Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive
Archives
/2005-2007
/2008



Contents

[edit]  ? Somerset geography &/or history

Having only recently become aware of "Featured Topics" I'm considering putting something up around Somerset geography & history but I'm not quite sure how to focus it or what to include:

  • Somerset would obviously be the lead article. This is currently a GA but up at FAC

Relevant areas, articles & lists include

There are a few others listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Somerset such as Chew Stoke, Glastonbury Festival, Chew Magna, Locks on the Kennet and Avon Canal, Kennet and Avon Canal - but these are probably less directly relevant.

Bath, Somerset, Grand Western Canal and South West Coast Path are currently GA candidates.

What would you suggest I include?— Rod talk 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to create a "Geography of Somerset" topic, you should include everything in Category:Geography of Somerset, which seems too big for a topic to me. Category:History of Somerset is also rather large. You'll need to pick something more narrowly defined. You could probably make a topic of Somerset, History of Somerset, Geology of Somerset, Economy of Somerset, etc. of all articles summarized in the main article. Pagrashtak 19:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
A topic would have to be free of gaps, but also should not overextend its reach. You could create one overall category with topics like "history of" and "geography of" as the user above sugested. Alternitively, you could create some more focused topics, like "rivers of Sumerset". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Noble gases

Noble gas is an article of limited broadness and quality. But the 7 articles about the actual elements in this group are of good quality (3 are FAs, 3 are GAs and one is A-class). Would also the main article have to be GA-ish for the Noble gases to become a featured topic? Nergaal (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the Noble gas article would need to be GA at least for this to qualify. Also, Krypton is listed as a GA on its talk page. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 09:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree, Noble gas has enough content that it could feasibly reach GA, and therefore must to be in an FT. --PresN (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Update

Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 13:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Weekly archiving

Although Wikipedia:Goings on needs to be archived every Sunday at 0:01 UTC, and reports Featured articles, lists, pictures, portals and topics, I seem to be the only person making the effort to archive it each Saturday night. It would be nice if some of the other processes could help with this task occasionally. The instructions are right in the top of the Wikipedia:Goings on page. I've attempted to get a bot written to to it, but there have been no takers for a long time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 14 days and 4 supports

With this diff Arctic.gnome changed the nomination procedure to remove the requirement that a nomination last 14 days and receives 4 supports before getting promoted. I think that this rule is very important and should not be removed. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 21:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support change. I agree with the change made by Arctic.gnome (talk · contribs), this seems to be more of the norm, and in line with what is done at WP:FAC, as well as many other areas of the project. Actually, I don't know of any other process that specificies the "number of supports" something must get... Cirt (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Although it isn't written in stone, FACs aren't promoted without 3 supports. Karanacs (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lung cancer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
That might be an example of Raul654 misusing his power. This is why we need this rule!!! Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 00:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
What if the topic nomination has gone for 14 days, but there are not yet 4 supports, such as if it didn't get many reviews. Should it be closed as fail, or extended until it gets 4 supports? If there are no opposes, but three supports, I personally think that should be promoted. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I should have brought the change here first, but as User:Cirt said, I was making this project more in line with FAC and FLC. In those projects, regular contributors trusted by the project close debates based on what they see as a reasonable length of time and a reasonable consensus. If there is any disagreement about whether a nomination had consensus or enough time, any debate-closing can be challenged by anyone. Since I seem to have become the de facto debate-closer here, I can tell you that in most cases I will wait for two weeks anyway, but in cases where there is unanimous support (such as the current Ipswich Town F.C. nomination), I don't think the full 14 days is necessary. In the case of requiring four supports, I think that requirement gives the impression that this is a vote rather than being a consensus-making process. Nevertheless, I certainly don't want to be seen as abusing my de facto position here, so if most people want the rule reinstated, so be it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • I've got no objection to this change. WP:CREEP and all. Oh, and if Artic.gnome wishes it, I'd be happy to close some noms here, as would others, I imagine. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 10:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess one potential problem with not having a time limit is that a discussion could be closed right before someone wanted to comment. If I promoted Ipswich Town F.C. today, there could be someone who really wanted to comment on it, but was waiting until tomorrow. It might be good to have an official minimum length of debate for articles with all-supports.
User:Dihydrogen Monoxide, if you want to promote a topic, you probably have the confidence of the community to do so. But there is usually only one nomination to close per week, so it's not like I'm overwhelmed by the work. If you do close a debate, be sure to look through the full closing procedure; there are a lot of pages to inform about it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the fourteen days was ever intended to limit discussion to 14 days or to prevent the removal of topic that have no change of approval and have already have a few opposes. I was intented to require 14 days for any one to have enough time to comment. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 15:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

This is why I'm now thinking that we should have some set minimum. We don't something promoted while a user is in the middle of reviewing something. It does not have to be 14 days, though. If something has unanimous support from many users, it could probably be promoted after a week. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree w/ Arctic.gnome (talk · contribs), one week sounds like a good place to start for a "set minimum". Cirt (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Included more than once?

Are articles that appear in one Featured Topic allowed to be included in a second Featured Topic? For example if there was a Topic called "Blah blah, Los Angeles Metro" with 4 articles, would they be then allowed to be used in "Blah blah, California" on a second FT? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 05:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Currently there are three such articles that are in more than one FT. The common way it's done is, for example, in a "Cities of California" topic, there could be an article Los Angeles, which could then be the lead article for a "Los Angeles" topic. There currently aren't any articles that are in 2 FTs but not the lead of either, though I don't see any particular reason why they couldn't be, if they fit in both. --PresN (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "History of a company"-related topics?

Anyone think it would be possible to create a "history of a company"-related topic? What if I had the company's article, a "History of company" article, and the articles of its (co-)founders? Gary King (talk) 19:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Millennium Park FTC

I am a long way from even nominating the majority of the articles for WP:GAC. However, I finally believe I have a topic that I consider close enough to my natural interests and modest enough that I might be able to pursue raising the whole topic to high quality levels. I am not sure what would be necessary for to successfully achieve WP:FTC. My thinking is that the title and the first line in the template below would be a complete topic. Advice would be appreciated.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

v • d • e
Millennium Park
Features and attractions
Surrounding streets
Influences
Other
Definitely. That is, if you can raise those articles to sufficient quality. I'd support it. --haha169 (talk) 01:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I see you've nominated some for GAN already. You do know that you have to leave a statement on the link, right? Or am I seeing an un-purged version? ...Nope... --haha169 (talk) 01:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Now we have Cloud Gate, BP Pedestrian Bridge, Lurie Garden, McCormick Tribune Ice Rink, Wrigley Square and Harris Theater (Chicago) all in the WP:GAC queue. The latter ones could use some more beef, but I did what I could. I still have to do the main article. What do you mean about the link? Tell me at my talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You can follow along at WP:CHIFTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)