Wikipedia talk:Featured topics

message: For anybody watching this page I would appreciate some further input at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_criteria#Intro_para_as_requirement_for_FT. Nergaal (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: FT criteria clarification

message: Is :Category:Wikipedia featured topics Alkali metals featured content supposed to exist?  It has a couple of members, but the page doesn't exist. SpinningSpark 15:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That was an oversight on my part. Took care of it. GamerPro64 17:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alkali metals 

message: It's been over a year since the suggestion to have a paragraph has been implemented and it seems to me it is not a major obstacle. I propose to add another criteria explicitly requiring "topics promoted from 2017 on to have a descriptive paragraph explaining how the topic is linked together, which mentions most of the articles covered in the topic". 
ps: I'll merge the other dead talkpages
Nergaal (talk) 09:56, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Topic critera

message: Since there is little activity, whoever might still be following this, I've merged almost all the talkpages here and linked the relevant archives. Nergaal (talk) 17:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: I've merged most of the talkpages here

message: Octopussy, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Octopussy 

message: — The Transhumanist      13:19, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice 

message: I'm trying to get the macroraptorial sperm whale articles–Livyatan, Zygophyseter, Brygmophyseter, and Acrophyseter–to GA or higher, but I'm wondering, in order to nominate for this, the necessity for a macroraptorial sperm whale parent article? Does a parent article absolutely have to exist?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parent article requirement 

message: I have to point to point this out. Wikipedia:Featured topics/Asteroid belt fails the 3.a.i WP:WIAFT criteria and therefore it should be moved to WP:GT. 2A02:2F0D:81D:1E00:954:823D:C85A:D42A (talk) 11:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up. GamerPro64 02:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia:Featured topics/Asteroid belt 

message: On the talk page of the template used for good and featured topics, I have proposed that a parameter be added. If interested, please comment here --DannyS712 (talk) 06:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for featured topic box 

message: Hi. I've been doing work around Children's books articles and have a few Good Articles to my name. I am curious, admittedly for purposes of the WikiCup, whether a topic like 2010s Caldecott Medal Winners (e.g. the 10 books from 2010 - 2019) would meet the eligibility criteria for a good topic or whether this is too much a cherry picking. Similarly what about Year X Caldecotts which would encompass both the medal winner and honor books (generally 3 - 7 books per year)? Thanks for any feedback and Best wishes, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good topic Question(s) 

message: Hi! I'm hoping you can help me with information as if the following is a suitible good topic, or if I would require different articles; rather than the ones I have illustrated. The good topics would be on the Triple Crown (snooker) events, per season. Obviously there is a lot to do on this, but if someone could let me know if this is suitible or not, I will know what to work on.
Would I need to also work on Snooker season 2017/2018? Or is this not a suitible topic? Sadly, there's no article on the Triple Crown per season, but arguably the season article covers this. I've never done a GT before, so I'm a bit lost, sadly. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:09, 3 March 2019 
(UTC)
: As per this above, any ideas if this is suitable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential Snooker Good Topics 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Portal:Featured topics. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  Legacypac (talk) 01:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal:Featured topics listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Meteorological history of Cyclone Leon–Eline was a part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/1999–2000 South-West Indian Ocean cyclone season, until I merged the article today per editor consensus. I think I know the answer, but what's the proper procedure for updating the topic? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  16:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article merged as part of GT 

message: The Central Link stations Good topic will need to be moved to accommodate the lead article's subject being renamed to the Red Line (Sound Transit) this week. Is there anything special that needs to be done or would a regular pagemove suffice? SounderBruce 06:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving a good topic 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: I just closed the GAR for Sorry (Madonna song) as delist. I imagine this has implications for Wikipedia:Featured topics/Confessions on a Dance Floor, but I don't know your procedure. (t · c) buidhe 11:45, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the topic will have to be nominated for review. GamerPro64 20:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisted good article 

message: G'day all, I should know this, but when a GT reaches 50% Featured articles/lists, is it automatically promoted to FT, or does it have to be renommed? Thanks, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 00:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It automatically becomes a Featured Topic. Is there a specific topic you are talking about? GamerPro64 01:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: G'day GamerPro64, I've got one that I hope will tip over to FT before the end of the year, Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy/archive1, just checking the process. Thanks, Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 02:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q about promotion from GT to FT 

message: I've been working on improving all the presidents of Georgetown University to good or featured status (see here), with the aim of nominating it for GT status once done. I just want to confirm here that it would qualify as a GT. I appreciate any input. Ergo Sum  20:37, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say so. GamerPro64 21:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Q about potential topic 

message: As of a few minutes ago, all 18 lists in Wikipedia:Featured topics/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster have been delisted from FL status as per Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster/archive1. Thought I'd give y'all a heads up; I know FT has a grace period before nominating a topic for removal, but 18 at a go is a lot and no one stepped up to work at it for months. --PresN 04:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: With so many removed I would say with that many not being Featured Lists anymore there should be an immediate nomination made. GamerPro64 04:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major issue with current FT 

message: Hello, there are dozens and dozens of empty featured topic categories (see here), some on some pretty obscure subjects. Do you expect all of these to one day be filled or were they just made on a category creation spree? Thanks. Liz Read! Talk! 16:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: They all look to have been former Good or Featured topics. So that's probably why they are empty now. GamerPro64 17:23, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: So, would it be okay to delete all 120+ of them as uncontroversial deletion? Some of them, at this point, I don't expect to be Featured topics as they are pretty dated. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm fine with their deletions. GamerPro64 05:36, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, they're just unneeded remnants of past topics. Thanks for spotting them and taking initiative! Aza24 (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And with that, I'll delete them as CSD G6, Housekeeping or routine deletion, just like we do with empty maintenance categories. Liz Read! Talk! 17:38, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty Featured Topic categories

message: Hi, I'm looking at putting together my first good topic on Cardiff City's 1927 FA Cup winning team. I have 10 out of the 11 players (working on the last now), the manager, club and the final itself at GA or higher. I've never done a good topic before, so would this be sufficient or do I not have the required title article to make one? Cheers. Kosack (talk) 11:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the last article gone through peer review? GamerPro64 17:24, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I think our wires are crossed. What I mean is, would I need an article with a specific title referencing the team to head the topic or will this group of articles suffice on their own? Kosack (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the base line is that you need an article that can head the group as an "introductory lead article or list" (crit 2 of WP:WIAFT)—if you're asking if that has to be a list like "List of players at the 1927 FA Cup Final", I would say no, 1927 FA Cup Final is fine. This topic could also be seen as an overview topic, which would further legitimize this. Aza24 (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Kosack (talk) 10:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible topic query 

message: *There would most likely be a topic list titled Video games developed by Intelligent Systems.
* Similarly, there would be WarioWare (series).
Just curious, as in I might do this. Panini!🥪 14:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: * Name pattern for the list would normally be "List of Intelligent Systems games" (List of id Software games, etc.), but other than that I'm hesitant- it seems like what you're going with is "the games that IS has made that are in series instead of being one-offs, which seems a little arbitrary. I see why you would- there's dozens of little one-offs they made- but I don't think "is in a series" is a defining enough characteristic to justify including these sets of otherwise unrelated games and not including the others. Additionally, from a structural standpoint, Fire Emblem and Paper Mario are already topics and probably shouldn't be merged to a parent "developer" topic, but instead be linked as subtopics, and presumably the same would apply to future Wars and WarioWare topics, meaning what you'd have is the top-level "series" articles, not their child games. --PresN 18:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would this be a viable topic? 

message: I'm not sure what the protocol is for updating an article in a topic that has been promoted from GA to FA. Could someone explain? Is it as simple as just making the change on the topic? Ergo Sum  00:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you can just update the topic to reflect reality (as far as article status goes, not adding articles). If that promotion pushes a topic from GT to FT, alert the coordinators and they'll handle moving it. --PresN 04:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe contacting the coordinators is necessary in moving it from GT to FT, as in believed it did it automatically. Although I suppose that may be needed to put it to Template:Announcements/New featured content for those unfamiliar.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 03:55, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to update individual article's status 

message: Is the rule that all featured topics contain 50 percent featured articles (listed at Wikipedia:Featured and good topic criteria) no longer being followed? The featured topic for Title (album) contains only 2 featured articles and 7 good articles, so it should be a good topic instead of a featured topic. What happened? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 19:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: that is a good topic, and is listed as such at Wikipedia:Good topics/Music. The reason its named as a "featured topic" is because (for whatever reason) good topics have always been named as such. Just a few weeks ago I began a plan to move all of the names but have recently become busy; the process will take a lot of template updating and mass moving. Aza24 (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That is very strange. It should definitely be moved. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 02:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The intial "Wikipedia:Featured topics" is there regardless of whether is the topic is good or featured. However, the current status of the topic is clearly stated as "good" on the talk page.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  50 percent featured articles 

message: 41.115.111.137 (talk) 18:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:12, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2021 

message: The main article for Wikipedia:Featured topics/Phedina, Phedina, has been converted into a redirect. I am not too familiar with Featured topic procedure, but to my understanding that somewhat kills the topic. Would that be correct? If so, is there a need to nominate it at Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates? Thanks, CMD (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it no longer meets the criteria (in particular criterion 2. and 1.a.). It should be nominated for removal at Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates. Also I am not familiar on the topic, but is there a reason why it was boldly redirected, I cannot seem to find the discussion. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there was a discussion, it was a stringent application of WP:MONOTYPICTAXA. CMD (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the topic would be dead either way, since Brazza's martin got moved out of Phedina, meaning that it would need to be pulled from the topic even if the genus article remained and the topic would have only 2 articles. --PresN 15:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Oh right I see, unfortunately I am not well versed in the topic area and most of that jargon goes right over my head. But assuming that is the correct decision, it no longer meets the criteria.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 17:10, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to ask in WP:BIRDS if the Phedina article can't be bumped to some higher clade designation, but anyone can feel free to nominate in the meantime. CMD (talk) 01:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominated for removal (not the easiest process!). CMD (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main article became a redirect 

message: === Request for permission ===
Hello. I'm almost done writing a bot that will automate the steps of promoting good topics and featured topics. In preparation for WP:BRFA, I am posting here to confirm that this bot has the approval of all the key good topic/featured topic folks. Please reply with your support, or with any concerns. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment This sounds like an excellent idea. Nevertheless, I have a couple of questios, regarding the bot. How does it know it should approve, how many votes, if the comments were or not fixed? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The approve or decline will be done as usual by whoever does such things (the good topics director and his delegates?). Whoever decides to approve will place the template  on the nomination page, which will trigger the bot to execute the steps. The bot does not make any decisions related to approving or denying the topic, it just executes the steps when told to by a qualified individual. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

text: . Hello featured topic director and delegates. Would love to get your sign off on this project. Please respond when you can. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. GamerPro64 03:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Thanks again—you're good to go. Are those questions at the bot request page still pending? Would be happy to answer but since I seem to have missed them I thought I'd double check. Aza24 (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please. That'd help with some loose ends. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking now. Aza24 (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

text: The bot currently just adds to the first two counts (currently X topics, and encompasses Y unique articles). It does not adjust for duplicates. That was the example given in the steps. Let me know if you think the logic needs to be more complicated, and if you think it is worth covering the more complicated (but probably rarer) cases. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it can be tricky to implement something like that so I suppose it may not be worth spending the time. However, we should probably have a note that we should double check topics manually to see if they are part of any other topics?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like something that can be manually double checked by the promoters, surely? I have already been doing so anyways, and it usually only takes a few seconds. Aza24 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that is somewhat what I kind of meant with my previous comment. Is there a way we kindly remind promoters to double check manually since this is not currently covered by the bot so that we do not exlusively rely only on the bot (usually should only take a couple of minutes, spam open talk pages of affected articles and scan the Template:Article history for other topics). I understand that is not covered by the bot as it is probably difficult to implement for the small time saved. Is this also worth adding to your Promote Instructions? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think adding it to the promote instructions is a great idea. Once the bot is up and running, I am thinking of updating Asa's procedure to have just a couple steps, including that one. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Do you want to try Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Meet the Woo 2/archive1 perhaps? I can supervise. Aza24 (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I've just left a note on the page saying it will likely be the test run (if that's okay with you, of course). Feel free to leave another "consensus for promotion" note if you need to in order to fully test the bot. Also, unless you've already excluded it, I'm thinking that transferring the WikiProjects from the main article to the talk page of each topic is probably unnecessary; that doesn't really seem like our job! Aza24 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , awesome, thanks for pinging me and letting me test the bot. All done, please double check my work and let me know if anything needs to be adjusted. Please keep pinging me and letting me test for future promotions. The part about copying WikiProjects from the main article to child articles wasn't in the promote instructions, so the bot does not currently do that. Although it does copy WikiProjects from the main article to the topic page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

text: P.S. Bot does not do step 6. I'll go ahead and do that manually now. Bot also doesn't edit the /archive1 page at all yet (step 1). I'll probably add a "Success/Error" type message for step 1 in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I notice some es have a view link, that can be turned on in the wikicode. Should the bot always turn that on? Example: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Blood Harmony. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking good. All topics are expected to have introductory paragraphs now, so I would say the view should always be on yes. I'll take a second look later today to double check everything looks okay. Aza24 (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Okay , trying now at Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Tour Championship (snooker)/archive1! Aza24 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . I got both pings, so that's great. The promote template ping is working. Good run. I found and corrected a couple more bugs. Some questions: 1) Does a featured list count toward featured topic status? For example, if a topic has 1 FL 1 FA 2 GA, that's a featured topic right? 2) Does the template  also need to be deleted and merged into the  template? 3) My bot missed a  template since I haven't programmed that feature yet. Is this important enough for me to program, or is it OK if a page ends up with both a dyk talk and an article history template simultaneously? Example: . 4) And of course, please do a quick spot check and make sure everything looks good from the last run. Thanks a lot. Looking forward to your feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to hear about the template and run ! For 1, yes, you're correct. For 2, no I don't think so, since the "active FAC template" is a temporary and supposed to stay at the top of the talk page. For 3, I usually do not merge the DYK template; the only ones I merge are really GA manually, since the FAC bot already creates an article history template, so when there's a "past FAC record" there's no need—if that makes sense? So yes, your example is fine, though preferably the article history template should be in between the project banners and active FAC template (but that's not a big deal at all). Aza24 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Okay I looked through your contribs and it looks very solid. The only thing I found was (and I'm not sure if you, or the bot did this) at Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Tour Championship (snooker), the project banners still have the importance and ratings; they should just be "" and will auto fill as "project class" without a need for an importance rating. Best - Aza24 (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: All the first edits in the last run were suggested by the bot :) I did a couple second edits to fix things I spotted, and filed corresponding bug reports so I don't forget. Thanks for the detailed reply, I'll do another round of tweaks. Looking forward to the next run. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Novem, I've just requested a bot run for our oldest GTC at the moment, which is a bit longer than the last one. If it works out well, I would think we could get the bot going on a huge one like the two EFL League ones? Best – Aza24 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Dua Lipa run complete. Let me know if you see anything sub-optimal and I'll add it to the todo list. I'm busy with work this week so I may take a few days to do big runs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I want to get the EEL league topics through the bot, but I don't want to overload you if you have a lot of work this week. Are we aiming to get the bot to a place that it can be done without your initiation (like the FAC bot)? Aza24 (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd like to WP:BRFA and fully automate the bot after a couple more test runs. The test runs have been super useful because 1) they are teaching me the steps for topic promotion, and 2) they are exposing bugs and sub-optimal behaviors, when I then fix or make a ticket for (the ticket reminds me to fix it later). The bot will eventually run on WP:TOOLFORGE and be summoned the same way we're summoning it now (with that User:NovemBot/Promote template). I'll be busy the rest of this week, then back to normal on Monday 9/13. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot to promote good and featured topics 

message: Hello. I'm almost done writing a bot that will automate the steps of promoting good topics and featured topics. In preparation for WP:BRFA, I am posting here to confirm that this bot has the approval of all the key good topic/featured topic folks. Please reply with your support, or with any concerns. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:45, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Comment This sounds like an excellent idea. Nevertheless, I have a couple of questios, regarding the bot. How does it know it should approve, how many votes, if the comments were or not fixed? MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 09:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The approve or decline will be done as usual by whoever does such things (the good topics director and his delegates?). Whoever decides to approve will place the template  on the nomination page, which will trigger the bot to execute the steps. The bot does not make any decisions related to approving or denying the topic, it just executes the steps when told to by a qualified individual. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

text: . Hello featured topic director and delegates. Would love to get your sign off on this project. Please respond when you can. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead. GamerPro64 03:16, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Thanks again—you're good to go. Are those questions at the bot request page still pending? Would be happy to answer but since I seem to have missed them I thought I'd double check. Aza24 (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please. That'd help with some loose ends. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking now. Aza24 (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

text: The bot currently just adds to the first two counts (currently X topics, and encompasses Y unique articles). It does not adjust for duplicates. That was the example given in the steps. Let me know if you think the logic needs to be more complicated, and if you think it is worth covering the more complicated (but probably rarer) cases. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it can be tricky to implement something like that so I suppose it may not be worth spending the time. However, we should probably have a note that we should double check topics manually to see if they are part of any other topics?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 21:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like something that can be manually double checked by the promoters, surely? I have already been doing so anyways, and it usually only takes a few seconds. Aza24 (talk) 21:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that is somewhat what I kind of meant with my previous comment. Is there a way we kindly remind promoters to double check manually since this is not currently covered by the bot so that we do not exlusively rely only on the bot (usually should only take a couple of minutes, spam open talk pages of affected articles and scan the Template:Article history for other topics). I understand that is not covered by the bot as it is probably difficult to implement for the small time saved. Is this also worth adding to your Promote Instructions? Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think adding it to the promote instructions is a great idea. Once the bot is up and running, I am thinking of updating Asa's procedure to have just a couple steps, including that one. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for permission 

message: The next time you guys need to promote a topic, feel free to ping me instead of doing it yourselves. I want to do some supervised, semi-automated bot testing, and then you guys can double check me. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you want to try Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Meet the Woo 2/archive1 perhaps? I can supervise. Aza24 (talk) 16:25, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I've just left a note on the page saying it will likely be the test run (if that's okay with you, of course). Feel free to leave another "consensus for promotion" note if you need to in order to fully test the bot. Also, unless you've already excluded it, I'm thinking that transferring the WikiProjects from the main article to the talk page of each topic is probably unnecessary; that doesn't really seem like our job! Aza24 (talk) 19:47, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: , awesome, thanks for pinging me and letting me test the bot. All done, please double check my work and let me know if anything needs to be adjusted. Please keep pinging me and letting me test for future promotions. The part about copying WikiProjects from the main article to child articles wasn't in the promote instructions, so the bot does not currently do that. Although it does copy WikiProjects from the main article to the topic page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

text: P.S. Bot does not do step 6. I'll go ahead and do that manually now. Bot also doesn't edit the /archive1 page at all yet (step 1). I'll probably add a "Success/Error" type message for step 1 in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

text: I notice some es have a view link, that can be turned on in the wikicode. Should the bot always turn that on? Example: Wikipedia:Featured topics/Blood Harmony. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looking good. All topics are expected to have introductory paragraphs now, so I would say the view should always be on yes. I'll take a second look later today to double check everything looks okay. Aza24 (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

text: Okay , trying now at Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Tour Championship (snooker)/archive1! Aza24 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: . I got both pings, so that's great. The promote template ping is working. Good run. I found and corrected a couple more bugs. Some questions: 1) Does a featured list count toward featured topic status? For example, if a topic has 1 FL 1 FA 2 GA, that's a featured topic right? 2) Does the template  also need to be deleted and merged into the  template? 3) My bot missed a  template since I haven't programmed that feature yet. Is this important enough for me to program, or is it OK if a page ends up with both a dyk talk and an article history template simultaneously? Example: . 4) And of course, please do a quick spot check and make sure everything looks good from the last run. Thanks a lot. Looking forward to your feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to hear about the template and run ! For 1, yes, you're correct. For 2, no I don't think so, since the "active FAC template" is a temporary and supposed to stay at the top of the talk page. For 3, I usually do not merge the DYK template; the only ones I merge are really GA manually, since the FAC bot already creates an article history template, so when there's a "past FAC record" there's no need—if that makes sense? So yes, your example is fine, though preferably the article history template should be in between the project banners and active FAC template (but that's not a big deal at all). Aza24 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

text: Okay I looked through your contribs and it looks very solid. The only thing I found was (and I'm not sure if you, or the bot did this) at Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Tour Championship (snooker), the project banners still have the importance and ratings; they should just be "" and will auto fill as "project class" without a need for an importance rating. Best - Aza24 (talk) 18:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: All the first edits in the last run were suggested by the bot :) I did a couple second edits to fix things I spotted, and filed corresponding bug reports so I don't forget. Thanks for the detailed reply, I'll do another round of tweaks. Looking forward to the next run. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Novem, I've just requested a bot run for our oldest GTC at the moment, which is a bit longer than the last one. If it works out well, I would think we could get the bot going on a huge one like the two EFL League ones? Best – Aza24 (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Dua Lipa run complete. Let me know if you see anything sub-optimal and I'll add it to the todo list. I'm busy with work this week so I may take a few days to do big runs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I want to get the EEL league topics through the bot, but I don't want to overload you if you have a lot of work this week. Are we aiming to get the bot to a place that it can be done without your initiation (like the FAC bot)? Aza24 (talk) 23:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'd like to WP:BRFA and fully automate the bot after a couple more test runs. The test runs have been super useful because 1) they are teaching me the steps for topic promotion, and 2) they are exposing bugs and sub-optimal behaviors, when I then fix or make a ticket for (the ticket reminds me to fix it later). The bot will eventually run on WP:TOOLFORGE and be summoned the same way we're summoning it now (with that User:NovemBot/Promote template). I'll be busy the rest of this week, then back to normal on Monday 9/13. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testing 

message: . Alright, I'm done with my crazy work week, I can promote one or both of these when you're ready. Let me know via the promotion template. I'll do it within 24 hours of receiving the ping. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  EFL League 

message: Just a heads up: Interstate 82 now has 2 FAs and 2 GAs, which should make it eligible for FT unless I've read the criteria wrong. SounderBruce 08:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the GT be moved by a coordinator or would I be able to do it myself? SounderBruce 02:36, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Its already a Featured Topic now. Just gotta move it around. GamerPro64 02:43, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Existing GT that should be promoted to FT 

message: I have moved a talk page to Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates/Millennium Park, which is where I think it is properly located.  However, I remain befuddled by the milestone history. Is there suppose to be a milestone for promotion from WP:GT to WP:FT. If so, I am not sure how to track it down.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice on cleaning up a FT talk page milestone history 

message: Question: why is Wikipedia:Featured topics/Final Fantasy VIII still a featured topic, if less than half of its articles are FA? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It was never a featured topic, it was a good topic. Good topics have the prefix "Wikipedia:Featured topics" (for whatever reason). It was demoted from a good topic in August. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 19:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Fantasy VIII 

message: What's the point of having a separate page for GT and FT questions when no one responds? The last reply to a question was almost a year ago (November 2021). — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 14:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions]] 

message: In the wake of the recent FAR of Hanford Site, I created a new subarticle on the site as part of the Manhattan Project called Hanford Engineer Works. The other Manhattan Project sites all have subarticles which are in Wikipedia:Featured topics/History of the Manhattan Project. Would it be possible to substitute Hanford Engineer Works for Hanford Site in the featured topic? The article has recently passed GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody here? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that looks fine since one looks to be more about the Manhattan Project than the other. GamerPro64 02:45, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

text: Yes, the newer article seems more specifically relevant to the Manhattan Project. I support it. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 02:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hanford Engineer Works 

message: I just realized that all Three Bards (:Template:Three Bards) of Polish poetry are at Good Article level... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 17:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi @Piotrus, yes they are, nominated in the same place as featured topics (Featured and good topic candidates). But you would need the parent article—Three Bards—to be GA as well. Aza24 (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Aza24 Thanks. Something for my to-do list then :) Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

text: @Aza24 Done - Three Bards is now a Good Article. What to do now to get this recognized as a Good Topic? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates under "Nomination procedure". --PresN 15:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are Good Article Topics still a thing? 

message: Hi all, just querying about scope for a possible future topic. The medical concept of disorders of consciousness consists of vegetative states and minimally conscious states, the two forms of brain injury causing seriously impared consciousness, but locked-in syndrome has a complicated relationship to the category. People with locked-in syndrome can't move, and externally seem to be in VS/MCS, but are aware of their environment. These people don't have disordered consciousness, but they're hard to diagnostically distinguish from people who do, so many medical texts discuss them in the same places they discuss disorders of consciousness. Would a DoC topic require LIS alongside VS and MCS, or would it only require the main article and two central examples? (Our DoC article also discusses 'chronic coma', but this is not actually a thing -- non-medically-induced comas resolve within weeks to either death or progressive recovery, including DoCs.) Vaticidalprophet 00:31, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: A few weeks on -- paging  for any thoughts? might have been easier to ask at your talk Vaticidalprophet 15:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, not sure. Is their perhaps a separate category that Locked-in syndrome is more likely included in that could further justify its independence from the two main disorders of consciousness categories? Otherwise, it might be safer to just include all three Aza24 (talk) 20:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope question 

message: Quick note about the aforementioned good topic. An article was merged recently – Hurricane Cosme (2007) – and is no longer part of that good topic. What is the procedure for removing it? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  18:16, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting query! Hmm, I think I'll just put at "GTR" in the topic's template with a link to this discussion. Aza24 (talk) 23:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at  it seems we do have a parameter for it. If you don't mind , could you nominate it for GTR? I'll just accept the nom immediately and remove the article but keep the topic. Aza24 (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  - done? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk)  00:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks @Hurricanehink, now all sorted I believe. May have been silly, but best to stick with the current processes at the moment. Working with the other delegates to make changes like this simpler. Aza24 (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  I basically did the exact same thing for the GAR. I used a script to open the GAR and immediately close it as a delist following the end of the merge discussion. Noah, AATalk 12:06, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah okay, good to know! I suppose these aren't rather typical situations Aza24 (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Featured topics/2007 Pacific hurricane season]] 

message: Following the promotion of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Dwarf planets, I suggest editing Wikipedia:Featured topics/Solar System to include it as a subtopic. Please see Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Solar System#Dwarf planet subtopic. (This is not a task I have been involved with before, please let me know if there is a better venue.) Best, CMD (talk) 04:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, you're also saying that all of the dwarf planet should be effectively removed from the larger topic? I'm wondering if that should be part of an addition nomination, since I could also see an argument to keep the major dwarf planets and include the main Dwarf planet planets article with a subtopic link. Aza24 (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The individual dwarf planets were only added to the Solar system topic when the Dwarf planets subtopic was removed, my draft is a reversion to the original situation now that the Dwarf Planet topic is back. CMD (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, okay, understood. In that case, go ahead and update the topic in the way you suggest, seems like a relatively non-controversial/routine adjustment. I'll try and sort out some of the individual talk page categorization later. Aza24 (talk) 04:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, not so familiar with the talkpage stuff myself, those are some long Article history boxes. CMD (talk) 07:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Solar System topic 

message: Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Nomination procedure has a very complicated procedure for adding articles to a topic, but not for removing. Hurricane Nora (2003) was recently redirected to another page, so I boldly removed it from Wikipedia:Featured topics/2003 Pacific hurricane season. Please let me know if there is other needed paperwork, for example does the article history template at Talk:Hurricane Nora (2003) need to be adjusted, and if so how? CMD (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Hurricane Nora (2003)]] removed from [[Wikipedia:Featured topics/2003 Pacific hurricane season]] 

message: I imagined it would be an automatic process by a bot. Adelophthalmidae was delisted a while ago  but the templates are still here and in the talk pages. Am I suppoed to do it manually myself? Super Ψ Dro 18:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: courtesy ping the closer Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 18:25, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The bot cannot be used on some topics so I have done it manually. Thanks both.--NØ 18:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing a good topic