Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates/2005-2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Highlighting associated articles

When a topic is nominated should every relevant article have a {{ftc}} tag added, or just the main one(s)? It's possible that a topic won't have a central article/template, so what should be done then? violet/riga (t) 13:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Topics with a large number of child articles could get tedious, but I think it should be added to all of the individual article talk pages because they are all involved in the nomination. The template should link back to the main article's nomination discussion to keep it all in one place, however (this is pretty easy to do as an argument to the child article template, so no big deal there). slambo 14:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask the nominator to add a tag to every article. --Arctic Gnome 01:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

For a topic to become featured...

...should there maybe be a requirement that all its articles be good articles? Just a thought. Worldtraveller 18:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That's occurred to me too, and I'd support doing so even though my own nom wouldn't make it. Tuf-Kat 20:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't like that idea much; WP:GA is too undefined (any article could be added there). Ambi 00:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, any article could be added there, but only those meeting the standards will stay, plenty of articles which don't have already been removed. The main thing is the standards listed at WP:GA, i.e. references, images, well-written, which I think all articles in a featured topic should certainly be required to meet. Worldtraveller 18:43, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Definiton of Featured

How are these topics any more featured than any others. There isn't a link to them on the main page, and there are no addtional links anywhere to them. For featured articles, we have a long list. I don't see how the acepted canidates will be "featured" Tobyk777 02:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

There are no links to featured lists on the main page, but they can still get featured status. --Arctic Gnome 00:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Boldness

I have boldly declared saffron a FT, since there was all support, plus all article were featured. I also archived four old nominations. Tuf-Kat 19:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's make this work

Can't believe that I missed this page for six months (though in my defence I it has been fairly quiet :)) having campaigned for it for years. Is there still interest in making this work? Pcb21 Pete 22:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think so -- it's just an inherently slow process because it requires working on several articles. Both of the current nominations are clearly without consensus to promote, but I don't want to remove them and leave the page without any candidates. I guess I'll go ahead and do so and look around for another good topic to nominate. I'd still like to nominate music of the Lesser Antilles, but I don't think it's quite ready yet. Tuf-Kat 06:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, actually Warsaw Uprising is probably promote-able, with only one weak oppose, but still... I will not promote a topic that includes any article without a references sections. If someone wants to override me on this topic, I won't revert. Tuf-Kat 06:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, on a casual glance, the articles on the nine planets seem to all be in good shape. Won't nominate them now because I'm too tired to look closely, but they're definitely possible. There's a lot of cricket-related featured lists that are maybe considerable, assuming a group of lists can be a FT (which I think they should be). Tuf-Kat 06:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

adding articles to a topic

I was going to nominate Definition of planet and Comet to the Solarsystem featured topic. It is relavent in that the current topic includes both planets and "dwarf planets" and other solarsystem bodies. It is also "main article" lined from the topics main article. However, do people think this would broaden the topic enough that we would have to include a number of other (not GA) articles in the topic? Dalf | Talk 08:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

In fact lookign closer of the other articles linked to as "main article" in Solar System a number of them are GA or A-class. How many of these could we add to the article while excluding the others and not violating the completness criteria? Here is a list:
The last two would probably need Oort cloud to be included with them and it is not very good.
Geocentric model is unrated and woudl need to come with Heliocentrism.

I think that Definition of planet and Comet would both fit better in a general topic about astronomy. The current Solar System topic seems to be about things specifically in the Solar System rather than in any stellar system.

Star Wars lead article

I've always been vaguely annoyed by the fact that the Star Wars episode FT doesn't have a lead article. I checked up on Star Wars and found it had a GA rating. Could we not substitute it into the place of lead article? Here's the original nom - Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Star Wars episodes. Witty Lama 23:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should just do it, so the issue can be put behind us. — Deckiller 23:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I've tried to get a main article for Star Wars at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Star Wars episodes/addition1 and failed. People were either worried about neutrality problems or worried about the fact that the article wasn't specifically about only the movies. I was waiting for it to get FA before resubmitting, but if you want to give it a go now you'll have my support. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I definately understand that concern and agree with it. However, this shouldn't be a problem IMO if the Topic name remained "Star Wars Episodes". If the Topic were called simply "Star Wars" then that would require a whole lot of other things for it to be complete. In the end, is there any other article that could possibly be the lead article for this topic?? Witty Lama 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
So.... Consensus? Witty Lama 15:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Propose it properly again... I know it's a bore. Personally, given Star Wars is first and foremost the films, the Star Wars article is the obvious lead. Tompw (talk) (review) 17:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the Star Wars article would work as a lead, but it failed last time it was nominated. I would wait until it got FA status, but if you want to give it a go now, all the power to you. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like it's going to fail a GA review here, so i guess this nom will have to go on the back-burner untill the GA status is settled. Witty Lama 01:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I do agree, though, that Star Wars should be perfectly acceptable as a lead article once it is brought up to a reasonable status. The movies are "Stars Wars" for 99% of people. For pedants, they can try developing Star Wars original trilogy and Star Wars prequel trilogy as two FTs if they want.--Pharos 17:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Topic of lists

Some people like to make the distinction that lists are not articles, and thus, that is why we have a WP:FL and a WP:FA. Given that, what's the consensus (if there is already one formed) on nominating topics consisting of lists to WP:FT. Template:WWE Championship Lists is the template that prompts this question, which consists of 9 articles, all of which are lists, 8 of which are featured lists, and the 9th one (the women's lists), is a current featured lists candidate, which will most likely pass, as is follows the same standard as the other lists. Pepsidrinka 19:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There is already a featured topic that consists only of timelines, which count as lists, so it should be fine. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, lists can still cover a topic adequately. I see no problem with their inclusion. --Hemlock Martinis 20:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Example: Canadian election timelines Tompw (talk) (review) 20:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies. I seem to have overlooked that one in my casual glance of the FT page. Pepsidrinka 20:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Cross nomination

Duplicate really of the nomination. "Items that cannot achieve a high rating due to their limited subject matter have passed an individual audit for quality." Does GA qualify or should these be put up for A class review with the Milhist project. If so i will withdraw the nomination until these are complete. I don't know the protocol about it though. Can someone associated with the FT process please tell me? Thanks Woodym555 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please archive this nom as i will withdraw it until getting a couple more up to FA status. Thanks Woodym555 12:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If you are in the process of nominating some articles to FA status, the nomination can be put on hold until those debates are over. It's okay to have some GA articles in a FT, but there should probably be at least two or three FAs. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for putting it on hold. Victoria Cross for New Zealand is now an FA and so i have struck the On hold comments. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks Woodym555 10:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaurs topic

Hey, I've been looking over wikipedia for good FT noms, and stumbled across this page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Achievements. The number of Dinosaur articles that are FA and GA quality is truly awesome. Each deserves to be part of a featured topic. Unfortunately, there is no way that every single Dinosaur article is going to become at least GA level at any time in the near future. Is there any way I can work around this? Possibly a "Major Dinosaurs" topic or something? Thoughts? Wrad 05:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been talked about, I forget where though. The upshot was that there's no way. "major dinosaurs" is nothing more than OR and cherry-picking the best articles, and if you don't do that, impressive as their collection is, there aren't any groupings of dinosaur GA/FAs that can be used, as any grouping you can think of somehow includes really poorly-known, minor dinosaurs with bad articles. Ah, the discussion is here. --PresN 14:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Feature films directed by Ralph Bakshi

I think those two articles prevent it from qualifying at the moment, but this is a potential topic to keep an eye on.

--SeizureDog 10:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


FYI, new list of users

FYI new userbox

In addition to {{User Featured Topic}}, which only allows a user to specify a specific topic, here is {{User Featured topics}}, which simply states the number of topics an editor helped promote to WP:FT. Cirt (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC).