Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions

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

Promoting topic from GT to FT[edit]

With the promotion of John D. Whitney to FA, the Presidents of Georgetown University good topic now qualifies as a featured topic. Can someone more familiar with the process please advise on how to designate it as a FT? Is it as simple as just moving it from the GT page to FT or do I have to log it in the FT log? Ergo Sum 12:25, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's just as simple as moving the template to the other page, which I've just done. Good job! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have I updated the talk page history correctly? Perhaps it might be necessary to modify {{Featuredtopictalk}} to accommodate "upgrading" and "downgrading" between GT and FT. It does not seem the template is currently configured to handle that in a clear way. Ergo Sum 14:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems good to me, well done! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dwarf planets[edit]

Wikipedia:Featured topics/Dwarf planets lost FT status once Ceres fell, but it has even become an FA. So I wonder if it can be restored with the topic as it was minus the removed page regarding Plutoids...

...putting all the nine articles that appear atop the Dwarf planet page...

...or if the topic shouldn't be attempted without List of possible dwarf planets. In any case, want to know before I attempt a nomination. igordebraga 04:12, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


There are only a dozen or so noms, but it seems to be taking a long time to approve them. Obviously I'm asking because I'm getting a bit impatient myself, but I feel there may be something more to it. Is there an expectation of how long this process typically takes? Looking at the current noms, there are many that have been open for months with all support !votes, yet there's no indication of next steps or who to ask for closing assistance. I feel like this FT/GT process is fading out? (also, once you are on this talk page, you are unable to get back to the GT/FT pages easily since the "project page" links back to here). Grk1011 (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a fair complaint. I have not been active with the topics for some years. I should probably find someone who would be more active to take over for me.
GamerPro64 01:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also have no been particularly active (though there was a good year where I was the only active coordinator). I plan to invest more time into it for the future and will aim to get through some of the backlog. But yes, there is much to improve, the talk page mess included. Your complaint is noted and heard though, I assure you. Aza24 (talk) 02:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sovereign range[edit]

Four of the five articles in the sovereign coin range issued by the Royal Mint are FAs and the fifth will shortly be. The current FAs are Sovereign (British coin), Five pounds (gold coin), double sovereign and half sovereign, with the FA in waiting quarter sovereign. What would be needed to make this a FT? Wehwalt (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wehwalt: Per Wikipedia:Featured and good topic criteria, you have a set of 5 articles linked together, but what you seem to be missing (unless I just didn't see it) is a lead article/list, e.g. something that discusses these 5 articles as a distinct set. At a stretch you could have Sovereign as the lead and the other 4 as the subarticles, but it feels kind of artificial, as that article doesn't talk about the other 4 coins as being "types" of sovereigns, just 4 other coins around at the same time. Numanistics isn't my thing, but what makes these 5 coins distinct from shillings/guineas/crowns other than having "sovereign" in the name? I think answering that question would in turn answer what the lead article should be. --PresN 17:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. Probably an overview article could be written but there would be a lot of duplication between that and the sovereign article. Probably the difference is that they are gold and usually have the Pistrucci reverse. Pistrucci is a FA as well, btw. Wehwalt (talk) 17:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Energy in Turkey[edit]

Hi - a few months ago I nominated Climate change in Turkey, and then Energy in Turkey as a good topic. There are 13 articles listed as good articles, giving a good coverage of this topic. Previous feedback was that Bioenergy in Turkey should also be a GA before it is listed, but the key contributor to this disagreed. The discussion has now stagnated. Is the Bioenergy article's promotion essential for the topic to be promoted? Arcahaeoindris (talk) 12:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]