Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria/archive 1

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.
Archive
Archives
1

Contents

Main article criteria?

Should we have a criteria about what the main article is and how it relates to the other articles? --Arctic Gnome 15:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the criteria should explicitly include a requirement for a lead article. Something like:
  • The topic should have a lead article, which introduces and summarizes the topic.
I don't think anything more than that is needed... it can always be expanded later, depending how things go. Tompw (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
That sounds about right, and I'm in favour of making that criteria #6 (or #2, bumping the rest down one). However, it would make the Star Wars movies fail, and that's one of our best topics. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:48, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm adding this as a requirement. I've nominated a main article for the Star Wars topic. If that nomination fails, the topic will either be grandfathered in or listed for a FTRC. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Y Done

non-arbitrary groupings

Should criteria #1 be expanded to say that the grouping should not arbitrarily exclude items? I'm thinking that we want to stop any very specific topic groupings that weasel their way around making a gap. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree.... OK, maybe change #1 to something like:
  • The articles should be grouped under one collective name and be in the same category. The topic name should not arbitrarily exclude items.
(This also removes some superfluous text). Tompw (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that the term "clear similarity" is the key goal of criteria #1, and we shouldn't take it out. How about:
  • The articles should have a clear similarity with each other, should be in the same category, and should be grouped under one collective name that does not arbitrarily exclude items.
--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm adding this as the new wording, but if anyone wants to suggest any amendments this wording is not yet set in stone. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Y Done

"higher-level" articles within topics (or: Creator of an artistic work in the FT?)

The scope of this discussion may not only apply to music. There has been talk about whether to include the main article on scouting in the FTC of the boy scouts of America. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:25, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

In the event of artistic works being nominated for Featured Topic status, should the creator of that work also be included in the topic? Examples of this could include The Beatles if Sgt. Pepper's were nominated, Douglas Adams if Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy were nominated or Michelangelo if Sistine Chapel ceiling were nominated.

The principal pro arguments being:

  • A artist's creation is not just a "sub-category" of the artist's page;
  • An understanding of an artistic work is not complete without an understanding of its creator.

The principal con arguments being:

  • No Featured Topics to date have a "higher level"/overarching article within the set (except the Featured Topic's heading article);
  • The artist's page may not deal with the subject of the Featured Topic in any great detail, and if it does the information might be repetitive/circular (per Wikipedia:Summary style).

A further point is raised as to what happens when several artistic works (such as multiple albums by the same band) are Featured Topics - would the band's article need be in each Featured Topic set? This question grew out of a debate at the discussion of the candidacy for Gewn Stefani's Album "Love.Angel.Music.Baby" here. Witty lama 04:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

That last one is a good point, it would be a bit silly for an overarching article to be in tonnes of FTs. I'll have to sleep on this question. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that the creator of the work should be included. Putting the creator as part of the series about a work implies that the creator is a subtopic and that the article about the creator contains more detail than the main article, which should be summarizing the others. For the articles in a featured topic to be at least good article level, they should already address any information about the creator that is relevant to the topic. ShadowHalo 05:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe the creator should be included to complete the depiction of the topic. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is needed. The main article is already the higher-level article of that specific topic, and I don't think there should be an even higher level than the main article. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If the topic os on an artistic work (or collection thereof), then the article on the creator should not be included. The reason is the work is a subset of the creator, not the other way round. Tompw (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't think it should be included. A featured topic as defined is a main article and all of it's sub-articles. Gwen Stefani is not a sub-article of Love.Angel.Music.Baby, even though she is obviously related in some way. To extend the argument, Final Fantasy 8, a current FT, has the game (FF8), a characters article+ 2 chars that have their own article, and a music of FF8 article. It does not include the parent Final Fantasy series page, nor does it include Square Enix, the publisher/developer, nor Hironobu Sakaguchi, the executive producer. They certainly are relevent to the topic, in the way that Gwen Stefani is relevant to a topic about one of her albums, but they are not sub-articles of the topic and are thus not included. --PresN 00:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think I'm going to have to go with ShadowHalo's point that the main article should summarize any relevant information about its own parent articles, and that including the parent article in the topic would be repetitive. So I'll say that we should not include parent articles of the main article in a topic. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, that's cool then. Witty lama 19:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
  • It looks like the general consensus is to not include parent articles in topics. However, if anyone finds a topic which they think is a special case, feel free to reopen this discussion. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done

Lead article a FA?

Could we discuss the addition to the "recommended" section....

That the Lead article should be an FA. The smaller the featured set, the more strongly the recommendation be imposed.

In cases where there is a larger number of articles in the set then this is not so important, but the smaller the set the more important it is that at least the Lead article is a FA. An example would be Saffron series which only includes 3 articles - this would not have passed if the lead was not a FA. On the other extreme is the Canadian Election Timeline series which probably would have passed even if the lead was not an FA. Witty lama 19:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if it should be a requirement, as the requirements are already pretty tight. While it would be nice, I don't think having the lead article be a GA as opposed to a FA should prevent the topic from passing (if that's the only objection). That said, some GA's are better than others. If the lead article isn't good (or was passed without a thorough look at the article), then it could be delisted and thus prevent it from passing. Hurricanehink (talk) 21:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I sort of agree with Hurricanehink. I would support something stating that the lead article should be comprehensive so that the topic itself is properly covered (since GAs only have to be broad in their coverage). I think having the lead as a featured article is unnecessary though. I have a question too. I was looking at how the featured topics line up with the critieria, one of which requires that the non-FA articles "must be all Good Articles or A class except where achieving such a class is impossible". Is there a reason why most of the articles in the Michigan State University series are unrated? ShadowHalo 21:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Michigan U is being discussed over at WP:FTRC. My argument is that they are good enough for our purposes, and if they were to be put in the backloged review procedure they would pass. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it should be a requirement either, but I like Witty Lama's idea to put it in the "recommended" section as opposed to the "required" section. The main article should, in most cases be FA, but there are cases where it doesn't need to be. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
So why not codify that in "recommended" - that the larger the Featured set, the more lenient we can be on the overall percentage of FAs (and vice versa) especially with regards to the lead article. Witty lama 06:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it should be a requirement, not should it "recommended". To be part of a Featured Topic *all* articles must be A-Class, GAs or better. I don't think the lead article should be any different. Yes, it introduces the topic, but it is already required to be of high quality. Tompw (talk) 10:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done

why only articles?

why "topic" is limited to "collection of articles" (including lists)? what about pictures, portals and sounds which also "represents Wikipedia's best work in covering a given subject"? Amit il 14:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

That is a very interesting idea. I don't see why it shouldn't, either, and I'm in full support of including those other featured materials in the event that occurs. I don't think we've run into that situation, however. Hurricanehink (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
We're an encyclopedia first and foremost. Images, sounds, etc. are important parts, but they only exist to improve the quality of articles. If we have featured media related to a topic, any information conveyed should be included by adding the media to relevant articles. ShadowHalo 16:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:Featured pictures "images... [are] the visual equivalent to featured articles" and it is well known that A picture is worth a thousand words. i don't think that the featured pic of saffron can be fully conveyed by text. (Hurricanehink - this is an example of a current situation) Amit il 22:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, the first part is pretty obvious. Featured pictures are the visual equivalent to featured articles, just as featured sounds are the audio equivalent of featured pictures. All that means is that the selection processes are similar, not that articles, pictures, sounds, etc. are all equivalent. And you're right that the image of saffron contains things that text can't; that's why articles combine text, images, and sometimes audio. ShadowHalo 23:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
In the case of the saffron featured pic, I think that should be included to the topic if someone nominates it. Hurricanehink (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That seems pretty redundant since it's part of the Saffron and History of saffron articles. ShadowHalo 23:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with ShadowHalo. A featured article is our final product, which must necisarily include both text and media. Having the media both in the topic and in the article is redundant. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. If there is a FT on any given topic then one of its articles would by definition include the media that is a FP or FS. In the case of Saffron for example the FP of saffron is already included in the articles. Witty lama 03:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it is not known that the picture is featured in the article. Furthermore, the FP can really be seen only with it's true resolution (with that resolution it wouldn't have been featured), not the little pic shown on articles, and featured portals are only linked by name. the pic/portal/sound are only linked in an article, like the other articles/lists of the topic. They do not appear in it Amit il 08:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Remember that since you can't cherrypick the items to put in a FT, you would have to include all images related to the topic, not just the one that you want to show off. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Which I think is the main problem with this proposal- if you wanted to add in the featured picture of saffron to the saffron topic, you'd have to add in every picture about saffron to the topic. I think featured topics should be limited to articles/lists. Also, while there's no requirement anywhere for a featured picture to get used in a related featured topic, there's no way it's not going to be. --PresN 18:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Y Done

Review process

I suggest we establish a perfunctory review process, per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topics#Suggestion_to_get_all_articles_to_GA_status. This would involve setting a deadline of January 2008 for the bringing of all the legacy FTs up to full compliance with criteria, as well as the automatic delisting of an FT after one quarter-year due to no longer meeting criteria in all its articles (leaving sufficient leeway to bring such articles back up to status). I think we should include a line in the criteria formalizing this as our practice.--Pharos 04:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I like what you've written on the criteria to that effect. Although possibly too strict - rather than "3 months", shouldn't it just be "after a suitable period" to allow for discretion. I don't like it when we take responsibility away from ourselves and place it on an arbitrary rule - especially one that we ourselves made up. Otherwise, Great. oh, by the way, have we informed the people responsible for the legacy pages about this? Witty Lama 23:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree with your making the process separate from the FTRC process. The entire point of the removal process is to bring bad topics to the attention of the community and allowing others to weigh in on the demotion. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:45, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. I had sort of hoped to avoid future debates about the grace period by giving it a definite length (especially if we're working with the objective criteria of whether articles have been demoted from FA or GA or not), but it's alright either way. I'm going to inform the legacy topics people shortly.--Pharos 03:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done

Take 'A' class out of criteria

I suggest we take all mention of the 'A' class out of the criteria. The reason is, that this essentially duplicates GA class, only GA class is more universally defined. I understand 'A' class was originally included to deal with articles like List of Nunavut general elections, which by their limited subject matter cannot achieve GA or FA – but I believe this special case has now been satisfactorily dealt with by means of the "individual audit". This is not to prevent any WikiProjects from rating 'A' class articles – but it is saying that if you do that, it should be in addition to seeking a GA status. (Yes, yes, I know the two systems really should be merged, but that's quite outside the scope of this sub-project.)--Pharos 02:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I support that. I don't like the idea that an article could be A class without passing a GA review. If the A class article couldn't pass the GA review, then it shouldn't be A class in the first place. Hurricanehink (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've now removed mention of 'A' class from the criteria. I waited until Kuiper belt, our last 'A'-class non-GA, had been promoted, so this will have no significant effect on current FTs.--Pharos 13:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Problem is that the GA evaluators sometimes go beyond the GA bounds, and the acception/rejection or articles is far more idiosyncratic than opinions expressed in a FAC. Circeus 16:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
And the problem with the standard article rating scale is that it's just completely idiosyncratic—anyone can give any article any mark without a second opinion even. That's a good system for doing rough evaluations cheaply and quickly, but it just fails when there's any incentive to give your own article a higher mark.--Pharos 17:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Y Done

Criterion 4

This issue was first brought up at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby., but I think this would be a better place to discuss. As it reads now, criterion 4 states that "All articles in a series are linked together, preferably using a template, and share a common category." This seems somewhat ambiguous to me, and it'd be good to clarify the meaning. What do we consider a common category? In this case, the songs are all contained in Category:Gwen Stefani songs but the main article is in Category:Gwen Stefani albums. The solution would be to create Category:Love. Angel. Music. Baby., but this would go against categorization conventions. It seems odd to state that albums and the songs on them can't be featured topics since it sounds like a legitimate topic to me, so would it be a good idea to move the common category part to the recommendations section or change "common category" to "category or supercategory"? Oh, and I'm going to shamelessly ask anyone who hasn't !voted at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Love. Angel. Music. Baby. to please do so; it's been over a month, and there still aren't four !votes. ShadowHalo 04:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your second recommendation, the Love Angel Music Baby FTC has shown that sometimes sharing a supercategory makes more sense than sharing a category. I disagree with moving categorization to the recommended section; all articles should be categorized, and a topic is lacking if it doesn't have its own category. We need to think of some way of phrasing it that makes sure that the categories are at least closely related and logical. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 13:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I think because of the variety of subjects (and Topics) that we could have on FTC it would be impossible to clearly delineate a universal rule for what "linked together" means. Rather, it should be seen on a case by case basis with reference to relevant extant systems - i.e. templates, categories, lists etc. as it is now.
Indeed, this determining of whether the nomination is "whole" is the primary deliberating point at FTC. FA and GA looks at the quality of individual articles so we don't need to do that, our task here is to work out whether the Topic is complete. To set this in stone would be to take away from the dynamic process and make it much more of a pre-determined formula. Witty Lama 22:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

ler|er]] 19:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a hard number maybe be too difficult for certain topics. I'd much prefer a percent of the total number of articles. Axem Titanium 16:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, or just a case-by-case basis (especially if the GAs are good enough to be A-class). — Deckiller 23:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree that it should be case by case. There should probably alway be two, and more for topics that are big and/or about a very widely known subject. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, how about something modest for a start: for topics with three members (minimum size) at least 2 FAs, with nine members at least 3 FAs, with twenty-seven members at least 4 FAs. This conveniently grandfathers in all current FTs, while setting some sort of objective standard for future candidates.--Pharos 18:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. — Deckiller 19:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
And the idea in future maybe would be 2 for 3, 3 for 6, and 4 for 9... but I realize that's a ways down the line.--Pharos 05:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to join the discussion late, but I don't think there should be any set standard for how many FA's there are. I think what should matter is if the articles cover the topic well or not. Some people prefer not to do the FA process, and so if the GA articles are FA quality without the FA star, it shouldn't matter. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it's pretty well-established that a featured topic has to include some featured articles. The question we're addressing here is just how many.--Pharos 19:23, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't know; I personally don't see it imperative that there has to have any featured articles. If the articles are of featured quality without the FA star, I don't mind calling it a featured topic, as long as the entire topic is addressed in full and there are no gaps. Hurricanehink (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, the problem is there's just no reasonable and fair way to determine if something is of "featured quality" without actually sending it to FAC. Of course that process is not perfect, but it is after all the central quality-rating process of Wikipedia, and we can hardly afford to just ignore it.--Pharos 05:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've now added my proposed "how many?" standard to the front side of this page.--Pharos 04:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Y Done

"Several" is how many?

Currently the criteria require that "several articles are of featured class", but how many is "several"? I've always understood that means at least three, but the issue has come up, and I believe it should be clarified. Is three a reasonable number?--Pharos 03:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Three seems too much, especially since the minimum topic size is three articles. I think two FAs or a 25 percent minimum are probably more realistic. I think there's general agreement that it doesn't mean 3+, especially since the FF8 FT just recently passed after the criteria were forged. — Deckiller 03:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Three is fine to me - two seems too little. Three or more related articles as an FT sounds cool to me. LuciferMorgan 19:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. What if the topic only features 3-4 articles? Two or more is much more reasonable, and allows for a wider range of topics to be featured here. We also have a couple excellent topics that only contain 2 FAs; removing them because of a number issue would be bad for the project. Also, part of the reason I think that wording was left vague was for this exact reason: the number should really be a case-by-case basis, depending on the strength of the overall topic. — DeckillUser talk:Deckil

Y Done

Suitable grace period

As the Final Fantasy Titles featured topic is currently in jeopardy, I feel this would be a good time to spell out how long those parties concerned have to work on articles that have been demoted. So here it is; I propose a one month deadline, during which time the article must return to either featured article or good article nomination, or procedures can begin to defeature the article. If it fails that nomination, the removal procedure can also begin. Judgesurreal777 03:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars was given roughly seven months; I think a similar time period would be appropriate. — Deckiller 21:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, a month is too little time, it would also waste peoples time constantly doing promotion/demotion nominations and such, just give it a bunch of time and let it get sorted out. Judgesurreal777 20:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
A month is too little time, though seven was a bit much. I'd suggest two or three months, though maybe a bit shorter in the case of lists. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done