Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WT:WIAFT
WT:FT?
Archive
Archives
/archive 1


Contents

[edit] Recommendations

This should probably eventually be spun off into a Wikipedia:Featured article advice-type article.--Pharos 19:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Welding and the definition of "gaps"

I'm thinking about a topic I did a bunch of work on—welding—and am wondering whether or not it could be a featured topic. Currently, Welding is a featured article, as is gas metal arc welding, gas tungsten arc welding, and shielded metal arc welding. These three procedures are the most basic and well-known arc welding methods. The question is: what must be done to get a featured topic out of this?

  1. Nothing—nominate now and probably pass those four articles as a "featured topic", with welding as the lead article.
  2. Raise arc welding to featured status, and nominate that as the lead article, with the other three in support.
  3. Do (2), and in addition raise articles like submerged arc welding, flux-cored arc welding and plasma arc welding to at least good article status.
  4. Do (2) and (3), and in addition raise articles like welding helmet and shielding gas to at least good article status.

What do you think? Feel free to suggest combinations I didn't think of. --Spangineerws (háblame) 04:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you've pretty much got the idea already! according to the first line of the "metalworking" template at the bottom of Welding, the important articles are: Arc welding, Shielded metal (MMA), Gas metal (MIG), Flux-cored, Submerged, Gas tungsten (TIG) and Plasma.
As you said three of these are already FAs, and if you got Arc welding to GA and ironed out any major problems in the "submerged", "flux cored" and "plasma" then that would probably be the most logical set for a FT entitled "Arc Welding".
That said, if the three different types that you mentioned (which are FAs) are indeed the main welding methods, then you could probably get a FT with Welding, Arc welding and those three - so long as Arc Welding is not too shabby. Other relevant articles can be added in later as they get to a good enough standard - such as Oxyfuel. Witty lama 05:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
That's pretty much it. The linking templates on bottoms of pages are good indicators of which articles should be in a topic. For really broad topics, the articles linked from each of the section headings can go together to be a topic. In your case, the template on all the pages gives a pretty clear indication of all the articles connected to the topic. "Arc Welding" looks like its pretty close to being able to be nominated. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I was the one who created the template in the first place, so to me it doesn't mean much; it just contains the articles I felt were most relevant. I suppose that since it's gone so long without being edited significantly suggests that it's acceptable for the topic, however, I don't think there are all that many major contributors interested in welding. --Spangineerws (háblame) 03:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
I'd say number 3, like the people above me. The template thing isn't a hard and fast rule, though- you can decide for yourself what the most important articles are, without relying on the template. If you exclude some that are in the template, though, you'd better be able to back it up with a good reason if anyone calls you on it. --PresN 18:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Dinosaur featured topic?

I'm a newbie to FTC, so I figured I'd ask here. I was considering submitting a Dinosaur featured topic, because Dinosaur is a Featured article, and Wikipedia has a fair number of dinosaur-related articles which are GA or FA:

These articles seem to meet Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria 1, 2, 3, and 6. However, 4 requires "All articles in the series should be linked together, preferably using a template." and 5 states "There should be no obvious gap (missing or stub article) in the topic." Wikipedia has over 1,000 dinosaur articles, many of which can never become Featured Articles because there are so few published works on various poorly-known genera (one obvious example is "Unicerosaurus", but there are dozens of others). Would creating a Featured topic like this leave obvious gaps? How "obvious" is it to the average reader that there are hundreds of dinosaurs missing from the list? Does this count as a "gap"? Would it really be required for all 1,100 dinosaur genera to reach GA status to submit them to FTC? And would making this topic truly require a linking template? I thought self-references (like "Featured Dinosaur Articles" would be) was officially discouraged? Comments welcome. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:18, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, trying to do a dinosaurs topic would be like trying to do a fantasy novels topic. There are simply too many for it to be feasible, and while it might be possible to do a topic of the most "well-known" or "important" ones, that's completely subjective. What might be better would be to go with Australian dinosaurs or feathered dinosaurs. On another note, does anyone know if categories like Category:Featured dinosaurs are supposed to exist? ShadowHalo 04:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift reply, ShadowHalo. I think your "fantasy novels" comparison might well be apt. Unfortunately, every continent is home to multiple poorly-known dinosaur genera: fossils of Australian dinosaurs are exceedingly rare (only a handful are known from even one relatively complete skeleton), but the other six continents are full of dubious critters, too. Articles on these dinosaurs are unlikely to ever reach FA status (because the FAC require an article to be comprehensive, while many named genera are based solely on teeth or bits of bone). Antarctica has only two named genera (FTC requires three articles) and the other continents have dozens or even a hundred nomina dubia. Feathered dinosaurs might be more appropriate, because (from a Wikipedia standpoint) we've included all the fossils known to have preserved feathers, but (from an outside viewpoint) the list of feathered dinosaurs will never be comprehensive, and some would include genera like Longisquama (had strange feather-like plumes) and Protoavis (some claim it has quill indentations on the fossils), while others would strongly object: it's contentious. I had considered various dinosaur families, but, again, every dinosaur family has plenty of dubious material assigned to it, and there would be "gaps". Maybe FTC just won't work for Dinosauria. If you (or anyone else) has further suggestions or ideas, please don't hesitate to make them. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
You could also try a smaller family of dinosaurs like "ceratopsid dinosaurs" as a topic. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the suggestion, Arctic Gnome. There are 57 articles in the Ceratopsian category, two of which have reached FA status. Do you think that "gaps" like poorly-known ceratopsian genera like Polyonax would be a barrier to FTC? Firsfron of Ronchester 06:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
The requirements do allow for a few articles to not be GA when there is not enough information about the subject to make a GA article, just make sure that what information you have is referenced and well-written. Secondly, although there is no maximum size for an FT, 57 articles is a bit big. Aim for whatever level of taxonomy is going to have between 5-25 members articles in most cases. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the advice, Arctic Gnome. I'll see what can be done. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Another way to create a dinosaur FT would be to bring the articles about the major taxonomic groupings up to snuff.--Pharos 03:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that is something along the lines of what Arctic Gnome was suggesting. Unfortunately, there are only two FA/GA articles on taxa "higher up" than genus-level: Dinosaur itself, and Heterodontosauridae, which isn't exactly a major taxonomic grouping, and is only a GA anyway. Thanks. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The major articles to me would be Dinosaur, List of dinosaurs and the orders and sub-orders. The latter are currently unassesed. Tompw (talk) (review) 13:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
We don't assess them. There are only 5 or 6 of us adding material and deleting nonsense. There isn't time to also assess a thousand articles. Firsfron of Ronchester





[edit] Criterion 2

In the light of the recent failure of Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Wild cats of the United States (although it was doomed because Canadian Lynx is not GA), I think some discussion. Is there anything to do when the topic is very well defined, but there is no possibility of having a lead article? Here the two options were Felidae or List of mammals of the United States, both of which are too wide-ranging. Another example is found on the criteria page itself: how good are the chances of a Star Trek movies or List of Star Trek movies article?

Is it any reasonable to amend the criterion to "The topic, if at all possible, has an introductory and summary lead article." ? Circeus 02:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that if a topic does not have a lead articles it is almost defiantly going to have a problem with 1b: a well-defined topical scope. If the subjects are a topic together, than there is going to be something article-worthy to say about them as a group. If it is not possible to make a lead article, than the "topic" is nothing more than a few articles on vaguely smiler subjects.
With the example of US wildcats, I think that the topic is too arbitrary a grouping to make a lead article, so the topic could not be featured. However, if you proposed "new world cats" as a topic, you might be able to write a lead article about their evolutionary history, the difference between old and new world cats, and how cats fit into the ecosystem of the Americas. If that would be a viable article, than the topic might also be viable. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars lead article

I don't know if this has been discussed or decided already, but can we please list the Star Wars article, so that people know its not GA and so it can be more widely known and fixed? It seems like a very logical idea to me. Judgesurreal777 20:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

To be included in the topic it would have to pass a nomination, which it would now fail. As of 2008, that entire topic will be up for FTRC. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simpsons Featured Topic

I would like some clarification on the Featured Topic criteria. The topic criteria pretty clearly says that there now must be at least a 1/3 ratio of featured articles to the total article count, or 33% of them should be featured. The Simpsons article has 26 articles, so it should have at least 8 Featured articles, so 4 more than they have now. But some on the Wikiproject Simpsons page say that they have been given reassurance that 4 was enough. I just want to know what the deal is, as both of these things cannot both be true. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Criterion #3 is not set in stone, and in any case I don't see where it says 1/3 must be featured (if that has be added, there was no consensus to do so). The required number of featured articles increases slower than the size of the topic in which they are. For a small topic of only three articles, two of them (2/3) should be featured; but for a topic of nine articles, three of them (1/3) should be featured. For very large topics, having five or six featured articles is still fairly impressive. The Simpsons topic is pushing the lower end of acceptability, but I think having as many FAs and GAs as it does is impressive enough that I will not nominate for removal. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:26, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok I understand now, I had thought it was 1 FA for 3 articles, then 3 for 9, etc, not 2 FA's for 3....alright, thanks a lot. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multiple lead articles

Just curious seeing that this former featured topic had two main articles, if two main articles are appropriate in a case where one is not, could they still fulfill the criteria? The specific example I'm pointing to is a topic composing Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow (at WP:GAN, first main article), Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow (FA, second main article), Characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series (GA), and Soma Cruz (at WP:GAN). The second game is a direct sequel of the first, and thus each takes place within the same storyline. Although each is part of the larger Castlevania series, they compose a unified topic. Or should Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow alone be the main topic, as it was the one that Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow was based on? Clarification would be welcome. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Having only one lead article would be best given the current criteria. I would recommend using the original game as the lead article, unless one of the sequels is much better known than the original, in which case you might want to use it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
The original would be better. The sequel doesn't overshadow the original game in the manner you're implying, so I believe it will be fine. In any case, would just one article at featured status be appropriate for this topic (1 FA with 3 GAs), or is two featured articles necessary? Thanks, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
According to the criteria all topics need two FAs or FLs. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 18:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Number of featured-class articles

I propose that the requirement gets formalized as follows:

  • 3(a) A number of articles are featured class (featured articles or featured lists), dependent on the size of the topic:
    • Two featured class articles if a topic has three to eight articles
    • Three featured class articles if a topic has nine to fifteen articles
    • Four featured class articles if a topic has sixteen to twenty-five articles
    • One fifth of the articles (rounded down) at featured class if a topic has over twenty-five articles

There are only two current topics that wouldn't meet this - The Simpsons (season 8) and The Simpsons (season 9), which are only one short. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of logical problems about your proposal; therefore, I propose this simpler version:
  • 3(a) A number of articles are featured class (featured articles or featured lists), according to the following rules:
    • 3(a)(i) One fifth of the articles (rounded down) at featured class
    • 3(a)(ii) At least two articles are of featured class
Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 21:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Again this would only affect the two Simpsons articles. We would give them a grace period to fix that if we changed the criteria. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 21:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I like the simpler 1/5 model than the squareroot model. However, the 1/5 model is a bit too easy on the low teens, which would only require two FAs. How about we make it round up, so that a topic with 11-15 require 3 FAs. In this model the Simpsons are still the only ones affected, though more harshly, as each of them would require two more FAs unless we made a cap to the number of FAs required. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
How about:
  • 3(a)(i) At least one fifth of the articles are featured class.
This removes the rounding and replaces it with an at least. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 22:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll support "at least one fifth". Tompw (talk) (review) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
But we still have to decide how we will do rounding, regardless of the wording of the rule. Does a topic with 14 articles need two or three FAs? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Three as the "at least" proposal says. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
One fifth of 14 is 2.8. You and I may both see this as requiring at least three FAs, but if we do not say that we are rounding up, I guarantee that many people will try to submit topic with too few. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
What about:
  • 3(a)(i) At least twenty percent of the articles are featured class.
Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a bit less chance for confusion with that, but why not just use your original wording with "round up" in place of "round down"? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Because it is unclear what is being rounded the fraction or the number of featured class artilces. I thought that the round down was the faction, but you thought it was the number of featured required. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 15:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset). I wanna add, (being someone who's starting a 40 article FT), that the 1/5 one is better. I also think about 22% of the articles should be Featured instead of 20. In my case, that would be 9 Featured. I know 22 is a little bit random but it may help in a bad situation. Otherwise, if my idea doesn't work, I'm all for the 1/5 proposal.Mitch32contribs 15:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where you got 22%; I thought we were just arguing semantics. It looks like we all agree with a minimum of 2 FAs for small topics; and bigger ones need 1/5 or 20% (which are the same thing), and in either case you would have to surpass the minimum if there are fractions. This would give us:
  • 1-10 articles: 2 FAs
  • 11-15 articles: 3 FAs
  • 16-20 articles: 4 FAs
  • 21-25 articles: 5 FAs
  • 26-30 articles: 6 FAs
--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Twenty or twenty-two I do not care. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 00:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Arctic Gnome: I chose 22 because 20 seems too little and 25 seems to high. So average it out, you get 22. I feel its better than both and should help in the long run.Mitch32contribs 20:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Using 22% gives us:
  • 1-9 articles: 2 FAs
  • 10-13 articles: 3 FAs
  • 14-18 articles: 4 FAs
  • 19-22 articles: 5 FAs
  • 23-27 articles: 6 FAs
Overall, I think the difference is too small to be worth the extra complicated of 22% over one fifth (and that's speaking as someone happy with maths). I still support the "one fifth (rounded up)" plan. It's simple and produces an acceptable number of Featured-class articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompw (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. While 22% might be a better number, I think the project would be best served by a nice round 1/5th. That being said, I bet a year or two from now we'll be looking into upping the requirements (this and all other FC standards have gone up over time). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
<--- (I think FL criteria have remained remarkedly steady, personally). Anyway, does anyone have objections to implementing 20%? Tompw (talk) (review) 19:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a question: Does the number of articles include the keystone article? Forex, in the Simpsons FTs, does the Season 8/9 article count towards the number of FAs needed for a FT? JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It counts. As for the proposal, it seems to be fair. 20% appears to be a relatively easy-to-understand way to do it also. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The reason I ask is that many keystone articles are Featured Lists rather than Featured Articles. If you do include them in the article total, then it might be worth mentioning that featured lists are acceptable as featured articles when tallying the total needed for a topic. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If you read up to the top where the proposal is spelled out, it says "A number of articles are featured class (featured articles or featured lists), according to the following rules:" Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see it now. If I could overlook it that easily, other people might do the same. I'd support the 20% rule as well, even though it'll create more work for me in the featured topic that I'm currently developing. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, everyone! I think we finally have a rule that makes sense.--Pharos (talk) 02:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Grace period again

I think we should have a grace period stated before this comes up again. I propose three months for a demotion of an article, and six months for a grandfather topic with a change in the requirements. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Tompw (talk) (review) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If this gains consensus, it would be nice if we could also decide exactly when the grace period would begin and end; e.g., should the topic be nominated for removal so that in the two weeks to gain consensus the deadline passes, or should they not be nominated for removal until the deadline is past. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 22:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I also propose having three months if the topic expands;e.g., "the release of a next in a series." Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 00:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, we can always change it again if it is too long, but for now it sounds good. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criterion 3.c

I propose that criterion 3.c be changed to

  • (c) Items that cannot achieve a high rating (as stated in 3.a and 3.b) due to their limited subject matter have passed an individual audit for quality which included a completed peer review with all important problems raised fixed. Such items cannot be used to fulfill criterion 1(a).

I would change it myself, but I am not sure of the intent of the last sentence: I am not quite sure whether the "This" in "This can not be use" refers to each individual limited-subject-matter item, or to criterion 3.c itself (the former sounds right, but some consensus would be nice here anyway).

—an odd name 19:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a simple change for the sake of specificity; there probably won't be any objection. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comprehensiveness vs moving targets

I am looking at a possible FT series based on the Guitar Hero (series) video games - they are not yet meeting the requirements, but the question I have is more towards how an FT with a moving target is dealt with.

Right now, taking only the released games, there would be 9 total articles: the series, each game (4), and each song list (4). However, there are two games that are shortly due around the corner (next few months) and it's rather obvious the series has legs for several more titles. Since it is known that there are more games due to be out soon, does this disqualify the series from being an FT? Or if we set a point in time (up through the start of 2008, for example), and then, as I've seen others, suggest the addition of further GA/FA/FL articles to the topic once they are ready? I will note there is at least one article I don't think we'll ever get to GA, but this can at least met the 3.c peer review criteria and wouldn't affect the FA/FL ratio. --MASEM 23:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

The new titles do not need to be in the topic if they are not released. Once they are released you will have at least three months, more if you are close to meeting requirements, to add the new articles or it can be demoted. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 00:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Getting more strict for series and lists

I think that it might be time to make some of the recommended criteria mandatory for topics that are in a clear series or are nothing but list articles. For all-list topics, I think that it is reasonable to expect them to have similar headings and have a similar structure. Check out the lists in the hurricane topics, they all have tables in the same places and list the same information in the same places. I think that this is key in making the topics unified, giving FT a more concrete objective. Obviously this wouldn't apply to all-prose topics with articles like "history of". Looking over the existing list-topics, most of them already comply with this optional requirement, and given that it's easier to pass FL than FA, I think this little bit of extra work is reasonable to ask of them. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That would be the first recommendation? Zginder 2008-04-15T18:58Z (UTC)
Yes, and possibly the infobox one too, as long as we keep the line "when appropriate" in there. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes in April are vague

In my view, the text was better beforehand. I propose that it be reinstated. Was 20 undesirable? Choose a different number then.

[1] TONY (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It could stand to be rephrased, but I don't think it's in our interests to pick a definite number. It said 20, but then the Simpsons seasons were promoted with a clear topical scope that spans 26 articles. Really there need not be any rule about size, even an optional one. It might be best to just rephrase it as advice to not try to make a topic needlessly broad. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but "needlessly broad" or narrow say nothing: where is the boundary between needless and needful? Better not to say anything about size unless it's defined in objective terms; even "not so broad as to ..., and not so narrow as to ...". TONY (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Smash Bros. Suggestions

Several people have pointed out that this should be nominated as soon as Brawl completes its FAC. However, I am concerned with the current quality of Featured article Super Smash Bros. Melee, Good article Super Smash Bros., and Good article Super Smash Bros. (series). Are they of sufficient quality (criteria 3)? This is just a note - by no means am I attempting to nominate this topic before the last "recommendation" has been completed. --haha169 (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed that one of the above GA games has recently delisted. I'll bring this up again at a later time. However, comments are still appreciated.--haha169 (talk) 00:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion of change to last recommendation

In light of the discussion here, I would think it would be sensible to change the last recommendation to:

"To avoid wasting time, the topic should not have any Good article reassessments, Featured article reviews, Featured article removal candidates, or Featured list removal candidates when nominated for featured topic, and should only have Good article nominations, Featured article candidates and Featured list candidates if the result does not affect whether the topic meets the featured topic criteria. Please have all required processes done before nominating."

This is slightly more complicated but more logical and avoids future discussions like the one at Orange Box. Thoughts? - rst20xx (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Zginder 2008-05-15T13:06Z (UTC)
Well I'm going to be bold and change it. Though upon reflection, I got the above wrong, and it's only FAC that could possibly not affect whether a topic meets FTC, not GAC and FLC as I said. So I've reflected this in how I've changed the recommendation - rst20xx (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Zginder 2008-05-24T13:38Z (UTC)

[edit] Criterion 3c

Can someone tell me how 3c has been viewed in recent WP:FTCs. I am trying to get an understanding of the prospects for WP:CHIFTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The only items that have been able to use it so far are 1) lists about new topics that only so far have a few items, such as List of Nunavut general elections, of which there have only been two; and 2) media that has not yet been fully aired, such as Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7). In both of these cases it is expected that when the subject has enough information to become FL or GA it must become so reasonably quickly. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Retention

The Star Wars topic needs to undergo a retention period, given that one of its articles was recently demoted from featured status. Also, another may be demoted soon. I was going to nominate it for removal, but thought it'd be better to post this message here. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones was demoted from FA status on June 3, so it has until September 3 to attain at least GA status for the Star Wars topic to be kept. The issue will probably be resolved quickly since the article is already a GA nominee. Kariteh (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)