Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates/2011

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates. 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.

Directors

Why doesn't Featured Topic have any delegates? Nominations would seem faster to go faster if there were. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

See the subsection a few above this one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Well that doesn't really explain why we don't have any delegates. Can't it be easier if someone becomes a delegate for this FC? GamerPro64 (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I can always make myself an official one, since I handle most of the delegate duties already. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Before that happens, maybe there should be consensus to have delegates for FTC? GamerPro64 (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I am in for having directors, and Wiz would be fine. I remember last year having some ~4 months old noms because Rst left and nobody would really put the shoes on. Nergaal (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Template for quick nominations

I have created a set of templates ({{FTCnom}}, {{FTCnom/intro}}, {{FTCnom/init}} mimicked after the FPC ones, which should simplify the process for creating nominations. There is a link now on the submission page that uses these templates. Feel free to fix any bugs that you might encounter. Nergaal (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

New feature topics do not have the links to edit and discuss the topics in their featured boxes. I find these links are useful when maintaining the topics, specifically reverting vandalism in them. Can these links be added to the templates? Z gin der 2011-01-12T03:13Z (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean. Once a topic is actually created (not just nominated) an edit button appears automatically. Only new noms don't get this feature. Nergaal (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

New GA topic

Economy of Iran, Petroleum industry in Iran & Tehran Stock Exchange, would make a great GA topic. The 3 articles - together - cover the main subject fairly well in my opinion since the economy is based mostly on oil and gas. The industrial diversification is covered through the TSE and macroeconomics and foreign trade through the economy of Iran article itself. 67.85.17.129 (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

That would be awesome, but quite a few articles listed at {{Economy of Iran}} will probably need some work before passing the criteria. Nergaal (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, to the best of my knowledge not all the navigation needs to be GA rated though. 67.85.17.129 (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I said quite a few not all. Probably everything in the first line (industries). Nergaal (talk) 03:49, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.67.85.17.129 (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Supp question

Now, I noticed that this article, Nehrim: At Fate's Edge, was created and when I looked at it, it turns out that its a total conversion mod of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion. Now, knowing that there's a FT about Elder Scrolls IV here, I wondered if it can be in the topic. Anyone know the answer? GamerPro64 (talk) 23:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be very little overlap between the two games. Nergaal (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh. OK. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

More specifically, Nehrim is using Oblivion as an engine, but is not related to the game in any other way- it's not by Bethesda, it's not set in the same world, it doesn't use the same characters or concepts, etc. It's basically a game using unlicensed copy of Gamebryo, that requires Oblivion to run due to that nature- if they gave Bethesda money it could magically stop needing Oblivion, which means it's not really in the same topic. --Pres N 23:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

250+ topics

97 FTs and 155 GTs. Nergaal (talk) 23:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that's amazing! Just three more FT's for 100, too. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we were over 100 FTs right before the 1/3 to 1/2 jump in featured content requirements. Nergaal (talk) 00:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Announcements template

Please see discussion at Template talk:Announcements/New featured content#Proposal: Redirect to WP:GO. Jujutacular ^talk 23:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Book reports

BTW, a new bot has been coded to keep track of the quality of the articles within a book: NoomBot. NoomBot looks at the articles found within a book, and then produces a talk page report detailing the assessment ratings of each articles found in the book. It also estimates a rough "average rating" for the book, and reports cleanup tags (such as {{citation needed}}, {{dubious}}, {{inappropriate tone}}, ...) found in each articles. For users familiar with the defunct WolterBot and its cleanup listings, it is very similar to that, except it works on books rather than on all the articles of a WikiProject.

Since examples speak for themselves, here's a report for a small book containing eight articles. On the left is Book:13th Floor Elevators, a book about an American rock band from Austin, Texas; on the right is the book report from NoomBot. The first column lists the articles of the book, the second their assessment ratings, the third lists cleanup issues and non-free media, and the final column gives a link to various cleanup and feedback tools.

Book Report for Book:13th Floor Elevators

13th Floor Elevators

The complete guide

The band: 13th Floor Elevators
Albums: The Psychedelic Sounds of the 13th Floor Elevators; Easter Everywhere; Live; Bull of the Woods
Compilations and re-releases: The Psychedelic World of the 13th Floor Elevators; The Very Best of the 13th Floor Elevators Going Up
Songs: "You're Gonna Miss Me"

I believe these reports will be very useful to the FT/GT discussions, so I've added links to book reports in the FT/GT template. New books usually have reports generated within the day, and updated ever 4-5 days or so. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted you. While I find them useful, you've basically just added a link to the books talk page, right next to the link to the book. That seems excessive, and not something you should have added unilaterally. --Pres N 17:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you re-read WP:BOLD and WP:BUREAUCRACY. The link is both pertinent and useful, so I reverted you. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Closing FTCs

User:Wizardman seems to have retired, which leaves us a bit of a dilemma, as (correct me if I'm wrong) he took responsibility for closing FTC discussions. I'm happy to start closing FTCs and GTCs, but I'd much prefer if someone else stepped up. It might be wise to have two or more closers so that situations like this become easier to deal with. Thoughts? Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

He's hardly retired as several GTCs were closed last week. I help out every so often as well.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, Special:Contributions/Wizardman would suggest otherwise. Woody (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I talked to Wizardman yesterday privately. He'll be back he said in a couple months, its just mainly a disguised Wikibreak. For now he just wants someone to stand in. Mitch32^{(20 Years of Life: Wikipedia 5:33)} 14:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry everyone. I forgot to mention that I would be filling in for Wizard until he gets back. I'll close some reviews tonight. GamerPro64 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

As noted, I'm gone and not sure when/if I'll be back yet. If I do I'll of course dive right back into this, since the backlog is pretty bad. Until then, I know GamerPro and Sturm have closed some before so they shouldn't have any trouble. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

If anyone's willing to show me the ropes, I'm perfectly willing to help close these too. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are detailed at the bottom of Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure#Promotion procedure. A bit complicated, and I wish a bot would be setup since it would be pretty straightforward for a bot. Nergaal (talk) 03:55, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

We could get User:GimmeBot to, as it already closes FACs and FLCs? Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Dropped User:Gimmetrow a line here. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

D'oh, I just noticed that he hasn't edited with any regularity in nearly a year. I do definitely agree that it makes a lot of sense to botify this process, though. Anyone know any other bot maintainers to do this? I'd do it myself, but I don't want to have to maintain a bot if it can simply be merged into an existing bot. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Halo trilogy topic missing

It seems like that the topic "Halo trilogy" seems to be missing. Can someone tell me where it is? Is it removed? Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 05:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Its not removed. It was absorbed into Halo media. GamerPro64 05:37, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Sp33dyphil ^{Ready • to • Rumble} 05:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Time for delegates?

Now I may sound like a broken record for saying this, but Featured topics may need a director or delegates. I am thinking on being one of the two and I would like to know if anyone else supports the idea. GamerPro64 (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with formalizing it just so people know who's de facto running the show. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Definitely. Go ahead. Adabow (talk · contribs) 21:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Might as well make it official and have me and Gamer be delegates, sure. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed totally. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Why does it need to be official? It becomes instruction creep and prevents others from helping. Z gin der 2011-04-28T03:28Z (UTC)

What do you mean by preventing others from helping? GamerPro64 (talk) 14:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

If someone is official in charge then others will not try to close and promote. Z gin der 2011-04-28T19:02Z (UTC)

How is that a problem? GamerPro64 (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Zginder, you act like there's a line of people waiting for the opportunity to close one. If the couple that close them now were to disappear I guarantee we would return in a month and everything would still be open. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 22:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, there is not a line, but if we make it an official position, no one else will ever do one. If they were to disappear for a year we would have to appoint more people. I think my main point is why does this need to be official? Featured Sounds has four directors and all of them are away. [1]. Z gin der 2011-04-28T23:22Z (UTC)

<--Featured topics is a lot more active than featured sounds though. By having a delegate, we have a go-to person in case of problems, which I think is invaluable, more so than having active talk pages. It's just for convenience, I agree. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it alright if I make this official now? GamerPro64 22:07, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure. @Zginder, comparing anything to feature sounds doesn't really work: FS is essentially ego-stroking for five people :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It is done. GamerPro64 17:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I also support having directors. David, I don't know about the others, but La Pianista practices a song (who knows how long that takes...) and then records herself playing it on piano. I think FS is a nice reward for all that work, don't you? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topics/Hurricane Isabel

So, one of the articles was merged (West Virginia). I was wondering how I went about updating the topic. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at this tomorrow. I think I just have to cut the number and the template from that talk page. Having said that, the merge of that one makes me wonder if any of the others might be merged too, and if so we could have some problems. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There is talk that the Canada one might be merged (little on-wiki, more so in idle chatter questioning the need for a separate Canadian article). --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Should that happen, I'll probably ask for a supplemental nom, since it'll be moving from a GT to an FT and I want to make sure no one has a problem there. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 01:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A question about a topic

I have a 62-article topic that I'm just about finished with (the last article is awaiting a GA review) - I know some people are opposed to larger topics, so I wondered what people's thoughts are. There are two options, either the full topic:

Battleships of Germany

62 articles

König-class battleship

SMS König

SMS Grosser Kurfürst

SMS Markgraf

SMS Kronprinz

Bayern-class battleship

SMS Bayern

SMS Baden

L 20 α-class battleship

Scharnhorst-class battleship

Scharnhorst

Gneisenau

Bismarck-class battleship

Bismarck

Tirpitz

H class battleship proposals

Or the condensed, sub-topic version:

Personally, I prefer the full version, but I'd like to hear some other opinions. Parsecboy (talk) 14:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Given that all of the sub-topics already exist, I would prefer the shortened one. I think it works a lot better, organizationally speaking. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, technically, the Bismarck class subtopic doesn't exist yet. Parsecboy (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Either one is fine by me, although we had an extensive discussion about using subtopics when I submitted my British battlecruiser topic that might be worth looking at.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Definitely the second option. Adabow (talk · contribs) 10:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so it looks like we'll do the subtopic version. The final article has passed GA now, so the topic is ready. Should I file the Bismarck class subtopic (see forex here) separately so it can be included as a sub-topic? And should the {{GTC}} box go on every article talk page or just the ship class articles (which represent the subtopics)? Parsecboy (talk) 01:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, the full version looks so grand, beautiful and inspiring. Why can't we go for it, just for the heck of it! To what extent does the shortened version help up things? If not a mighty lot, I would love to see the big version up there in FTC and finally FT page. - DSachan (talk) 01:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer the big version - as you say, it's grand, beautiful and inspiring, and I have been working on this for over four years now. FWIW, there is Wikipedia:Featured topics/Governors of Kentucky, which is a full topic with 60 articles, only two less than this one. Parsecboy (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Right, and I think you might be having this big picture of the full version in your eyes ever since you started working on it, and it might have partly fueled your efforts for a clean finish. Apart from all that, it looks much neater to me than the short version. Hurricanehink and Adabow, could you please both present your views about why you think the other version works a 'lot' better. When Sturm submitted his Royal Navy battlecruisers, most people except Woody left it to the choice of the nominator. Woody objected the full version on the basis of the very large scope of OMT phase I and how the full OMT would end up appearing on FTC, once it is nominated. Full OMT can be thought of as an appropriate candidate for the consideration of subtopics (maybe countrywise), but that doesn't mean every topic has to be recursively dissected right upto the two article topics. Parsec, I suggest you be bold, and nominate the full version. - DSachan (talk) 03:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe the second option is better, not because of the number of articles, but it is more logically ordered. The first topic "level" is classes, which is then subdivided into the ships in that class. For me it presents the information more clearly. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as the logical orderliness is concerned, the first version, IMHO, is as much, if not more, logical as the second version. The purpose that subtopics serve in the second version is served by the proper indentation in the first. Apart from that, the first version is better revealing and more appealing than the second, as in, once I am in the subtopic page, I have to hit twice, first to come out from that page and then go to other subtopic page, just to figure out let's say what and how many ships are in the other class, which is not the case in the full version. - DSachan (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Need help with nomination

I am trying to nominate my first featured topic. However I got a bit lost in the technicalities. Somehow I have the nomination page at "...archive1" while the help has everything at "...addition1". I'd appreciate if somebody could help me completing the nomination. bamse (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

/archive1 is correct, since this is a new topic. I fixed the talk page of the main article, but it looks like you still need to add {{FTC|National treasures of Japan|1}} to the talk pages of all articles in the topic. Ucucha (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I added {{FTC|National Treasures of Japan|1}} to the talk pages of all articles (except for the lead article). Is there anything else I need to do for the nomination? bamse (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you're fine now—just wait for comments. Creating a book would be a nice addition. Ucucha (talk) 00:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Guitar Hero Good Topic needs demotion or retention period

I don't know quite how topic removal works, but Guitar Hero (iOS) needs to be added to this topic, and it isn't in a real great shape. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I can't tackle it immediately, but I have to take a carefully look at its notability; I know there's a review, but that doesn't necessarily mean much. --MASEM (t) 19:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Eh, good point. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Tentatively added to the retention log, but I'm not so sure of it being worthy of a stand-alone article as well. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:46, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Redirects in topic box?

I'm working on a topic on some British destroyers like so:

All of these ships initially served with the Royal Navy and the survivors were later transferred to the Canadian Navy (HMCS). All of the Canadian ship articles have been merged with the RN articles and are now just redirects. My question is if I should directly show all the redirects as if they were separate articles, or if I should delete them as they're just redirects? This will be the first of what will likely be a series of RN interwar destroyer topics. I have a similar issue with a planned topic on Soviet straight-wing jet fighters, so your thoughts and comments are welcome.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

World Heritage Sites featured topic

What is needed for a featured topic on World Heritage Sites? Would World Heritage Site and continent lists of all sites be sufficient? Or, should also World Heritage in Danger, Former UNESCO World Heritage Sites, Table of World Heritage Sites by country,... be included? bamse (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Status of Peer Review in Featured Topics

I was browsing through the FTs when I noticed that Wikipedia:Featured topics/National Hockey League awards had a peer review icon for one of its items, Mark Messier Leadership Award. Looking at the history of that article, it looks like that article was never a GA, FA, or FL. It became part of a Featured Topic anyways, and is currently rated "B". The peer review was in 2008, and there was an FT removal petition that was closed with the topic being kept, back in Feb. 2009.

The only other FT I noticed with the peer review icon was on Journey (2012 video game), for the Thatgamecompany FT. I suppose that one makes more sense though, as that game hasn't been released yet.

Is there something I'm missing? I'd like to get to know more about the FT process, since it looks like something I could help out in. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

See featured topic criterion 3c: "(c) Items that are ineligible for featured article, featured list or good article status, either due to their limited subject matter (in the case of lists only) or due to inherent instability (in the case of either articles or lists), must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed. Such items do not count towards criteria 1.a., 3.a.ii., or 3.b.i." Ucucha (talk) 12:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I did see that, and that's why Journey didn't bother me, but I can't see any reason why Mark Messier Leadership Award couldn't be promoted to FL. It's not unstable, and has as much subject matter as many of the other smaller awards. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Apparently there is (was?) some informal rule (WT:FL?#Quick-fix proposal) that lists with less than 10 items don't need to go through FLC for a GT/FT. Whether that list will actually pass FLC or not, I have no idea. Ucucha (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Other way around, I think- there was (still is, I think) an informal rule that a <10 item list could not pass FLC, and therefore was permanently stuck as a List-class article, and therefore was marked as an ineligible article here. We might want to ask FLC if that informal rule is still in effect.

Note that there's also an "ineligible" video game article in the GTs - Rewrite, which got released in June so the topic might be past it's retention period now. There used to be a few more, but they were unreleased video games that either got released or the topic grew too fast and overwhelmed the editors involved. --Pres N 07:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

That one is already at Topic removal candidates. An author mentioned that he's working on it, but it's been a while with no word. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:10, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The award article could probably pass GAN if it is expanded a bit. 18.111.66.71 (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Backlog?

I was wondering how come Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/1991 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1 wasn't promoted. I thought it was a two week window for nominations. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll promote it once I get to it; my goal is to promote everything from September this week, starting with the one remaining from August tonight. October's consistently the busiest month here and it's the one that I usually struggle to keep up on. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. Good luck with your tasks! --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:38, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Anything I can help with, or do you need to be an admin? Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and I'm a delegate. We may need anyone if me and Wizardman aren't available. How active are you? GamerPro64 18:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm working on a few articles, and log on every day. I also have a GT nomination listed at the moment that's how I picked up on this thread. If that makes a difference, more than happy to do what I can when that's closed. Jim Sweeney (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd be fine with it. You can pick one of the older GTs waiting to promote and I can double-check your edits to make sure everything's set. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

OK I will watch what happens when an article is promoted or not so I know the procedure is. I presume a nomination needs X number of supports and no opposes and all comments addressed. What is the minimum time to list an article, above it suggests two weeks Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There's a guide on how to promote here that sums up everything. As for the number, multiple supports and no opposes is good for promotion, multiple opposes is a fail, and one is usually a case-by-case basis, since other supports may be able to prove the opposition false. Those I usually just wait for further comment on. They should wait a minimum of two weeks so that any issues are found with any articles. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there another backlog going on now? --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Do apologize. There will be some nomination closing today. GamerPro64 18:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There's still a few. HurricaneFan 25 — 15:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

There are plans to close those nominations so please be patient. Some of us have to get ready for the holidays. GamerPro64 19:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

2012 WikiCup

I'm just dropping a note to let you all know that the 2012 WikiCup will be beginning tomorrow. The WikiCup is a fun competition open to anyone which awards the production of quality audited content on Wikipedia; points are awarded for working on featured content, good articles and topics, did you know and in the news, as well as for performing good article reviews. Signups are still open, and will remain open until February; if you're interested in participating, please sign up. Over 70 Wikipedians have already signed up to participate in 2012's competition, while last year's saw over double that number taking part. If you're interested in following the WikiCup, but not participating, feel free to sign up at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send to receive our monthly newsletters. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page, or ask away at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, where a judge, competitor or watcher will be able to help you. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)