i hadn't commented on. It certainly does seem very complicated, considering the visible effect for most editors, but i think this arises from the automated GT/FT transitioning?.YobMod 16:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) I think a benefit from having directors rather than willy-nilly closing (except in WP:IAR cases) is that is provides a uniform benchmark for closing. If we need more people trained in the process, so much the better, but I think directors are helpful in running featured content processes of all types. Not to mention that just means all we have to do is nominate and review, and I think it's best to waste as few people's time with procedural stuff as possible. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The backlog is because neither Arctic gnome or I are doing it at the moment (well Arctic gnome is infrequently...) and as has been said by others, the process is very complicated. Can't speak for Arctic gnome but I have finals at the moment so really can't afford to be spending up to 40 minutes a pop closing these nominations, and haven't been closing them for quite a while now. But once my finals are over (on Tuesday) then I'll clear the backlog and I don't anticipate there being any problems in the future after that. No more backlogs - rst20xx (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

1000 articles

With the latest promotions, all of the FTs and GTs combined now encompass over 1000 articles! Congratulations to everyone involved, this project has really taken off, especially in the past year. --PresN 16:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Unexplained changes?

When were changes such as this and this discussed? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, in fact looking at the edit summary of the second, "general practice on WP:FT is to avoid this now", that's only because the same editor asserting that, Axem Titanium, also changed them all across, a few months ago. Having said that I don't think the previous system was ever discussed so maybe it would be a good idea to discuss it now. So, what do people prefer - topics called eg "United States Naval Academy alumni, Lists of", or topics called eg "Lists of United States Naval Academy alumni"? rst20xx (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is "List of" even needed? Why not just call the topic "United States Naval Academy alumni"? Rreagan007 (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Well I support using "lists of", the rationale being because the topic doesn't include any of the actual alumni, just lists of them - rst20xx (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
I also support using the "Lists of" in the title , for this reason. I guess putting "Lists of" at the end has the advantage that such topics would be in a better order. I think finding all topics on an institute grouped together is more useful than finding all Lists topics together.YobMod 10:16, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Well actually generally we try to sort topics in a sensible order, based on what they're on, not the actual name, so this should be the same either way to be honest... rst20xx (talk) 10:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean on the FT and GT pages, but other places, like the topic categories. eg: Category:Wikipedia featured topics categoriesIf "list of" is on the front of these topics, the "L" section is large, but useless for browsing. This can be fixed by putting a sort key in the category to ignore the "List of" part, or by putting List of at the end of the title - the latter just seems easier. That said, i have no strong feeling either way, as long as it is consistant and the topic scope is a good description (so the 2 examples above should be reverted - a list of alumni topic should certainly have the alumnis' articles, not lists.)YobMod 13:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
(kickback indent) I originally made the change on a lot of FT pages a few months ago. I took the widespread lack of anyone actually caring enough to change it back as tacit approval of the measure, which led to my recent edit summary of "general practice on WP:FT is to avoid this now". As far as why we should keep the change, I think it's similar to why we say "The Walt Disney Company" instead of "Walt Disney Company, The". We can use a sortkey to categorize it properly but in general practice, we know to drop the "the" or "list of" in our heads when alphabetizing, whether on the WP:FT page or otherwise. Theoretically, we could change the name of the page to Wikipedia:Featured topics/United States Naval Academy alumni, Lists of but that seems kind of unnecessary as well. Axem Titanium (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive topic nominations from the start

I'd like to propose that in the future, new topic nominations are created not at "Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/TopicName" but at "Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/TopicName/archiveX", where "X" is the number of the nomination for that topic (e.g. if it is its third time being nominated, then "X" will be "3"). This would match procedure at WP:FAC and WP:FLC. Current procedure round here is that whenever a topic nomination fails, its nom page is then moved to the appropriate archive subpage, in anticipation of a new nomination being potentially brought in the future in the same location as the one that just failed. If a topic nomination passes, then the page isn't moved. However this is still not ideal as if a topic gets promoted, then demoted, then at this stage the old archive for its promotion needs moving which is more effort as there are now lots of links to it that need updating. And also having to move the pages every time a nomination fails needlessly increases the length of the closing procedure. So I'd like to move things across to the FAC/FLC model of having everything archived all the time. Hopefully this should be non-controversial - rst20xx (talk) 14:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-controversial in my opinion, saves a lot of time, particularly when having to update links. Regards, Woody (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree. I can help with moves if necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, I have made the changes necessary to make this the process going forwards - rst20xx (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Victoria Cross

Hello there, I have a little question. The Victoria Cross medals topic is already featured (Wikipedia:Featured topics/Victoria Cross). A potential sub-topic is coming close to fruition: List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign, see Mock-up here. So, to my question, should this be a separate topic or would it be better as some sort of sub-topic? I don't know what the current conventions are so I thought I would ask before hopefully being able to go ahead soon. Thanks, Woody (talk) 13:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This generally is taken on a case by case basis, depending upon the number of articles potentially involved. I think that here, the topics should be combined because the total would only be 13 articles and topics go up to 30 articles before being considered too big (in fact if all the VC articles were combined into one topic that would only be 25 I think, plus a couple of those such as the Channel Islands list probably due to be deleted). I realise it looks more impressive to have 2 topics instead of one but this is not in itself an argument to have them separate. It is more useful to have just one topic, and it is worth bearing in mind that the WP:FT page is already taller than the WP:FA page. Recommendations at WP:FT? state that "a topic should not be excessively sub-divided; an all-encompassing topic of six articles is better than two topics of three each" so that seems to advocate a general policy of combining topics, assuming the end result is comprehensive, and isn't too big - rst20xx (talk) 14:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
PS you need to get these three deleted: VCs of the First World War - Passchendaele 1917, List of Arras and Vimy Ridge Victoria Cross recipients and List of Battle of the Somme Victoria Cross recipients - rst20xx (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
They have all been redirected as neccessary and per the existing convention for these lists. In terms of the topic, would you recommend opening it as a supplemental nomination then? My thinking was dictated simply as the current topic is the medals themselves not recipients lists. I am happy either way, adding them into the existing topic or a separate one. Woody (talk) 17:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
I would say so, yes. The lack of recipients lists in the current topic actually strikes me as a bit of a weakness, possibly meaning it's not fully comprehensive. After all, the recipients have their own section in the Victoria Cross article - rst20xx (talk) 18:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the current topic is the Victoria Cross medals themselves, not the recipients. How would you define the scope of the new topic? I understand the need to not have a load of small topics when you could have one big one (I don't see the "five articles is better than two topics of three each" as being too relevant to the VC issue though). I do also understand though that if they are separate then they could be seen as overlapping. I'm guessing I can't really see a wording for the topic that includes both the medals and the campaign recipients that wouldn't see the need for all of the other VC recipients lists included.
Campaigns on its own would look weird on the FT page next to the orig. VC one, though I suppose that can be easily overlooked.
Personally, I find the combined one to be bad on the eyes: it just looks like a mashup of random articles.
Not sure about this either. Is this the convention for sub-topics? Would you need something else featured? Regards, Woody (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
"Well, the current topic is the Victoria Cross medals themselves, not the recipients." Where does it say that? The name of the topic is "Victoria Cross", and so the current scope should be "Victoria Cross"! And the lists of recipients certainly come within that scope! Anyway, try putting all the medals in one column, that looks better:
13 articles
  Victoria Cross
 
  Victoria Cross (Canada)
  Victoria Cross for Australia
  Victoria Cross for New Zealand
(FLC) List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign
  Crimean War recipients
  Indian Mutiny recipients
  New Zealand Land Wars recipients
  Zulu War recipients
  Second Afghan War recipients
  Second Boer War recipients
  First World War recipients
FLC Second World War recipients
I think you should add the other 2 list-sets as well, once they're up to scratch. The topic will be somewhat comprehensive with just the 13 articles listed above in the sense that every single recipient will now be listed once - all you're excluding is different ways of presenting the same data - rst20xx (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough, you're right, that does look better. Regards, Woody (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
my 2 cents: I would favor this setup:
11 articles
  Victoria Cross
 
  Victoria Cross for Australia
  Victoria Cross (Canada)
  Victoria Cross for New Zealand
List of Australian Victoria Cross recipients
List of Canadian Victoria Cross recipients
List of English Victoria Cross recipients
List of Irish Victoria Cross recipients
List of Scottish Victoria Cross recipients
(FLC) Recipients of other nationalities
List of Victoria Cross recipients of uncertain nationality
(FLC) Recipients by campaign (SUBTOPIC)

Nergaal (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's interesting. Why are the nationality ones not a subtopic? The way those lists are constructed, they are designed around the main list with all of the sublists coming off that one. Personally following your one, I would put the alphabetical ones in the main topic. As it is, I am hoping to merge all the alphabetical ones into three lists with about 400 recipients in each thus creating this scenario. Is it worth me opening up an FTC for the campaigns one just to gauge opinion on the subject? An FTC would be far more visible than a discussion on this page. Regards. Woody (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need anything other than the top-level campain and nationality lists linked directly? I've always seen these as the master lists, with the others split off purely becasue the main list would be completely unmanageable otherwise. David Underdown (talk) 15:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I think ideally Woody will be looking to include all the lists in featured topics, it's just a question of which - rst20xx (talk) 15:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Rst20xx is right, this is about how we organise the lists and topics. David is right about the master lists, they are just that. They are only separated out due to size constraints, the sub-lists form part of that main master list. The question is how that relates to the FT structure and conventions. I think the only way to work that out at this point would be to have an FTC nom. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I think this comes down to the interpretation of the criteria, in which case I would agree with David. Personally, I would see the main FT as including the four medals and the two main lists; List of Victoria Cross recipients by nationality and List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign. Really, this basically would encompass the whole VC topic. From there, there could be at least the two subtopics of the nationalities lists and campaign lists. Just my thoughts and interpretations. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Opened up Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Victoria Cross recipients by campaign/archive1‎. Woody (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:WP FTC

I just created this template. Hope you guys will enjoy. :D -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 00:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The template is now compatible with archives and additions. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:WBFTN screwiness

There are some threads about this at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates/2008 - it might be helpful to review those before reading these comments.

The current situation is that there are about 65 Featured Topics (and 3 formers) for which the bot doesn't have nomination records (entries in the lists like WP:FT2009). These are all listed in html comments at the end of WP:WBFTN if anyone's interested. I assume these were Good Topics at the point of nomination and then later passed the threshold which automatically makes them Featured Topics. The net of this is that there are at least 65 missing stars at WBFTN.

The last time we talked about this I don't think there were any spectacularly good ideas for what to do with automatic promotions from Good to Featured. I'm not inclined to spend very much effort on this, and unless there's a reasonable suggestion put forth for an algorithm for how the bot should handle automatic promotions I think my preference would be to delete WBFTN (and the by-year nomination lists like FT2009). If there's a consensus that WBFTN should stay, I'll try to help define a way it can be sensibly maintained but the first question is definitely whether WBFTN should be deleted. We could do this at WP:MFD, but it seems reasonable to ask the question here first. Comments? -- Rick Block (talk) 03:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"The current situation is that there are about 65 Featured Topics (and 3 formers) for which the bot doesn't have nomination records (entries in the lists like WP:FT2009). These are all listed in html comments at the end of WP:WBFTN if anyone's interested. I assume these were Good Topics at the point of nomination and then later passed the threshold which automatically makes them Featured Topics. The net of this is that there are at least 65 missing stars at WBFTN." No, these 65 (well actually 68) are still good topics, so the page is actually largely accurate. As for the 3 listed as formers, "Devil May Cry series" is still a topic, though it was renamed to "Devil May Cry titles", which actually appears correctly higher up the list. "Star Wars episodes" was demoted from featured to good. "USA PATRIOT Act, Title III" was demoted from featured to good before being demoted entirely. So the last one, possibly the last two, should appear as red stars higher up, but don't. Interestingly, off the top of my head, I remember that "Gwen Stefani albums" also went from featured to good before being demoted entirely, so why that topic is successfully starred as a former topic when "USA PATRIOT Act, Title III" is not, I do not know. Some former featured and now good topics are still given stars, like the Simpsons seasons. But anyway, the mistakes are fewer than you realise - rst20xx (talk) 12:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Ah, so looking into this a bit more the bot is under the mistaken impression that everything listed in the source for WP:FT is a featured topic, and runs a cross check of nomination records vs. this list. However, template:TopicTransclude only generates HTML (through parser function magic) if the indicated topic meets the "featured" (as opposed to "good") criteria. The bot could
  1. screen scrape the HTML (ugh)
  2. or, implement the same algorithm TopicTransclude uses to decide if a topic meets the criteria (also ugh - if the criteria ever changed the bot would have to change)
  3. or, fetch the featured topic page and parse the Featured topic box template for the "lead=" parameter (also ugh - this means the bot would have to fetch these pages every time it runs).
As distasteful as it may be, I suspect screen scraping the HTML is perhaps the lesser of these evils. If anyone has any better ideas, please let me know.
Regardless of the above, there is still the issue of how to handle the case where a topic originally nom'd as "good" later becomes "featured" (although it may be far more rare than I was thinking). In this case, should the original nominator get a star? If the bot isn't tracking good noms in the by-year summary files (like WP:FT2009) this will be difficult. Like I say, I'm open to ideas, but I haven't heard any suggestions that sound particularly doable. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I think option 2 (TopicTransclude's method) is more workable than you think... the magic all comes from {{FeaturedTopicSum}}, which just says "if {{{1}}} is an FT, do {{{2}}}, else do {{{3}}}" - and it works out whether {{{1}}} is an FT or a GT by looking at the number and percentage of pages in various categories. Currently, the two numbers in {{FeaturedTopicSum}} needed for doing this are "> 1", because featured topics need 2 featured articles/lists, and "*3", because featured topics require 33% featured content.
And hence if the percentage/number of featured pages required for a topic to be an FT changes (as it has historically had a habit of doing), then one or both of these two numbers in this one template will need changing, and pretty much everything else will cascade from there. The rest of the sum will stay exactly the same.
So if the bot is set up in the same way, then it too would only need one or two numbers changing. Or an even cleverer solution might be to just get the bot to parse these 2 numbers from this template every time it runs, and then do the same sum as this template, using these 2 parsed numbers as variables and assuming somewhat more safely that the rest will stay fixed - rst20xx (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I've implemented a screen scraping solution - the next time the bot runs the list of problems will be greatly reduced. Figuring out FT or not using the same algorithm (#2) as TopicTransclude would be possible, but in addition to replicating the algorithm it would be incredibly less efficient than the screen scraping solution requiring something like 300 http fetches (2 per TopicTransclude in WP:FT) as opposed to 1. Yes they're all reads, but even so a bot doing 300 reads should be throttled. In any event - there is still the issue of how to handle the case where a topic originally nom'd as "good" later becomes "featured". Any ideas? -- Rick Block (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Well wouldn't it be found in the screen scrape, once its status changes? What's the problem here? rst20xx (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem is the nomination history won't be available. Every time the bot runs, the table here is thrown away and regenerated (from scratch) from the nomination records in the by-year summaries like WP:FT2009 (all the users and each star is from the by-year summaries). The alternative to doing it this way would be to maintain the table in "delta" fashion, but to do this the bot would have to be able to figure out what effect each change to one of the by-year summaries should have on the table (and runs the risk that the table here and the data in the by-year summaries gets out of sync). The reasons the by-year summaries are used rather than the monthly nomination logs (like Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Featured log/September 2009)) are efficiency (using the monthly logs the number to fetch to recreate the table would increase by 12 every year) and (at least as important) it is difficult to reliably determine the nominator(s) directly from the logs.
The only reason the bot reads WP:FT (and WP:FFT) is to figure out what color each star should be. Since it's doing this anyway, it is fairly easy is to do a consistency check to make sure each featured topic is represented by a star in the table. Unless the appropriate by-year nomination summary is updated when a "good" topic is automatically promoted to "featured", the table here won't change - there will simply be a featured topic for which the bot doesn't know who the nominator was.
There are some potential solutions to the automatic promotion problem. I suspect all start with including both "good" and "featured" topics in the by-year summary logs (so the bot has the nom history available). But then there are a variety of details that would need to be addressed, like:
  • Should WBFTN include both good and featured "stars" (using perhaps   and  ), changing the sense of it to "Wikipedians by good and featured topic nominations"? If both, what should the sort order be?
  • What should happen (if anything) to WBFTN if/when a topic moves from good to featured?
  • Should a good/featured indication be included in the by-year nomination summaries, and if so what should happen (if anything) if a topic moves from good to featured?
However it's done, I think the first question is "what is the point of WBFTN"? Without a clear purpose, it's hard to decide these things. My intent in creating WP:WBFAN was to encourage editors to take articles through the WP:FAC process (which takes time, effort, and kind of a thick skin). What is the analogous point of WBFTN? Is it to increase the number of topics (good or featured)? Or, perhaps, to indirectly increase the number of featured articles? I don't mean this in a snide sense, but what exactly is the benefit to the project? -- Rick Block (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm well when we discussed this about a year ago, we almost decided to include both but seemed to hold off. I think this should be turned over to see what others think - rst20xx (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Broadness of Books

Something that's been annoying me for a while - some of the books that are being created as a result of featured topics are very narrow in scope, possibly sillily so. I think it would be a good idea if books are sometimes broader in scope than the topic they are being created for, and then having the {{Featured topic box}} use the book= parameter to link to a different book name from the topic name, if required. A good example of this is the album topics, with e.g. Wikipedia:Books/Parachutes, Wikipedia:Books/A Rush of Blood to the Head and Wikipedia:Books/X&Y - I think it would make sense to amalgamate all three and more into one book covering the whole of Coldplay, or maybe their whole discography. This would in my opinion be a much more useful book to any reader. The drawbacks are firstly that the PDF of the book would be much larger and secondly, the books will often end up including some articles that are not of a good or featured standard (for example, Viva la Vida or Death and All His Friends). But I don't think they'd be too large, and I think it's fine to have non-GA/FA articles in GT/FT books, as this will not detract from the quality of the articles that are in the topic(s), whilst actually making the books more useful, instead of on sillily specific subjects, as GTs/FTs sometimes are. It may also encourage topic authors to be broader in the scope of their topics, if they know the book's scope will be broader.

On a semi-related note, I also think it would be a good idea to get nominators to create the book for the topic they are nominating, and bring the book as part of the nomination. This means that the choice of articles contained within the book can be discussed during the nomination, and also it takes some of the burden off whoever promotes the topic (books are a pain to create...) rst20xx (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone? rst20xx (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  Done The featured topic box now displays a book link regardless of FT status. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwiakigle (talkcontribs) 14:08, 28 October 2009

I only even knew books existed because of the one created when i got a FT. Directly afterwards i redirected that book to a broader version. So i would be glad to see books become a more official part of topic noms. Eg. The US Hurricane topics for each season could easily all use a combined book, with each season being a chapter. Similar for road topics etc.YobMod 14:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm I think those books would be too big, the PDFs that they would result in would be absolutely huge. But certainly albums books can be combined into discography, and some other things could be broadened too - rst20xx (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
If too big, then smaller books can be designed too. Books have been created covering whole cities, using multiple volumes, like here:Wikipedia:Books/City of Sheffield (Volume 1 of 5) I was thinking that the hurricane articles are usually quite short, but if not, then even "US Hurricanes in 19XX" books would be good. Books that are only the size of the topic often seem less than useful. Artist books definately work to combine all the possible discography and other subarticles.YobMod 14:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
By decade makes sense for the older decades but with the 2000s and maybe 1990s this would still be too big, e.g. see the 2003 Atlantic hurricane season topic. I suppose there could be a 2003 tropical cyclones book that combines all the different basins, though even that is pushing it for size IMO. If something needs splitting into volumes I think it probably makes more sense just to split it into sub-books, like how topics are split when they get too big - rst20xx (talk) 14:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Ah, i get 144 pages for that topics book, so multiplying by 10 would indeed be too big. A combined book for both pacific and atlantic hurricanes for each year would then be more reasonable (not that i could find 2 such topics from the same year, but in theory...). As long as the book is reasonable, i think nomination discussion should be able to decide on the best book target - they really don't take long to create, so could be changed during nomination.YobMod 14:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

there is something wrong with the nomination procedure

if this was submitted over 8 months ago, then the article in discussion got promoted 7 months ago, but nobody got to actually renominate the topic. Nergaal (talk) 07:37, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, "nobody got to actually renominate the topic"? Nobody DID renominate the topic, but that doesn't mean nobody could! rst20xx (talk) 12:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Rst20xx. There's nothing wrong with the procedure. If someone doesn't nominate a topic that is eligible, how is that the fault of the procedure? BencherliteTalk 12:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Because the procedure now gives ownership to a couple of people and if they feel like it, they may delay the nomination forever. Nergaal (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Do you mean, it is up to igordebraga and Gary King to nominate the topic? This is not the case - there is nothing preventing you from asking if they would like to renominate it, or if you can nominate it on their behalf, something which I cannot see that you have done. I see no reason for them to deny you permission to do this if you seek it - rst20xx (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Exactly, I made a supplementary nomination recently for a topic because the primary contributor was on wikibreak and the topic's retention period would have ran out before he returned. Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Iowa class battleships/addition1 -MBK004 21:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Log page

How come it seems to be empty?? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 02:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Nvm, found it YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 02:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah sorry I haven't made the page for this month yet, as nothing's been promoted yet, though a couple of closures are due - rst20xx (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

2010 WikiCup participation

Hi, this is just a note that if you want to sign up for the 2010 WikiCup, then you have until 23:59 UTC on December 31 to do so. This can be done here. The WikiCup is a fun competition aiming at improving Wikipedia's content, with points awarded for featured articles, good articles, featured lists, featured pictures, featured sounds, featured portals, featured topics, good topics, did you know?, in the news and valued pictures. Over 170 people are already involved, but there's still time to sign up. If you have any questions, you are welcome to contact myself or one of the other judges on our talk pages or on IRC, or ask on one of the WikiCup talk pages. Hope to see some of you there. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Return to the project page "Featured topic candidates/2009".