Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates/2024

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It takes a ridiculously long time for things to be approved or delisted

I just have to say, it's ridiculous how long it takes to approve or delist topics, even if they have unanimous support.

Take for instance, the "Dreams and Nightmares" and the "1997 Pacific hurricane season" nominations. These approval and delist nominations have both been here since 10 AUGUST which, as of this comment, is 143 days of no action being taken whatsoever. and the worst part, these have unanimous support. Not ONE recent oppose. yet they've been rotting in this limbo since AUGUST. There is no reason whatsoever to keep these nominations around, with no opposes, without any action being taken.

This is especially weird when considering this explicit instruction "If enough time passes without objections being resolved (at least one week), nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived. Nominations will stay here for ten days if there is unanimous consent, or longer if warranted by debate."

What happened to the "Nominations will stay here for ten days if there is unanimous consent"? Clearly this rule holds no de facto value because as i've stated there are two nominations with unanimous support that have been here for 143 days, over 14x the supposed amount of time a nomination of that sort should remain.

It's just dumb. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions has a similar discussion. In case this catches attention, this is another unanimously supported one that has been open for 20+ days now. I would be happy to help coordinate for this project, by the way.--N Ø 19:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I would be happy to second your nomination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I would third it. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Number four. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I fifth this. It's definitely something I've noticed, so I'm glad it's been brought up. -- ZooBlazer 20:04, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

+1This process is extremely decayed, if not pretty much dead. Fresh impetus is urgently needed @FGTC coordinators: . ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree, there need to be changes. One of the delegates is semi-retired, so there should be at least one new delegate, possibly too for FTC and GTC to function properly. Is there any way a nomination process can be sped up, as this part of Wiki is just stagnating the longer this goes on? NapHit (talk) 16:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @FGTC coordinators: . Being a coordinator at both FAC and TFA I have some awareness of the amount of back office work and editor communication the "Featured projects" can involve and how these can grind a coordinator down. Nevertheless, we seem to be approaching RfC territory, which nobody wants. A reluctant and one time offer: if you would like an experienced pair of hands to step in for a limited period to clear some of the back log (I think that given my other responsibilities and the length of the backlog I could get away with IAR on this) and to discuss with you off-Wiki how the project can be sustainably moved forward I am prepared to volunteer. What say you? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm extremely grateful for the work they've put in, but, based on a conversation at GamerPro64's talk page (User talk:GamerPro64#FTC), it sounds like both GamerPro64 and Bryan Rutherford could/should be replaced. I think both @Gog the Mild and @MaranoFan are both quite competent and it would be appropriate to have both of them step up to replace the two who are inactive. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the situation is clear and that a pause of a day or two for the incumbents to consider what they wish to do going forward would be respectful of the vast amount of time and effort they have put into the project. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Deeply saddened to read about Bryan Rutherford's retirement. Both coordinators in question have served the project extremely well. In response to this message, I would be more than happy to step in. I believe I have a good amount of experience in this space and some time on my hands given most of my prospective projects on wiki have been completed.--N Ø 17:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I second this. Gog and MaranoFan are clearly both qualified for the job. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Aza24, you seem to be the last coordinator standing. I assume that you are still in? With GamerPro64 standing down, would you care to put your name forward to become lead coordinator? (Does the project need a lead coordinator in your opinion? I ask because the other Featured Projects have coordinators of equal status.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to work with Gog and MarianoFan in the future, two editors with whom I have tremendous respect. I have a lot to say about all of this, but am traveling at the moment. I’ll set a reminder for myself to write up some ideas later today to get things moving. There are a lot of systemic process issues which need to be fixed and updated as well, so hopefully we can take care of these things all in one batch. Aza24 (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks Aza24. I will repeat that I am volunteering for a limited period only. Hopefully down the road there will be RfCs to confirm new coordinator(s) and and any changes to procedures proposed, at which point I envisage stepping away. Speaking of RfCs, MaranoFan, Aza24, are you ok with me drafting something for the community to opine on myself and MF stepping in pro tem with a view to formalise things in the near future? I'll run it past you both via email first. Or would one of you prefer to draft? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

I just want to say that during the early years of Featured Topics, there was never a person or persons who was in charge of closing the nominations. It was more volunteer based. The idea of even having delegates was done by me and Wizardman so that there could actually be some form of regulation to getting these nominations cleared. Essentially keeping Featured Topics from going the way of Featured Sounds and Portals. I have been a delegate and later director since 2011 and there has been many others over the years coming and going. I have been neglectful these past couple of years, both on Wikipedia and here. So I would be okay with there being new delegates taking over the project. We don't necessarily need a director since that was more of a title than anything, but it would be nice to have the project be given to people who would work on it and maintain it. Not sure what the process will be but I would assume it would go smoothly. GamerPro64 00:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

A proposal

Many of you will already be aware of the sad news that both GamerPro64 and Bryanrutherford0 are standing down as delegates to this project. Eg, see the post from GamerPro above. They have done an awesome job and with aplomb, and I hope that every one of you who have ever submitted a nomination while either have been serving the community will be getting in touch to express your appreciation. They leave big shoes to fill.

Happily, Aza24 will be providing continuity and experienced editor MaranoFan has volunteered to become a delegate. I would like to also temporarily assist in whatever ways I can. To summarise, we intend to: try and clear the backlog of nominations, or at least the worst of it; systemise and/or record procedures where they may benefit from this; consider any changes which we feel would be helpful with a view to putting them to the community in an RfC; and set up an RfC for the community to consider whether it wishes to approve our suggestions for permanent new delegates.

This is not an RfC, but an opportunity for the community to indicate, in broad terms, whether it is happy to go along with our semi-WP:IAR for a short period, or not. And perhaps to throw in any provisos or suggestions.

Thank you. We look forward to your thoughts. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the above is very workable, and would support it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank you Gog and MF for volunteering. Ajpolino (talk) 14:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Support this arrangement and the proposal to systemise and record procedures. Appreciate the work that GamerPro64 and Bryanrutherford0 have done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

All of this sounds good to me. On a separate note, is there a reason that there isn't a bot that can be used to close nominations and update the article histories/create the new topic articles if the topic passes? Even at the very least, once the topic is marked as passed, the topic can be manually moved to the appropriate section for GT or FT and then the bot can do the rest similar to how it's done with Featured Lists. I'm no bot expert, so maybe it's just harder to do than it sounds.

Or I guess there is/was a bot? It just never did anything with the recent Jupiter topic despite it being in the to promote category. -- ZooBlazer 17:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

NovemBot task 1 does this. So the bot angle is covered. For simple, first time promotions anyway. Additions to existing topics and removals still need to be done manually. The bot needs to be triggered by a delegate placing {{User:NovemBot/Promote}} ~~~~ on the page. Gog the Mild and MaranoFan were added to the allowlist today.

I'd suggest against RFCs unless something is broached on this talk page and seems controversial. Can probably do most the things that need to be done just with local consensus on this talk page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Novem Linguae the code was placed on Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Jupiter/archive1 a while back by a delegate but the bot hasn't run... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what happened. I'll give it a nudge. Feel free to ping me if anything gets stuck in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@FGTC coordinators: there are around a dozen topic removal candidates which have consensus to delist; I think it would be good to get the egregious ones out of the way, at least. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:40, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I will get on that tonight! The bot does not do demotions, so it takes more time as each page has to be manually updated. Thanks for holding us accountable :) Aza24 (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way that demotion could be automated Novem Linguae? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like nominations that don't get promoted aren't automated either. This one still needs to have it's articles updated after the nomination failed. -- ZooBlazer 03:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It'd be a lot of work. More details at User talk:Novem Linguae#F> –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I will help with any remaining demotions as well. Since I am not experienced with that part of the process, I have been waiting to see the incumbents perform one so I can get a hang of it.--N Ø 07:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there's a fairly good work instruction for demotions at User:Spy-cicle/FTC/Demote Instructions. Does anyone know of a work instruction for additions? Or if not would be willing to write one? These work instructions 1) enable new coordinators / anyone to help out with the execution of these decisions and 2) are the first step to writing a bot for these workflows. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

FGTC Reforms – Part 1

With no votes in the last 11 days, I find a clear consensus to implement all three reforms. Editors can move on to discuss how exactly to implement #3 and what the aftermath of #3 would be, as more input from editors are needed on these points. starship .paint (RUN) 14:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MaranoFan, Gog the Mild and I would like to present a series proposals to reinvigorate the Featured and Good topics process. After careful discussion, we identified numerous areas in need of improvement. Below are a handful of initial proposals,^[a] with further explanation in attached footnotes.

Abolish the one Director, two Delegates system; instead there will be three evenly-ranked coordinators. The director has no extra responsibilities, so evenly ranked overseers is preferable.^[b]
Combine Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates (this page) and Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions into a single talk page. Neither is active enough to warrant the separation.^[c]
Mass renaming of Good topic pages. At the moment, every good topic is on a page labeled "Featured topics". For example, the "1 Line (Sound Transit)" is a good topic but its page is titled Wikipedia:Featured topics/1 Line (Sound Transit) stations. It would make much more sense as Wikipedia:Good topics/1 Line (Sound Transit) stations.^[d]

Thank you, and please leave your thoughts below. – Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Footnotes

^ Another batch of proposals will be presented in the near-future, involving the simplification of nominations/criteria, as well as formal elections for new delegates/coordinators.
^ In doing so, we would be following the same practice as FAC, FAR, TFA and GAN. Although FLC includes a one Director, two Delegates system, the FLC director has extra responsibilities (TFL scheduling), whereas there are no extra responsibilities for the FGTC director.
^ Ostensibly, the two talk pages have different purposes: Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates is related to the process, while Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions. In practice, both are only occasionally active, making the separation largely unhelpful. A combined page would result in more page watchers and lessen confusion over where to post questions.
^ These mislabels has been a huge source of confusion in the past—I've had many, many complaints over the years. It is simply a practical and logical matter to actually name the page after its actual topic level. If you're wondering why it is even this way to begin with: I believe it goes back to an ancient practice, where good topics were considered merely a subcategory of Featured topics. For instance, the Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates was originally named "Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates", yet included good topics.

Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Support all 3 changes. Especially glad to see the third one hopefully being addressed. Assuming the third one is implemented, would there be a way to keep track of topics that in the future go from GT to FT or vice versa? Or would someone have to manually keep track and rename the topic page? Also on a related note, I assume with the third point, GTCs would also get Category:Good topic nominations and Category:Good topic nominations/YearHere instead of the featured equivalents? Or would the categories stay the same? -- ZooBlazer 23:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I assume with the third point, GTCs would also get Category:Good topic nominations and Category:Good topic nominations/YearHere instead of the featured equivalents? Great question. What are people's thoughts on this? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Speaking as an involved proposer, but I would think a new category is fitting. Really, there's nothing about GT's that makes them a subcategory of FTs, so having them fully differentiable with categories makes sense to me. Aza24 (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Support all three. I have also always been thrown off by the fact that GTs are presented as FTs in their titles, so this is a welcome change to put these all where they should already have been. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Support all three. Way back when GTs were added, the legwork was never done to make a parallel set of pages for GTs- the focus was just on creating a way to make the requirements for FTs 50%+ featured without throwing out all of the topics that were majority GA. Years later, when the process was renamed, it wasn't done beyond the candidates stage (or else it would be "Wikipedia:Featured and good topics/1 Line (Sound Transit) stations"), so we've just perpetuated the confusion around what's a good topic vs. a featured topic. They're both distinct categories and should be treated as such. --Pres N 00:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
From a technical perspective, will probably need a WP:BRFA to rename the topics, then I will also need to modify my FGTC promotion script to create the correct pages. This is not an argument for or against, just starting the planning for it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Good points. The article history and topic templates would also need editing. Would be a slight hassle, but a huge payoff. When we moved the candidate pages I just went through RFM technical requests. Would that not work here? Aza24 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
I assume the quantity is hundreds? If someone is willing to do it manually, sure. Else will want to use a bot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Gotcha. Last time JJMC89 moved the pages—see here. I assume he used something like AWB, but maybe I'm wrong. Will definitely look into bot management if these reforms are approved. Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Support all three proposals. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Support see no downside to any of the proposals. I do think that redirects should be created from Featured topic article titles to Good topic ones and vice versa for ease of navigation. (t · c) buidhe 04:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Support all three. All logical and well overdue. I also suggest adding supplemental instructions on how to handle a GT-to-FT promotion as well as renamings (as the 1 Line GT has gone through several of them). Sounder Bruce 06:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Neutral on #1. Support #2 Combining these pages would be helpful especially as some questions take a long take to get answers on the other page. Oppose #3 Seems to add more needless work for renaming page, particularly when GT gets automatically upgraded to an FT when one article goes from a GA to an FA. A topic can be determined to be good or featured by just checking or talk page or just looking at the topic itself. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 23:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Support all three for the reasons given – seem like reasonable proposals to me. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Support all three. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Support all three; seem like reasonable, common-sense proposals. AryKun (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Several nominations ready for close?

Hello, I noticed there was previous discussion of the length of time it takes to close nominations, and wanted to point out that there are several nominations with clear consensus for promotion and have been sitting for quite a while. If no one has objections and they aren't promoted soon, as an uninvolved third party I am going to be bold and promote any unanimously supported nominations that have been open for longer than the ten day voting period. These would include:

There are more that should probably also be closed, but these are the most clear-cut. I believe some more discussion may be needed to streamline the process for unanimous promotion; for example, including a caveat in the instructions that allows any editor to close one X amount of unanimous support has been reached. Fritzmann (message me) 17:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, these are already on my list for today, and I'll take care of them. Please note that one of these, any many others are not first time nominations (they're renomination of previous demotions). The bot cannot promote these ones and they have to be done manually, which is a very time consuming process. Aza24 (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that the bot was essentially broken for ~2 weeks, and the issue has just these past two days been resolved. Aza24 (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Aza24, thanks for the super quick reply! That makes a lot of sense, and I appreciate you volunteering your time to steward this process. Fritzmann (message me) 17:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Please note that one of these, any many others are not first time nominations (they're renomination of previous demotions). The bot cannot promote these ones and they have to be done manually, which is a very time consuming process. Idea: If you blank the (Wikipedia:Topic name) and (Wikipedia talk:Topic name) pages, then run the bot, it'll probably work. Then you can manually fix the (Wikipedia talk:Topic page), which will need to have its FGTC history template and wikiprojects fixed manually. Then you can check the contribs/diffs carefully for any other problems or mess-ups. If there's any, note them and fix then. Then, armed with the data from this test run, we can chat about how to code the bot to do these non-first time nominations. Wanna try that? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh sorry, you did already tell me this recently—completely forgot. Although I wasn't sure if you were proposing it as a practical solution or merely a technical possibility. I'll try shortly with Astroid belt. Aza24 (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Have tried just now. If it works I'll do so with Emirates Cup and Dwarf planets as well. Aza24 (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it worked; I'll adjust the article history tomorrow and get some others going soon as well. Aza24 (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Let's wait on the other 2 so I have some test cases for the new code I'm about to write. Can you check your test run you did just now carefully (diffs) and make sure article history and wikiprojects on that one page is the only difference in the process? Let me know and I'll work on coding it up. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I found a bug unrelated to it being a former featured topic. Filed #92 Bot confuses {GAList} with {GA}. Looking forward to seeing how you do the manual diff of Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Asteroid belt. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I have been on an on-and-off wikibreak for a while but will get to processing many of these soon if the other coords have not.--N Ø 18:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Feel free to knock out any delists if you have a moment; they're a bit of a chord since no bot, but most of them around under 10 articles per topic. Aza24 (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Potential topic question

Eventually, I'm hoping to make a GT/FT for The Dark Pictures Anthology. The series is planned to have at least eight games, with four released so far, along with a spinoff VR game, The Dark Pictures: Switchback VR.

My question is would the VR game have to be included, or could I get away with just the games in the main anthology?

The Dark Pictures Anthology

6 articles

Little Hope

I suspect that the VR spinoff would be required in the topic to pass it as a candidate. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The VR game would make a good addition to the topic since the proposed parent article discusses it as part of the series, and there do not seem to be multiple spinoff games to be a separate topic.--N Ø 04:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

[1] Another batch of proposals will be presented in the near-future, involving the simplification of nominations/criteria, as well as formal elections for new delegates/coordinators.

[2] In doing so, we would be following the same practice as FAC, FAR, TFA and GAN. Although FLC includes a one Director, two Delegates system, the FLC director has extra responsibilities (TFL scheduling), whereas there are no extra responsibilities for the FGTC director.

[3] Ostensibly, the two talk pages have different purposes: Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates is related to the process, while Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions. In practice, both are only occasionally active, making the separation largely unhelpful. A combined page would result in more page watchers and lessen confusion over where to post questions.

[4] These mislabels has been a huge source of confusion in the past—I've had many, many complaints over the years. It is simply a practical and logical matter to actually name the page after its actual topic level. If you're wondering why it is even this way to begin with: I believe it goes back to an ancient practice, where good topics were considered merely a subcategory of Featured topics. For instance, the Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates was originally named "Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates", yet included good topics.

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]