Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Archive 1

message: I was thinking that the theory behind featured topics could be merged into featured portals.  Both are ways of grouping like topics.  --Arctic Gnome 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now done a bit of work to distinguish WP:FT from WP:FP, but this one still needs some work.  --Arctic Gnome 22:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with [[WP:FP]]

message: ===2012 Summer Olympics bids example===
The "2012 Summer Olympics bids" topic has the following qualities:
*A central "overview" article (2012 Summer Olympics bids)
*Great interconnection between the articles
*A good, informative template ()
*Good articles
*Fairly good consistency between the articles
It also has a few points that might stop it being featured:
*No references on any of the articles
*Madrid 2012 Olympic bid and Moscow 2012 Olympic bid are not particularly in-depth
With some work I think this could be a good example of how well a topic can be explored in Wikipedia.  violet/riga (t) 21:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The preceding examples were proposed by User:Tobyk777
===Discussion of these examples===
Some of these topics are great examples of how well we can cover whole topics.  Solar system is in excellent shape, and diamond is pretty much complete.  violet/riga (t) 10:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of possible featured topics

message: The "2012 Summer Olympics bids" topic has the following qualities:
*A central "overview" article (2012 Summer Olympics bids)
*Great interconnection between the articles
*A good, informative template ()
*Good articles
*Fairly good consistency between the articles
It also has a few points that might stop it being featured:
*No references on any of the articles
*Madrid 2012 Olympic bid and Moscow 2012 Olympic bid are not particularly in-depth
With some work I think this could be a good example of how well a topic can be explored in Wikipedia.  violet/riga (t) 21:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2012 Summer Olympics bids example

message: Some of these topics are great examples of how well we can cover whole topics.  Solar system is in excellent shape, and diamond is pretty much complete.  violet/riga (t) 10:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of these examples

message: The requirement that each article in a series has been peer reviewed isn't a good one. When it is complete, 2005 English cricket season would be an excellent set of articles to have as a featured topic, but adding 40 or so articles at once onto Peer Review would be a nonsense. Do we really need this requirement in there? jguk 11:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why it is only recommended not required, but it could be better worded, I agree.  violet/riga (t) 17:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we go ahead an make a candidates page? A possible featured topic has already popped up. Provinces of Thailand. Granted it does not have references so it may not be the best but it cover the entirety of a difficult topic.  Falphin 01:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requirement for peer review? 

message: One suggestion for how we could get this going is for it to be an informal page of great topics.  We can then go about making a more formal process.  That, I hope, would get some more interest in the idea.  violet/riga (t) 07:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets first create a list here, and unless anyone disagress with one of them we will go ahead an place a featured topic template on the talk. Similar to how the featured article system started off. Falphin 01:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've created  and , along with a new symbol.  I've also added them to the 2012 Summer Olympics bids articles.  Take a look!  violet/riga (t) 16:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice!  The image captures the essence of the featured topic idea well. slambo 18:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Awesome job. I have a question though. I was going to go ahead and add it to Diamond. It covers the topic very well but I noticed a lot of the sub-articles had even more specific sub-articles covering the topic. They directly relate back to diamond so would they also get the Featured Topic template? I'm guessing so but I'll wait for a reply. Falphin 18:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks both.  That's a potential gray area and something we may have to clarify.  If it's not clear that it's part of the Diamond topic then I don't think it should be included.  My thinking is that if it doesn't deserve a mention on the template then it doesn't deserve to be part of the featured topic.  violet/riga (t) 19:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: What do you think of Swedish language, it lacks a template but I could add one. Falphin 19:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: With a template I think that would make an excellent candidate.  violet/riga (t) 19:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Above, on this talk page, in "Examples of possible featured topics".  The suggestion was made in mid-August, and nobody objected, so a tacit approval was assumed. slambo 11:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: By labelling the articles as FTs I wasn't trying to say that they definately were of Featured Topic status, but was using them as an example.  A good example, I thought, but certainly not perfect.  The idea for this informal start was to get the project off the ground.  Perhaps we should aim for 10 topics to start with - we can decide which would make some good examples and, while they might not be perfect, should hopefully get some interest in the project and help us move forwards.  violet/riga (t) 12:16, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I've made a bit of a start by creating wp:ftc.  violet/riga (t) 13:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informal start 

message: I love the basic idea, but I think the terminology is a bit muddled. Either that or I haven't been editing that long (I haven't). What's the difference between a "topic" and a seires like Postmodernism? I'm No Parking and  I approved this message 19:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Topic and Seires 

message: These articles are declared the main article of a featured topic in their talk pages Talk:Diamond and Talk:2012 Summer Olympics bids, but no topic appears to be featured yet (according to this page). Which page is right? - Liberatore(T) 12:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diamond and 2012 Summer Olympics bids 

message: I think we need to provide a template on the pages which are the parts of WP:FT so that people can aware of this project. We need to work on the criteria page also. We have only one featured topic so far. I am not sure, which type of template, we should make. Do we need to make seperate template for each topic which mentions about featured topic or for all featured topics, we should have same type of template.  Shyam (T/C) 06:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: I think we need to have featured topics in category namespace. I have left a short note at the end of featured content's talk page. If you have any ideas, please comment there.  Shyam (T/C) 19:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category Namespace

message: Like the other types of Featured Content, this too required a star to be added to the target topic (in addition to the existing talk page template ). I have created the  template that can be used for this purpose. However before applying it, I think we should first have a consensus as to how it should be used. What I feel is that it should go with the template box that summarizes the featured topic. The template box for Saffron series is . Please share your opinions. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody replied to this, I went ahead with placing the FT Star Template on the Saffron Related Topics Template. However it doesn't show up. Can anyone help? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Your entire  template is enclosed in < noinclude > tages, so all of its content will apear only on the template's page.  I'll see if works with the tags moved.  --Arctic Gnome 18:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There, now it works.  You also had the image at full size rather than small enough to fit in the top corner, so I shrunk it.  I also moved the star to the left a bit so that it wouldn't be on top of the FA star if a page had both.  --Arctic Gnome 18:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't going to work.  Case in point- Final Fantasy Series.  The articles in the featured topic are the games 1-12 and mystic quest.  The template that you attached the star to is on every single article that uses that template- almost 100 of them, including Kingdom Hearts Series and User:Deckiller/Sandbox.  You're going to have to add it to the pages themselves, not the template.  --PresN 21:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call.  It would be nice to have the featured template on the navigation box's template, but I guess to do so we would need a separate box for included and not-included articles, which would mess up the big navigation boxes on articles like the Star Wars movies.  --Arctic Gnome 21:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Star Template 

message: In a failed nomination this month, some editors wonders whether or not we allow groups of lists to form a topic, so I figured we ought to have a talk about it.  I for one have no problem with the idea, and can think of several groups of related lists that could make a good topic together.  --Arctic Gnome 23:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that 'featured topics' can and should consider all content related to that topic... articles, lists, categories, images, et cetera. If the articles on Saffron didn't have any images of saffron I'd say that wasn't really comprehensive coverage of the sort needed for a topic to be 'featured'. If there were no categories linking articles in a topic that'd be another 'less than comprehensive' issue. For lists there should be quality standards similar to those on articles, but if a topic includes alot of entries then lists make sense. For instance, a 'featured topic' on Chemical elements (which we should definitely consider) should include links to the List of elements by name, List of elements by symbol, and Periodic table (large version) 'featured lists' in addition to the articles on each individual element. --CBD 13:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: I'm sorry, but I can see absolutely no rationale for having featured topics. There's insufficient control over quality, and I see that a significant range of quality is permitted among clustered articles. Why is this structure necessary when linking is such a well-oiled functionality on the project?
It leaves wide open the potential for embarrassment, and I wholeheartedly support the deletion of the page. What is wrong with the FA/FAR system? Tony 13:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This project has been nominated for deletion, so you might want to restate your concerns there.  On that page you'll also fine many people's defences of the project.  --Arctic Gnome 13:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm also troubled by the Project in its current state.  I checked the Candidates' page, and find other suggested "topics" which concern me, including Emsworth's series of uncited articles which are slowly but surely being FARC'd.  I also wonder if the founders of this idea have thought about the maintenance time that is already required to keep up GA and FA, and that they are creating a future chore - who is going to track all these additions over time and make sure they remain up to snuff?  Sandy (Talk) 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume your talking about the Monarchs of the United Kingdom series?  That one may be a bit weak, as I'm just trying to find some topics to throw out there for people to approve or nix as they see fit, as we have something like a couple of months before a serious MfD comes to take out the project, but regardless, the articles I mentioned as FAs are FAs.  If they shouldn't be, then they'll get removed at FAR/FARC.  If editors (like you) have problems with them being included in a FT, even if they are technically still FAs, then they won't pass FTC.  I also believe you don't realize how rare a FT really is- There are over a thousand FAs, of varying quality, so FAR(C) is a major process, with many editors.  FT is much easier to maintain- while there's 50 articles there, it's only 5 topics, and it only takes one bad article to sink that ship.  If somehow Monarchs passes, and it's FAs are FARCed, then it will be nominated for removal, as it's looking like (though I don't think codified yet) that a FT needs at least one FA in it.  I understand your concern, but I recommend coming back in February to see if its still viable, or if a MfD should be used (again).  --PresN 16:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do hope you'll nix the monarchs, as they can't be processed quickly through FARC, as there are just too many of them, and we discourage people from hitting one author or one project with a bunch of FARCs at once (but since Emsworth no longer maintains those articles anyway ... ) And, I'm still very concerned that you all are adding *any* GAs to *anything* using the name "featured", since some GAs are trash, passed by a sympathetic editor.  Sandy (Talk) 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I wrote in the discussion below, what's being featured is the unifying qualities of the topic, not the articles within it.  The minimum quality standards of FT are there because stub, start, and B class articles would constitute a gap in the completeness of the topic, thus violating criteria #4.  --Arctic Gnome 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not actually specified, it just says no Stub or Start...I'll add it in.  --PresN 18:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: (in response to the No B articles- nothing comes between B and GA. This has been a glaring omission in that scale for as long as I've been editing. Do you really want everything to be a GA or better? Thanatosimii 00:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandy, I disagree about what you say about GAs being "trash" — people are at the point where they want to see a good effort. Moreover, if an article is not horriffically written and cited, it's not "trash"; it's just not at the highest possible standard. It can still be an informative, accurate article. — Deckiller 23:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tyler, I agree with Sandy: the devil is in the detail of the promotions/accountability process. Without a reliable process, you won't get high standards. This problem is what I observe everywhere with GAs. Tony 00:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do agree that the process needs to be defined and worked out, but I still believe that the concept has potential and importance. — Deckiller 00:26, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  this bizarre page 

message: As stated on the MfD page, as having all articles in a topic be FAs is not a requirement, some editors disagree with the term "featured" in the name.  This is the section for proposing a better name, if one can be found.  --PresN 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm reading your project correctly, what you're really after is comprehensive or in-depth coverage of a complete topic, no gaps, so perhaps the name could head that direction.  Sandy (Talk) 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Featured Topic by any other name.... 

message: People need to understand what the word "featured" means in terms of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's "featured" content means the best items of said area (articles, topics, etc). Therefore, featured topics are to display the best Wikipedian topics on the whole. If our best topics are not 100 percent featured or good articles, then so be it. In the future, I'm sure that will be the case. — Deckiller 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The problem with criticism

message: Great to see new interest in my little project here - I didn't get time to continue with it as I wished, and I'm happy that some others have come here and been able to get it noticed.  I truly think that this is a great concept and we should highlight groups of articles that are of a good standard but not all yet featured.  I like the idea of requiring all constituent articles to be GAs, but I don't really like the informal GA process and don't think it will quite work.  However, it might help us to discover some nice topics.
I hope that I'll be around more in the new year to help out and get more FTs.  Nice work so far!  violet/riga (t) 10:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resurrection 

message: I'm all for this topic being included here, but shouldn't the Halloween film series topic include all Halloween films, not just the first three in the series?--Dark Kubrick 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I reverted you, because the paragraph right above it says clearly that if a topic's already been posted, you have to nominate any additions, not just add them in.  --PresN 06:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It does look like the missing movies would constitute a gap.  The solution would be to either nominate the other movies to be included in the topic or nominate the topic for review.  --Arctic Gnome 16:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halloween film series' status 

message: Renaming this page was suggested during the MFD, but is best discussed here. I have no opinion either way on that issue. >Radiant< 10:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case anyone is still keeping track, I strongly agree that either 1) the page should be renamed, or 2) it should only include featured articles (if it retains "featured" in the name).  Sandy (Talk) 15:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text: That's both inappropriate and ambiguous: this is not a WikiProject and "completeness" sounds like it offers a varying scale.  violet/riga (t) 23:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MFD note