Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Possible topic and general questions

So I've been thinking of working on developing a topic of fatal Boeing 707 accidents in the United States, which is a total of 9 accidents if limited to commercial passenger flights. (Have to limit it to both US and commercial passenger flights because the 707 has been involved in about 250 accidents in total, and the other three or four fatal crashes in the US were training flights or cargo flights that are not notable enough for Wikipedia per the guidelines of WP:AVIATION.) Anyway, there is no Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 707 artcle (there is a category though, so would it be OK to pipe the Category to the title or maybe the Boeing 707 article or List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United States?

Also, does the title article or whatever is piped to it have to be at least a GA (if working for a GT) or can it be a B-class? If it's a list, will it have to get worked up to FL? (I'm a little confused.)

Thanks --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this topic would be fine, and List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United States would be the best thing to use as the main article, piped as Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 707 in the United States, with all accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 707 in the United States which are notable enough to have their own articles then included in the topic. The lead article does need to be GA/FL, in this case as it is a list FL - rst20xx (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Seattle Sounders FC topic

Hi all. The Seattle Sounders FC task force recently achieved its primary goal of improving the Seattle Sounders FC article to FA status. We began looking at other football club/soccer team related good and featured topics, and had some questions.

Currently, the team article is FA quality, and the stadium is GA quality (having failed its first FAC review, but likely to pass the next one). We've just began working on improving the List of Seattle Sounders FC players, in hopes of getting it to FL status. However, the team is only a little over a year old. That means that the lists that most featured topic teams use for topic coverage - such as the Aston Villa F.C. featured topic list of seasons and list of managers - aren't really an option for us, because we only have one manager and one season under our belt.

Under featured article criteria 3.c, it sounds like we can include the list of two seasons and list of one manager as "audited article of limited subject matter or inherent instability" to ensure topic coverage, provided they pass individual quality audits that include peer reviews. Is that correct, and is that the best approach for us to take? ← George talk 23:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say that that would be the best approach, yes. I don't expect anybody to query that approach with the seasons list, which will grow nicely at one per year. With the head coach, as there is only one, and there might only be one for quite a while (certainly the rate of growth will be slow), some might want to see Sigi Schmid included directly in the topic, instead of a list. I don't think that's unreasonable but would be fine with having a list instead. Maybe the list could be a more general list of personnel such as coach, technical director, owners and other notable individuals, which would remove any debate about the point of having a list of length 1. Actually that's quite a nice idea.
Records and statistics... is it possible to create such an article yet? Would its existence be of any encyclopaedic value? Also, what about a players of the year article? Is this something the Sounders do? This would I guess be an audited article.
Beyond that, I think there are other articles you should think about including, that aren't included in any of the English club topics. List of Golden Scarf recipients receives its own section in the Seattle Sounders FC article so following WP:Overview topics, should be added. I'd also like to see Emerald City Supporters added. I think Seattle Sounders (USL) and Seattle Sounders (NASL) constitute the (spiritual) history of the club, so would be good to add, though I guess you'd probably argue that those were different clubs, so I'd be fine either way. I'd also advocate including Starfire Sports Complex and Seattle Sounders Women, but as the Aston Villa topic doesn't include Bodymoor Heath Training Ground and Aston Villa L.F.C., I think precedent says that excluding them is fine - rst20xx (talk) 00:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the great feedback rst20xx. We too had discussed using the Sigi Schmid article in place of a list of managers, and as it stands it appears he'll be managing the team for at least a second season. We also discussed the possibly of using the individual season articles in place of a short list of seasons, though they could become a Seattle Sounders FC seasons topic of their own as well. I think including the List of Golden Scarf recipients is also fine idea. A list of personnel isn't a bad idea (we have a head coach, at least a couple assistance coaches, a goalkeeper coach, a technical director, and four owners), though this would probably change to a list of managers over time. However, a Seattle Sounders FC owners and personnel could almost become a topic of its own, too.
I'll certainly bring up your other suggestions to the task force and get their thoughts. Regarding records & statistics, I'm not really sure. The current records would essentially mirror the 2009 season article, but our second season starts in only a few more months. The team recognized a most valuable player, defender of the year, humanitarian of the year, and team golden boot, though those are all unlikely to carry over from year to year (that is, different players are likely to earn those awards over time, and some of those players may not play more than one year). Including a supporters group or the other Seattle-based teams that used the name "Sounders" may be a bit controversial, but I'll bring it up and see what editors think. In any event, thanks again for your great suggestions. ← George talk 01:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Ahh I didn't find 2009 Seattle Sounders FC season#Recognition. Over time it will certainly become worthwhile to have a separate article for recognition, but if the recognition is also included in the season articles, then as far as I'm concerned, that's fine for now - rst20xx (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Red Tails

Do Red Tail Project, Red Tail Reborn and Flight of the Red Tail count as a complete topic if all articles are promoted?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say so, yes :) rst20xx (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
It is going to be a while because we need the last of these three to be broadcast nationally and get reviewed in order to add some heft to the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


a topic on Poliomyelitis would have to include anything else besides Poliovirus, Polio vaccine, Poliomyelitis eradication, History of poliomyelitis and List of poliomyelitis survivors? Nergaal (talk) 05:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Post-polio syndrome? rst20xx (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Also a list of individuals who did not survive poliomyelitis? rst20xx (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about a potential small topic

Side question for you all, do you think this mini-topic would work? (none are featured now, talking about the future). Staxringold talkcontribs 05:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it works, sorry. I think this is comparable to the Triple Gold Club FT, when that was first nominated. Any extra names added by the sublists are irrelevant to the main list. More than that, (unlike with Triple Gold Club) there are people on the main list who aren't on one of the sublists. You essentially have 3 lists here that do overlap but one of them is not clearly the parent of the other two, it's not even the intersection of the other two - rst20xx (talk) 14:34, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Millennium Park GT to FT

Now that Millennium Park has five FAs among the 15 articles, is a bot going to promote it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Some is done automatically, the rest is manual - I've done it. Just to let you know, this topic will need 3 more FAs by September 1st, or else it will become a GT again - rst20xx (talk) 12:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Isn't there a six month grace period extending the deadline to March 1?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
No, since the criteria change won't result in the delisting of any topics, just bump them down a notch, it was decided in November that it would go into effect in September. --PresN 15:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I am confused on how the grace period works. Doesn't WP:WIAFT say "Good and featured topic status is dependent on the continued adherence to all criteria, . . . If any of the criteria are no longer met, or any constituents lose quality status, such topics will be eligible for a topic removal nomination after a grace period. The grace period will be . . . six months following a change to the Good or Featured Topic criteria.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The criteria were changed at the start of December 09 to take effect in September 10, after a discussion that started in September 09 and was agreed by mid-November 09. Although I didn't participate in the discussion, I think that's plenty of warning for affected topics – in fact, much more than the usual grace period. BencherliteTalk 16:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:CHIFTD has taken 15 months to get from GT to FT. We just got there. The long discussion for things that have been FTs may be relevant, but this topic just arrived at the promise land. It seems that newly promoted articles should have the 6 month grace period. At least that is my two cents.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
September 1st is over 7 months away, so you still have longer than the 6 months stated in the criteria! Given this, I'm a bit confused as to what the issue is - rst20xx (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is a bot going to update all the T:AHs?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The ArticleHistory-s don't get an update. Yes, this means it only says "Good topic candidacy", which is slightly confusing when the article is in a featured topic, but on the other hand, the article didn't go through another candidacy, so... - rst20xx (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I think it would make sense to document the AH as having a date associated with the promotion nonetheless. Is there somewhere in the history where policy was set otherwise so I can understand all the issues?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I can't find it. But it's basically for the reason I just said, and also to reduce the work involved - rst20xx (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
T:AH has several actions that do not have reviews that are important to document in the template. Neither WP:PROD (See Zak Kustok for example) or WP:TFA (Richard Cordray) don't have reviews, but are an important part of the article history. By adding a line in the AH, you document what stages the articles were at by adding an oldid number. In terms of reducing work, it would reduce work if we had a bot do it because then I don't have to do 15 manual entries. Can we reconsider this issue?
...OK. What does everyone else think? rst20xx (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Should we start a new section so people will notice?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, go ahead. I guess on the talk page of Featured topics, Featured topic criteria or Featured topic candidates - rst20xx (talk) 23:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Final Fantasy titles Topic

A question about a forthcoming Final Fantasy titles topic- currently every game from 1 to 12 is GA+, but while Final Fantasy XIII was released in Japan on December 17, 2009 it will not be released in NA/Europe until March 9, 2010. Presumably it needs to be PR'd before the topic can be nominated, but when does the 3-month GA timer end? 3 months after December 17 or 3 months after March 9? --PresN 21:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This has come up before with the KH topic, and the agreement was that as the articles aren't stable/don't necessarily have a lot of coverage until their release in the west, the latter date will be used - hence March 9. While we're here though, I will say that I think List of Final Fantasy media should serve as the lead, not Final Fantasy - rst20xx (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
The Media article would require the inclusion of many, many other articles, though. Also, I've opened a new PR for FF13; I opened one two years ago, as I was hoping to get the FF FT done by then, but since the article has changed so much since then, I've opened a new one. Gary King (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Not really, as there is a clear main series while the rest are spinoffs. The main article would be a basis for a topic including characters, development, gameplay, media, and music. Nergaal (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
I haven't done in a topic in a while, but that seems to be how the others are, though; Chrono, Guitar Hero, Zelda, Myst, StarCraft, and Super Smash Bros. use the series articles, while Halo is the only one that uses the media article and includes everything. The scope seems to generally be bigger for Media series articles. Gary King (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Zelda uses the titles list, Guitar Hero has songs included too, and the others have a much more reduced scope. Nergaal (talk) 15:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
They don't have a much more reduced scope, the topic would be just Final Fantasy 1-Final Fantasy 13, titles only. That matches Starcraft, Chrono, and Smash Bros., all of which include only titles, all of which use a series page as the lead. --PresN 16:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
So it is technically 4 vs 2. Anyways, the Myst topic is pretty much limited to those six games so expecting it to have a list of media as FL would not work (FL is min ~10) so it shouldn't be counted among the 4. Smash and Chrono are the same except that they are about 3 games each. So it is pretty much a 1 vs 2 situation. For the StarCraft one it is actually even possible to switch the title now as the media article there is already a FL. Nergaal (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
(Outdent) Here's the deal, folks: "Titles" topics (which should be distinguished from more general "series" or "media" topics) are meant to use the media list as their lead. Unless such a list doesn't exist, in which case they just use the series article. This is like how "albums" topics use discography articles for their lead, not the band's article. The only place this is not kept to is with StarCraft titles, which I didn't actually realise, and I guess came about because the List of StarCraft media article was only created after the topic had already been promoted using StarCraft (series) as its lead. I think the lead in this topic should now be swapped across, by way of a supplementary nomination (which would have the nice knock-on effect of pushing the topic above 50% featured) - rst20xx (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Agree. Nergaal (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Topic inclusion question

WP:MLB here with another thing to bother you fine WP:FT folks with. :) User:Killervogel5 and I have discussed the potential of creating a topic centered around Triple Crown (baseball). It would look something like this (when everything is featured):

? The closest comparable topic at hand is likely Wikipedia:Featured topics/Triple Gold Club. However the big difference is unlike the Triple Gold Club where the individual pieces are the Stanley Cup, Olympic Gold, and IHHC, this Triple Crown is comprised of these individual seasonal titles. As such these lists cover both the award (the seasonal AVG/HR/RBI/ERA/K/W titles) and the winners. I say this to defend why this topic would not need to undergo the far larger task of including articles such as Run batted in. Do you agree? Staxringold talkcontribs 21:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think I agree. In this case the award is doing best in a particular area, but the area itself is in no sense whatsoever an award so it doesn't make sense to include it - rst20xx (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Question on this, should the lead/title article be piped as "Major League Baseball Triple Crown" or as "Triple Crown (MLB)" or something else? Staxringold talkcontribs 17:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

2009 Giro d'Italia (2)

Is already listed as a Good Topic. The main article appears well on its way to achieving featured status, which would to my knowledge satisfy the Featured Topic criteria. Do I need to renominate it, or change any of the banners on the talk pages of the involved articles by hand? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 01:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to renominate it, but you will have to update everything by hand, including the "Featured Topic" and "Good Topic" pages- it used to be automatic, but some coding conflicts with Wikipedia shut that down. --PresN 03:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll do this for you, when the time comes - rst20xx (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
That time has come, 2009 Giro d'Italia is now a FA, so the topic should be changed from GT to FT by virtue of the 50% of the content being featured. -MBK004 03:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
(I have all these pages on my watchlist so am able to see this :) rst20xx (talk) 11:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC))
My thanks to you. Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 00:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Help organizing topics

I am gradually working on a massive project to create numerous GTs and FTs for lemurs. Once I finish a mass re-write of the Lemur article (very soon) I plan to devote some attention to specific topics so that I can start promoting them one by one. (I'm doing the hardest ones first. That's why it's taking so long.) The topics I have organized can be found in my user space: User:Visionholder/Topics

I was wondering if someone would mind looking over the topics and let me know if I'm organizing them correctly by discussing it on my talk page. Once the topics are properly organized (and the lemur article is finished), I can start focusing on individual topics and subtopics. I'll probably also create books for each of the topics while I'm at it and develop them as I go along. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Viva Zapata

Would Fermín Zanón Cervera, Zapata Rail, Zapata Wren and Zapata Sparrow be a credible FT "Birds discovered by Fermín Zanón Cervera" if the articles were worked up to GA/FA? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the topic could just be more generally called "Fermín Zanón Cervera" - there's no articles that would then be missing, right? rst20xx (talk) 12:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Except he was a professional entymologist, not an ornithologist. I know nothing about his insect work, and there's nothing on the web. It was suggested elsewhere that Zapata Swamp be added to the topic, but the Sparrow has two other sites Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Are there any less notable birds that could be used to flesh out a List of birds discovered by Fermín Zanón Cervera article? I'm just wondering what would be the central article in your suggested topic in the OP. Staxringold talkcontribs 06:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmm I missed the swamp and the peninsula. I think that they should be in any topic built around Fermín Zanón Cervera, too. (How does Fermín Zanón Cervera become Zapata?) rst20xx (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm beginning to think this is a non-runner. If the sparrow had no other sites, endemic birds of the Zapata Swamp would be the topic with the swamp+three birds+Cervera. In fact the subspecies of the sparrow that occurs in the swamp doesn't occur elsewhere, but that's stretching it a bit. I'm sure that he didn't find any other bird species, this is 1927, not 1827, so outside the swamps, the avifauna of Cuba would be pretty well known. No connection between Zapata and Cervera as far as the swamp name goes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Ahh in that case I take it back, the swamp and peninsula don't need including, IMO. I'm not sure how I managed this but I got confused and thought all this stuff was somehow named after him (despite their having different names!), but it's just that he discovered the 3 birds in the swamp. So, err, if his insect work does not merit any child articles (eg discovered insects) then I think it'd be fine to build a topic with just the 3 bird articles and his own. Slightly odd but there you go - rst20xx (talk) 14:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils - possible FT?

Is there anything else that needs to be added to the Devils topic to make it FT worthy? There is a Template:New Jersey Devils that includes all the Devils articles, so if there's anything needed, you can find it there. I appreciate the assistance. Anthony (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Wouldn't you include the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry for a topic on either one of those clubs? if the rivalry is notable enough for an article I'd say it's a big piece of that franchise. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure which way the scopes would go. Yankees-Red Sox rivalry is possibly of higher scope than the clubs, and hence there could be a topic including that article, the NY Yankees article and the Boston Red Sox article. But then the Yankees-Red Sox rivalry article should not be included in either NY Yankees or Boston Red Sox topics - rst20xx (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Millennium Park Expansion?

Given the resolution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park Grill, what are the implications of Park Grill for the Millennium Park WP:FT? Am I required to nominate the topic for expansion and accept a deadline for promotion?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article was created on March 13. So you need to get it to GA status and add it to the topic by way of sup nom (in that order) by June 13. I'll add a retention - rst20xx (talk) 17:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately this will mean the topic will only have 5/16 articles featured, and so it will become good again, unless you can get another featured article. But if you don't get the article added, then the topic can be demoted entirely. Tough :/ - rst20xx (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I am hopeful about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink/archive1‎.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
McCormick Tribune Plaza & Ice Rink just passed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Fantastic! So now you just need the GA - rst20xx (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
One of the involved editors has nominated it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Park Grill finally passed at GA today. I would like to expand the Millennium Park topic with it and Grant Park Music Festival. I need to know if it is actually going to lapse on 6/13 until an expansion decision becomes final or if it will stay listed until an expansion gets resolved. If it is going to lapse any way, I would actually prefer to wait until a nomination would close on June 29th or later to qualify me for points for the next round of the WP:CUP. However, if it is not going to be demoted and repromoted, there are no points to be accrued and I might as well do the nomination immediately. I am trying to figure out what to do. How long does an expansion nom take?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It won't be demoted. Do the expansion - rst20xx (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I am working towards a featured topic on the rodent genus Oryzomys (currently two FAs; three GAs; four articles remain to be done), including the genus article and eight species articles (User:Ucucha#Planned featured topics, second box). I created a separate page on parasites of the marsh rice rat to avoid overloading the main marsh rice rat article; would that page need to be included in the featured topic? Ucucha 16:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no (but I'm no expert here) The genus and the rat species form a coherent group; an article about invertebrates doesn't fit, especially as it only concerns one of the rat species. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I would say yes it should be, because there are only two articles on the marsh rice rat, so a subtopic cannot be made on it. The parasites list, whilst certainly having different content from the other articles, does seem to me to be a subarticle of the marsh rat article, and so within the scope of any Oryzomys topic. You say yourself that it's a section you broke out - rst20xx (talk) 17:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd say yes too, it should probably be at featured list. The topic would be more "complete" with it. But I'm also no expert on these particular articles. Gary King (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I don't really see what you are saying in the criteria, though—Oryzomys, with all of its species, is certainly a well-defined topic, a coherent group, as Jimfbleak puts it. Ucucha 21:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Yeah; I think that generally, though, consensus seems to usually say that if there's really only one more article that needs to be added to have all related articles in the topic, then you might as well go for it. Personally, I have more featured topics than the number of times I've commented on featured topic candidates, and that's my experience here. Gary King (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The criteria say that "There is no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic." As a sub(sub)article of the lead article of the topic, this list seems to me to be a gap - rst20xx (talk) 00:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
The key to me is that is in fact a subsubarticle—without it, the topic would cover a lead article (Oryzomys) with eight subarticles (the species), giving it a "well-defined topical scope". Ucucha 01:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on this? Other related articles can be found in the category, but none of those I think belong in here, except for perhaps Seventy-two resolutions. I might split off information from Canadian Confederation into new articles, too, that would probably also go into this topic, such as Fathers of Confederation. Gary King (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Seventy-two resolutions should be included, as well as Fathers of Confederation, if you make it. But yeah, otherwise it looks complete - rst20xx (talk) 00:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Topic Criteria

Do we expect the percentage of FAs required to keep going up until it gets to 100%. I ask because some topics have a limit on how many of it article's could feasibly reach featured status.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what to expect, nothing's been agreed on, but personally I'd oppose any further rises. Apart from maybe from "50%" to "over 50%", after which topics will require a majority of articles featured. I agree that not all articles can become featured, so some topics risk becoming discriminated against. As it is, it's much easier to get smaller topics (either good or featured) promoted and it's much easier to get list-based topics fully featured. But anyway, I think fully featured topics give just about the right amount of extra recognition over other featured topics as it is - rst20xx (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
If nothing else, given the trend so far, you'd have 1 year after the current jump takes place before any sort of increase in the standards would take place, and 1.5 to 2 years before any big jump (like the 1/3 -> 1/2 jump) would pop up. it's been a surprisingly long time since we went from 1/4 -> 1/3, and a long time since the standards went from 1/5 -> 1/4, a small jump that impacted almost no one. I suspect that, by the time we get around to moving the standards significantly upwards again (i.e, other than than 50% -> 50%+) we'll see the addition of a third category of topic, the fully-featured topic, added as a separate thing. --PresN 01:40, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I've been toying in my head with some kind of points-based system that reflects how many articles a topic has somehow, as well. For example, if a topic has 6 articles, of which 2 are featured, then this will be a featured topic. But if a sup nom adds another good article to this topic, it'll become a good topic. But the addition of this extra article increases the amount of information in the topic, without subtracting any of the existing information. So the result is indisputably better. Maybe a system that says GAs are worth 1 point and FAs are worth 2 points would result in a fairer ordering of topics by quality. It'd also encourage the growth of existing topics more, not just because they won't be demoted but also because they'll be worth more points. I'm not saying this should necessarily replace the current system, but would be good as another metric and interesting to see the results - rst20xx (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I must say that we are really scrounging for FA candidates at Millennium Park, I think I will be able to get it up to 8, but with the upcoming topic expansion to 16, we will need 9 to even have more than 50%. After I finish my taxes, I am hoping to nominate Harris Theater (Chicago, Illinois) at WP:FAC before June 1 (after a visit to WP:PR) by May 1. After the main article, the current sources don't really show much promise for FAs among the group. Of course, since the park is new, things may appear in books in the future that make the topics more FA friendly.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
With that particular topic, and with a number of others, the paradox is that the newness made it easier to get everything to GA, and hence get the GT, in the first place - rst20xx (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this topic worth going for?

I'm working very slowly on an Olympic Games Featured Topic. If I finish what I propose it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 54 articles. I'm tracking my progress here. The lead article would be the Olympic Games with Winter, Summer, Ancient Olympics, Paralympics and Youth Olympic Games. Added to this, and making up the bulk of the articles, would be every YEAR at Summer/Winter Olympic Games from 1896 to 2010. My question is would adding all of these YEAR at Summer/Winter Olympic Games articles be too specific for this topic? I don't want to spend the next several years getting this topic all dressed up and then have it crash and burn here. I'm not going to hold anyone to what they say I'm just trying to get a sense for what are generally the guidelines regarding specificity of a featured topic. I appreciate any input on this. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 22:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

  • I like the idea, but finding a "parent" article for each subtopic would be a challenge. The lists you are proposing would likely be deleted as content forking since the Summer Olympic Games and Winter Olympic Games articles each have lists of the Games that fall under their purview. Do you suppose that simply listing the subtopic off of the Summer/Winter Olympic Games articles would be sufficient? By the way your MLB awards topic is superb, just one article not featured that's amazing, is there any way to get The Commissioner's Trophy featured? H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 23:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • There's really not a ton of info on that one, and thanks but it's hardly "my" topic. :p In any case, I think lists of Olympic Games would certainly be notable enough if you included background info on things like how often the Games have been in various regions and such. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
  • An example of what I'm talking about is List of Olympic Games host cities, which made two attempts at WP:FLC and both were shot down due to content forking concerns. I'm leery of pouring a lot of work and having the same thing happen, but hey no guts no glory I guess. Well you've given me quite a bit to chew on. Part of me thinks just abandon all those articles and stick to the main articles, but there's something sadistic in me that wants to go for the complete topic. And yes it isn't "your" topic as I'm sure you've stood on the shoulders of many who worked before you and with you. Nonetheless it represents an impressive amount of work. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 23:21, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Staxringold that you don't need to include them, but don't feel you need to make new lists either. You could simply subtopic the articles to Summer and Winter Olympics topics. On the other hand, there are articles I feel any overview topic on the Olympics should include which you haven't listed here. I'll give it a run-through very soon - rst20xx (talk) 23:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, along with the articles listed above I had planned to include the lists of participating nations at the Summer and Winter Olympics. I have toyed with including the Olympic sports and Olympic Games ceremony articles, but I'd be very interested to hear what other articles you feel should be in a topic on the Olympics. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 02:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sorry about the delay. When I build a topic I tend to think in terms of levels of scope. As I said before I would be more inclined to build separate subtopics around the Summer and Winter Olympics, and then a general topic about the Olympics would feature the Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics articles, but beyond that all the articles in it would be the ones about the Olympics in general, and not articles about one subject or the other. WP:Overview topics states that "every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic is also within the scope of a non-lead article that is included within the topic. 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." I would say the Olympics topic should look like this then:

So 34 articles but you should create a couple of summary style articles, and maybe merge two, which would cut it down to 26 I reckon. Having said that I'm probably missing some. Lots to be done!

This is very different from your plans, I think you more want to do a topic that contains the games themselves. And this is where the topics on the Summer and Winter Olympics come in: the Summer one, for example, would contain Summer Olympic Games, List of participating nations at the Summer Olympic Games, and the individual games articles (1896 Summer Olympics, ... etc.). The only other thing I'm not sure about whether you should include is the individual sports, but if you did the topic would be way too big, so I'd say you could make two topics with Summer Olympic Games as the lead article - one on the games, and one on the sports. Winter is similar - rst20xx (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

So to summarise, my advice would be... make a topic on just the summer games, and a topic on just the winter games :) rst20xx (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh my, I certainly was not thinking on these terms. This blows the scope and scale way up. An argument could be made for inclusion of just about every article listed above. I would take exception to the Special Olympics article due to the fact that there really is no official connection (that I'm aware of) between the Olympic Games and the Special Olympics, other than the use of the name. Well I'll have to mull this over before I decide on a direction to take. Perhaps it would be best to simply narrow the focus of my topic to Summer/Winter Games and leave it at that. I appreciate your input and would welcome any other feedback from others on the suggestions above. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 23:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Well with Special Olympics I was wondering the same thing but the article on it says "In 1988, the Special Olympics was officially recognized by the International Olympic Committee (IOC)." Anyway. You were intending to get all the individual Games articles up to scratch anyway so if I were you I'd just focus on these first. This will take you several years so plenty to be getting on with if you don't mind me saying so! rst20xx (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible GTs

Would any new articles need to be created for this to become a GT. I am aware of the fact not all of these articles are not yet GA's? Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Any response? Leave Message, Yellow Evan home

Oh sorry. Looks good to me, though I tend to find that determination of which articles need adding for hurricane season topics is best left asd an internal thing - rst20xx (talk) 18:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Help with criterion 2

I am prepping my first FT nomination soon so I decided I was close enough to begin investigating the criteria for an FT. #2 caught me off guard. I have no idea how I could make a summary article for my nomination. I have created a list for each university in the Big 12 Conference that lists that university's head football coaches (details here). What can I do to meet criterion 2? I don't think a list for Big 12 Conference head football coaches would be the right answer. Any help would be appreciated.—NMajdantalk 15:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, List of head football coaches of the Big 12 Conference would be the most logical header, I'd think, actually... - The Bushranger (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I think Nmajdan is saying that this list is too specific to exist - is that right? The article that you should use IMO is List of current NCAA Division I FBS football coaches. This list does deserve to exist. It doesn't matter that you're using a lead article on ALL coaches when only the Big 12 ones will be in the topic as there are way too many colleges for them all to be in one topic - rst20xx (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
But would that work since I only have a subset? There are nearly 200 current coaches/schools and my lists only encompass 12. I just don't see what I would even put it List of head football coaches of the Big 12 Conference that isn't already in the other lists.—NMajdantalk 14:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you should use List of current NCAA Division I FBS football coaches as the lead, but pipe it to |Head football coaches of the Big 12 Conference, Lists of when in the topic nom - rst20xx (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, that works. And looking at criteria 2, there is no requirement for the summary article to be Featured. That list fluctuates so much year-to-year, it would never be stable enough.—NMajdantalk 14:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Millennium Park topic clarification

The Millennium Park topic seems to just be spreading in all directions now. The original project included the main overview article and all the park's permanent features. It was expanded for a temporary exhibit last year (Pavilion projects). The thinking above is that adding a restaurant (Park Grill) is a given. Although this has been on the template for a long time. When this topic was approved as a complete topic, the recurring event Grant Park Music Festival looked like this and was not required to be added to the topic. Now it is a WP:GA and I want to double check on whether it is suppose to be part of the topic.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm the festival in question has been held in Millennium Park since 2004. I don't see why it shouldn't be added, doing so increases the amount of information in the topic and so is indisputably of benefit to the reader. The only reason to not do so is that being another GA it makes the topic harder to maintain as an FT, but I don't really feel this is a valid reason and is certainly not one that approaches the criteria (unlike comprehensiveness, which the addition/exclusion of this article touches upon).
I think all this reveals is the unfairness of topics - that adding a GA clearly makes an FT better, but might resort in its demotion. I think there should be an alternative way of scoring topics, say GAs/FTs get 2 points and FTs get 5. But in the meantime, add it - rst20xx (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
1. Do I have to do a formal topic expansion? 2. Is there a way to discuss the exclusion of Pavilion projects as part of the topic now that the exhibition has come and gone?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
1. Any topic expansion must be formal I'm afraid. 2. You could bring this up at the next sup nom but I have no idea why the fact that this is now in the past means you should remove it - rst20xx (talk) 01:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
I will do one three part expansion nomination next month. Park Grill is at PR and should be ready for GAC2 in a few days. I think it will pass GAC2. Then we can have one discussion and people will only have to consider the topic one time. (unless I am under a strict deadline with Grant Park Music Festival)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Say I want to shoot for a Chicago Bulls GT or FT. What articles should be in this topic? Several obvious ones are Chicago Bulls, List of Chicago Bulls head coaches and List of Chicago Bulls seasons, the last two are WP:FL already.—Chris!c/t 21:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Triple Crown topic question

As you might remember from above, KV5 and I are working on this topic. 4 of the champ lists are featured, strikeouts are up at FLC right now, and I plan on finishing batting champs today. However during the strikeout FLC The Rambling Man (TRM) brought up the idea of splitting Major League Baseball Triple Crown into List of Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners (batting) and List of Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners (pitching). If we did this would you prefer two small 4 article topics or, could we do something like: Staxringold talkcontribs 15:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm if you create two lead articles then you'd have to have two topics, as the technology can't handle this elsewhere - rst20xx (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

component of FT promoted ? action

River Parrett, which is one part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Physical geography of Somerset, has just been promoted from GA to FA. Do I need to take any action to update the FT table & can someone confirm that this FT is not longer at risk of "demotion" as a result of the changes to the FT criteria.— Rod talk 06:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No longer at risk, and I've made the required updates, thanks! rst20xx (talk) 10:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Working on quite a large topic

OK, so I had the grand idea to turn Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster into a featured list. After about a month of work, I've realized that there is no way it is going to fit in one list, so I've shifted gears to a featured topic. The articles themselves are still in progress. My question is: would the lead article be better served as an audited article of limited subject matter, looking somewhat like List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients, or would it be better if I did a summary-style list, like List of Major League Baseball awards? All comments appreciated. — KV5Talk • 17:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I would say the latter. You could put the most notable 100 or so players in the main list, and then work out some sensible ways to create the sublists (by decade/20 years? would probably be better than alphabetical splittings, IMO) - rst20xx (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I've already started it alphabetically, as many, many players had careers which crossed decade lines. Alphabetically seemed to be the least subjective way to do it. What I might do for a main list is either a) use parts of each lead to create summaries that lead to each main list; or b) create a list of the "most notable" players, meaning those who have been recognized by the team with a retired number, Wall of Fame, etc., or by the Hall of Fame, and then have the sublists beyond that. Right now I'm leaning toward the former. — KV5Talk • 20:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Small question, and not hugely pressing as I've only gotten through about half of the games (and those were the easier, more recent, all single-game tie-breakers). Would this be an appropriate and full topic:

Or would I need to include Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball) as well? Staxringold talkcontribs 21:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This was the decider in the 1951 National League tie-breaker series? Could this article and that one be incorporated into each other somehow? (One way or the other...) rst20xx (talk) 21:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Per the above, it's probably best that we include it. So long as we focus on the series as a whole in the 1951 article, and just focus on the third game in the other, it shouldn't be too bad. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:43, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Mesozoic mammals of Madagascar

Most of this possible future good topic is currently at GAN and will hopefully pass there soon. Before bringing it to GTC, I would like to know in advance whether there are any problems with the topic with regards to the GT criteria. Ucucha 19:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks comprehensive to me, what makes you question whether it is? rst20xx (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Nothing, I just wanted to make sure that no one else saw any problems. Ucucha 11:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn

One article in this topic, Norton Priory, has recently been promoted from GA to FA, which I think also satisfies the criteria for promotion from GT to FT. Indeed the templates on the talk pages of the articles state it is a FT. But it still sits on WP:GT. Will it be moved automatically to WP:FT, or do I have to take some action?

On a different but related subject, I think it should be placed in the "Art, architecture and archaeology" section, rather than the "Geography and places" section. Buildings are listed for their architectural merit and historical importance, rather than for their being "places". This would also apply IMO to the FT "Grade I listed buildings in Somerset".--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Since everything else has moved to it being an FT, I'll go move everything now. It's a no-brainer that it's an FT now so no reason for a re-nomination. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
That's brilliant. Many thanks.--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

South American club football winners

South America is one of the most important centers of world soccer or football and it definetly merits being a feauture topic. I have been a one-man army building this thing. I am well aware that I still need some more things but I would like to ask any and every editor here whether this can potentiallly cut it and, if not, what can I do to improve it.

Thanks. Jamen Somasu (talk) 02:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks pretty solid to me, since it encompasses all the competitions that I can see. I'd ask the football WikiProject to weigh in, they would know better than I. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Robert Catesby will shortly be at FAC (I have another article waiting to be archived). Everard Digby, another plotter, is currently at GAC, but will also be going to FAC I think. Thomas Bates is being worked on now for GAC. Its my intention to get all 13 plotters to a minimum of GA. Parrot of Doom 23:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It may also be worth mentioning that James I of England and Elizabeth I of England are both FA, but I don't know if they're suitable for this topic. Parrot of Doom 23:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think you need to get all the plotters as well as Guy Fawkes Night to GA or FA, as those are all arguably subarticles of Gunpowder Plot. I wouldn't include the King and Queen—though they are connected, they aren't part of the plot in the way that the others are. Ucucha 15:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Okey dokey. A bit more work for me then :) Parrot of Doom 23:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Question about possible FT

The "Big Four" of English football are three FAs and one GA. "Big Four" itself is not a separate article, but a subsection of Premier League, which is an FA. Could this qualify? Lampman (talk) 15:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose yes. There are some similar topics, like Wikipedia:Featured topics/Towns in Trafford (lead article Trafford). Ucucha 15:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Neah, the topic is notable enough to warrant a separate article that would contain a good history section, and maybe some comparisons and finance/merchandise/etc sections. (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
So long as the Big Four is made into its own article, yes that would be an appropriate topic. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Thriller (album) topic

Thoughts? The album article itself is featured, and seven of the song articles are of Good status and similar in composition. While there is not a "Thriller (album)" category or template, the songs are connected by the template Template:Michael Jackson singles. I am NOT a contributor to any other aforementioned articles, but I was simply browsing the lists of good and featured topics and thought this one might qualify as well. I would be happy to notify major contributors as well as WikiProject Michael Jackson of my intention to nominate the topic, but I thought I would come here first to see if there are any issues seen at first glance. --Another Believer (Talk) 21:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Last nominated in April (Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Thriller album/archive1) by the guy who wrote the articles; it was opposed due to not including the music video "Michael Jackson's Thriller". --PresN 21:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I was having trouble finding out whether or not it had been nominated previously. Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

FC Barcelona

I'm making this little project. At the FLC of the Honours it was suggested I ask here. The editor thought that the honours article wasn't needed for the FT. So the question is, is it? Sandman888 (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't be, personally. Adding it in is the right move. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Another question, should I merge the List of "FCB in Europe" with List of "FCB records and statistics" or should it stand alone? Sandman888 (talk) Latest FAC 21:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
".. in Europe" is the equivalent of wp:fancruft of games. It does not teach anything and I completely understand the failure at FAC. Summarize that article in three or so tables and put them into the records one. Nergaal (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Metroid Topic

I'm currently working on Metroid Prime: Trilogy in order to turn it into a good article, and fill a gap in the series topic (then only Metroid: Other M, which comes out this month, will remain):

Main page Articles
(4) Metroid titles* (nom) Metroid · Metroid II: Return of Samus · Super Metroid · Metroid Fusion · Metroid Prime · Metroid: Zero Mission · Metroid Prime 2: Echoes · Metroid Prime Pinball · Metroid Prime Hunters · Metroid Prime 3: Corruption · List of media · Metroid Prime: Trilogy · Metroid: Other M

I just need to ask: can both the series and the list of media be in the topic? What should be the main article? Samus Aran is a GA, if the other character articles get Good status can a supplementary nom develop the topic from just the games to the overall series? (it's been done before) igordebraga 13:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could make the media list the main article and call this topic "Metroid media"; you can then leave out the Metroid article. If the other articles related to the series also get to GA, you can broaden the topic into the entire series. Ucucha 17:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Query about possible topic...

I am kicking around the idea of a FT on the family of Roger of Salisbury. The members would be Roger of Salisbury (currently C classish), Alexander of Lincoln (GA, soon to be at FAC), Nigel (Bishop of Ely) (FA), William of Ely (stub), Richard FitzNeal (start), Adelelm (Lord High Treasurer) (stub), and Roger le Poer (stub). I can easily get everyone to FA except William of Ely and Adelelm, who can make GA easily enough. My question is, do I need a separate article on the family or will Roger's article be enough of a "unifying" article? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it would be possible to write an article on the family? From the articles, I gather Roger was at the center of a well-defined clan, so I think he could also be the lead article. Ucucha 17:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
It would be necessarily a very skimpy article, quite honestly, and mostly repeat information in the other articles. I kinda favor using Roger as the "main" article, honestly. There are maybe one or two peripheral persons who could be mentioned in a family article (those people wouldn't merit their own article) but the family didn't "establish" itself past Richard FitzNeal, so it's not really a "dynasty" and didn't continue on like some other families (Bigods, Beaumont's, etc). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Randy Pausch

I'm wondering if this is a plausible topic. The lead article is Randy Pausch, about the famed professor. Under it would be the two works he is most widely recognised for, Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams and The Last Lecture. One is an eminent lecture, one is a bestselling book. I'm not sure however if this topic is feasible or proper. Maybe a rephrasing of the topic title will do? Thanks, AngChenrui Talk 06:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems possible, since there are apparently no other articles that could fall within the scope of the topic. However, there is a current suggestion that The Last Lecture and "Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams" be merged. If this is done, the topic would become too small (only two articles).
Both Pausch's own article and "Really Achieving" would need some work to become FAs: the lead of Pausch's article is too thin and the citations are inconsistent and sometimes lack essential data. "Really Achieving" also has a few problems in that regard. Ucucha 07:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I do understand there is a suggestion to merge the two articles. I believe the suggestion is flawed and unjustified however, and it is highly likely to be ended soon. I've addressed it at its relevant discussion page anyway. Currently, two of the three articles are GA-class, so I think there's a high possibility of getting the topic to featured topic status. AngChenrui Talk 07:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
You know I realised I posted the comments above on Pausch's 2nd death anniversary - what a great coincidence. An inspiring person, he truly was. ANGCHENRUI Talk 07:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Glee (season 1) good topic

Thoughts? The season article is currently nominated for featured list status, and each of the episodes are considered Good status. One concern I have is that if "episodes" cannot be part of the topic title, requiring that all articles relating to season 1 be of Good or Featured status, Glee: The Music, Volume 1, Glee: The Music, Volume 2, and Glee: The Music, Volume 3 Showstoppers would be problematic since they are not of either status. --Another Believer (Talk) 23:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you should do fine by piping the lead to "Episodes of Glee (season 1)". However, I think it would be better if you could just develop the music articles to GA or FA. Ucucha 17:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE - Glee (season 1), referenced above, is now a Featured list. Not sure whether that helps the discussion, but I personally believe that the topic should be a good topic, too. The articles are all well-written and provide a good synopsis of everything that can be legitimately sourced related to each episode. Also, the topic is "season 1 episodes", so the album discographies have nothing to do with the topic. CycloneGU (talk) 02:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Hawaiian volcanics FT

I'm not really aiming for FT before but rather GT, because Hawaii hotspot really hit a hard wall. I've beencoordinating it here. Things of note:

  • Mauna Loa is a fairly old FA, would its age become a problem in a potential listing?
  • There are three defenitions for "volcanoes of Hawaii island." Stricly, only the 5 mainland volcanoes. Usually, them and special mention to Loihi. Loosely, all of these plus Mahukona, which is pretty rare really.
  • Kīlauea Iki and Puʻu ʻŌʻō are subvolcanics of Kilauea. ResMar 01:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
Hullo? Anyone there? ResMar 17:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • The topic seems fine. Nergaal (talk) 01:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, I was expecting to get a little more then that :) But if you say so. ResMar 17:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
As long as Mauna Loa still meets all FA criteria, then its age won't be a problem. The article selections are good, but I'm a bit iffy on hawaii hotspot as the main, as it doesn't fit as well as I'd like. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hawaii hotspot fits it well enough. If I created Volcanism in Hawaii, it would exclude all the far ranging islands and Emperor seamounts, and bring to ask, shouldn't all the states have a "volcanism in" page? ResMar 22:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Millennium Park

This is one of the projects affected by the new FA percentage. We just got one promotion earlier this week and are now one short. When are demotions actually going to happen?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As soon as Wizzardman and myself figure out to implement it. Ever since Rst has gone inactive we've been learning as we go... -MBK004 07:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
Was he the person who ran the bot that is suppose to automatically promote and demote topics between GT and FT as articles get promoted and demoted?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
As far as I remember (having never done a promotion myself between the two) there was no bot- there was a bunch of fancy template code that calculated whether to show or not show the topic based on the percentage of FA/Ls and what page the template was transcluded on. That all got taken away when WP:FT ended up with too many "expensive parser calls" to load properly. Now it looks like it's a manual fix (pull if off of WP:FT and put it on WP:GT), so I think what MBK is referring to is the "extra" stuff that needs done- getting it properly listed in the right places besides WP:GT and WP:FT. --PresN 04:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know that much about things, but I know that there is both a talk page template for the articles and then a talk page template for the topic template.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, as PresN said, the template itself determines what a GT is and an FT is. I learned this while promoting one and seeing the listing vary between GT and FT as I added more. How to move the threshold from 1/3 to 1/2 on that template I have no clue. All I know is both those talk page templates need to be modified to change the threshold; when that happens, no ETA on that, I'll send messages out to the authors of affected topics; ideally yours may make it to the 50% mark in time. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be let live until he gets the last one through and through? ResMar 17:14, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I just fixed Template:FeaturedTopicSum; Millennium Park is now a good topic according to its talk page. Ucucha 16:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several things that you have to do to demote a topic (Change the temlate you mention, change all the article talk page templates, move the template from the FT to the GT page, etc.) There are also a dozen other topics for which this is applicable and also, at WP:WIAFT there is conflicting date information about whether the requirement changes on September 1 or October 1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes. I think we figured out the process; the article talk pages have been changed automatically, and all that is left is moving things from WP:FT to WP:GT. Ucucha 17:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Done: [1] and [2]. WP:Featured topics/count and WP:Good topics/count still need updating; I'll work on that. Ucucha 17:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Alright, thanks for that. I'll modify all affected articles/topics over the next day or so (they all need null edits added in so the server notices it) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I purged a few but not all. They'll update by themselves, but it will take some time. I also updated the counts, I hope, though that may need another check. Ucucha 22:27, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I'll do another check on that now; thanks again :) Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:28, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Made any fixes number-wise through actually checking every single topic and article. Everything looks good now. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 22:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Rst, had said that after the September update, you would start recording the promotions from GT to FT and demotions from FT to GT in the T:AH and Template:FeaturedTopicSum as action items. Is that ever going to happen.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
      • If we must... that's ~200 articles, though, some of which are in multiple demoted topics. And I'm not sure what should be recorded in Template:FeaturedTopicSum. Ucucha 00:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
        • The point is now I can not look at Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Millennium Park and see when it went from GT to FT and when it went from FT to GT. It is a simple action that needs to be added. Saying GT/FT promotion or GT/FT demotion. It would help in both the T:AH and Template:FeaturedTopicSum. Now is the time while there is activity going on and people are thinking about all the template changes.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
          • You probably mean Template:Featuredtopictalk. So do we need to update the AHs of all articles in addition to the topics? Do you have an example of the kind of entry that would be added to the AH or Featuredtopictalk template? Ucucha 00:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for withdrawal

I was wondering if there was any way to request for withdrawal of my own nomination. Gage (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll close yours as withdrawn within the next few days (when I find time to close a batch of these). Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Which article for lead?

I'm ready to submit a GTC for the Courageous-class battlecruisers that were converted into aircraft carriers during the 1920s, but I'm not sure which article to use as the lead. They were built and saw service during WWI as battlecruiser, but spent the bulk of their careers as aircraft carriers. Any thoughts on which article to use?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it might be easier to respond if you laid out the topic in the template for us to look at or at least listed all the articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Millennium Park return to FT

Millennium Park is now back up to standard. Who do I need to notify to get all the various actions completed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Noble gases

Ununoctium is currently part of the "Noble gases" featured topic. However, quoting its own lede:

For example, although ununoctium is a member of Group 18, it is probably not a noble gas, unlike all the other Group 18 elements.[1] It was formerly thought to be a gas but is now predicted to be a solid under normal conditions.[1]

So, if it's not a noble gas, what's it doing in said Featured Topic? --Cybercobra (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ununocitum is an old FA which has been touched-up by many hands. I've changed the sentence to For example, although ununoctium is a member of Group 18, it may possibly not be a noble gas, unlike all the other Group 18 elements since everything is predicted computationally, and until direct evidence comes to prove or disprove it, there is no need to have a strong statement like that. Nergaal (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

2010 Summer Youth Olympics

Do you think this works out? Currently one (venues) is an FL; one (mascot) is undergoing GAN; one (medal table) might be going up on FLC soon. Bids can be a subtopic here, even though that's not my primary concern. Thanks in advance, ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE 12:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it looks fine if you find a pic. Nergaal (talk) 15:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it also contain things like Handball at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics (and all the other sports)? I can't see how those fall within the scope of any other article. Ucucha 22:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Not really. This is an overview topic so the inclusion of every single article is not really a good idea. The individual sports articles would go in a subtopic with the Chronological summary as a lead. Nergaal (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
It is not obvious to me that those are within the scope of "Chronological summary". Ucucha 23:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I was looking at the discussion raised in the past about 2008 one and I saw Rst proposed to have the medalists as the header for that subtopic. That kind of makes more sense. Nergaal (talk) 00:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
There are generally two types of sub-level articles here. Nation at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics (e.g. Great Britain at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics) and Event at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics (e.g. Handball at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, Athletics at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Boys' 100 metres). ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE 10:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
So one sub-topic could be called Events at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics, the other called Nations at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics right? ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE 10:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Also, I would prefer a marketing article instead of the theme song and the mascot one. Nergaal (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if a marketing article that covers the two is a good idea. Both are fine as standalone articles. I would rather keep Theme song and Mascots in separate articles. It's fine I suppose? And the two can be included in the FT? ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE 10:39, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Mmm.... Check this out. Of course, open the box as well... :) ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE 06:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I've added Organising Committee as you can see, just to seek feedback since it might potentially be considered a part of the topic. I'm actually slanted towards not including it. What do you think? ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE 07:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

snapping turtle featured topic?

Thinking of doing a FT on the snapping turtle family and the two snapping turtle genuses (common and alligator). Both common and alligator snappers get a lot of hits for Wiki). 1000 per day or so. The genus less so. Part of the benefit of the work would be to better understand the differences at species and genus level (a lot of sources refer to the turtles with imprecision, can't tell if they mean both or just the common one). 2 topics would need to come up to FA and one to GA.

1. Is it worthwhile for Wiki? If I get it done, will people give me the FT for just 3 things?

2. There are stubs for 7 extinct members of the family. I would not feel obligated to bring the exctint articles up to GA or include them in the topic. Is that cool?

3. There are subpages for the 3 types of common snapping turtles. IOW a finer division. (either species or subspecies depenging on where you stand, but the differentiation is immaterial, pages still exist and they are more granular than "common snapping turtle"). They are stubs also. I would not feel obligated to bring them up to GA either (would just buff up the overall common snapper article).

TCO (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

  1. There are several three-member featured topics (for example, Transandinomys).
  2. In my view, a featured topic on the Chelydridae should include all genera, living and extinct.
  3. You can do without them, since those would fall under the Chelydra article as subtopics.
Ucucha 09:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems like 2 and 3 are different. Not sure, I get you. I would definitely cover the extinct genera in the family-level article. Heck, that actually HELPS it be more of an interesting article (rather than a span-breaker for two things, which ends up with lots of duplication or just being short). But I would not try to bring up the extinct stubs (as separate arrticles). Also, would not go lower than snapper genera, which has the key content (although here there also are stubs). the whol family would be covered. 3 articles would be done. Fair? Irrespective of gettign an FT, this is sort of where it is most efficient to develop the content anyhow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talkcontribs)

Think of it in terms of the parent articles. The parent article of the extinct genera is the family article, Chelydridae. The parent article of the (sub)species of common snapping turtle is the genus, Chelydra. A featured topic should include a main article (in this case, Chelydridae), and all its immediate children—which includes the extinct genera.
That's how I look at it, at least; other people's opinions may differ. We have some topics, like Wikipedia:Featured topics/Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn, where the main article is broader than the topic included in the FT. Similarly, you could do something like this:
Ucucha 10:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm...I'm not crazy about making a new article on living snapping turtles, that just covers two members, especially when there is already the Family level article in existence. I may just develop articles and concentrate on that versus FT. There's always this judgement of where best to put information, for instance with subspecies. I'll think on it a little more though. I guess when getting into the topic, one might learn more and make other decisions as one progressed also. And just take the joy in the stars irrelevant of no FT. Probably would start with alligator snapper as it seems the simplest taxonomically (said hopefully).TCO (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean if those stubs had never been created, it would not be an issue. And I would still cover the content (and probably a lot better) in the context of the family article. Probably not much known on the extinct ones and really easier to discuss them in a matter of compared and contrast. I donnon though...TCO (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
P.s. I totally love that you made me a fancy box with a picture and all! Very cool Hmm. Something to think on, thoigh. Maybe just starting with Allisnappy would be the way to start.TCO (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Look at the piping; there is no separate article on living snapping turtles proposed. Ucucha 10:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Ahhh...cripes, I'm tired. PERFECT. Want to work on it with me?TCO (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)


Is this a viable topic? I just want to make sure I include everything before I finish it.—Chris!c/t 20:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Withour checking in detail, it looks good to me. NBA Coach of the Year Award could also be included. Nergaal (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
I have two concerns, one is the large number of checkmarked artilces and the second is the head coaches for Defunct National Basketball Association teams. I suggest creating the artilce List of Defunct National Basketball Association teams head coaches. Zginder 2011-02-02T22:00Z (UTC)
Z has good points. Three of the checmarked teams have 9 entries and two of them have a repeated entry. My guess is that the latter two could go to FLC. Nergaal (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
NBA Coach of the Year Award can easily be included since it is FL already. I will create List of Defunct National Basketball Association teams head coaches. As for the checkmarked articles that have 9 entries, I will try FLC. Thanks.—Chris!c/t 04:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Gwen Stefani

Should we add the "Gwen Stefani" article to the "Gwen Stefani albums" featured topic? It makes sense to do so, since she's the author of those albums and therefore related to the topic. Leptictidium (mt) 07:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

No. I'm not going to go looking for where we came up with that consensus, but think of it this way- the Gwen Stefani topic is a tree structure. The head is Gwen Stefani, and the first level below that is "List of Albums", "Tours", etc. Below List of Albums is all of the album articles. That last subtopic is featured- list of albums + the albums. To include Gwen Stefani wouldn't make sense- that's a level above, not a level below. There's a connection, as you've noted, but it's the wrong way- list of albums is a part of her topic, she's not a part of it's subtopic. --PresN 19:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
The discography topic may be expanded to include the artist, her awards and her tours (essentially the discography topic would be to small to be a subtopic), but not just the artist only. Nergaal (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)