Wikipedia talk:Good topics/Straw poll

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

For the original proposal that led to the below straw poll, see here.

Proposed process[edit]

Note: This is only a proposed process. It has not yet gained consensus to be an actual used process on Wikipedia yet.

I structured the Table of Contents after WP:Good articles, as opposed to the one used by WP:Featured topics. Cirt (talk) 18:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly support this proposal. As I stated on Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria, I am willing to help create and maintain this page if and when it becomes operational. This would be a nice area where perhaps smaller-scale WikiProjects with only a few active members could be rewarded for the hard work its members have put in. Qst (talk) 19:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I'd like to insert a link to the original discussion which kicked this all off - it can be found here, as it provides some context of how this proposal came to be, as well as exploring many arguments for and against such a system - rst20xx (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE ALSO VOTE ON THE SECOND PROPOSAL AND STRAW POLL, WHICH IS FOUND BELOW - rst20xx (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll[edit]

Description[edit]

Notice of this poll given at Template:Announcements/Community bulletin board, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), Wikipedia talk:Good articles, Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles. Cirt (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This poll is to decide whether Good topics is a good idea. The poll starts at 19:30 UTC on August 17 and ends at the same time one week later.Mitch32(UP) 19:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, we should discuss this before starting off with a straw poll. Second, what's the difference between this and a featured topic? The description reads exactly the same to me. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See, Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria.Mitch32(UP) 19:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know. The FT criteria and the GT criteria look nearly identical, at least to me. Is there any appreciable distinction between the two? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In a good topic, all articles must be of WP:GA quality or higher, and all lists must be of WP:FL quality. That is the main difference. Cirt (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see. In that case, what about simply making the featured topic criteria more stringent? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, folks there are currently trying to get it up, so that is out of the question, unfortunately. Qst (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How will the nomination process be? OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Good topic candidates. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent because it's out of topic discussion) Is it time to create a series "Good" stuff such as "Good images"? Commons already have valued images, which is exactly like good images (with some minor variations in criteria) OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a great idea. Cirt (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So has this poll finished? rst20xx (talk) 22:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE ALSO VOTE ON THE SECOND PROPOSAL AND STRAW POLL, WHICH IS FOUND BELOW - rst20xx (talk) 22:47, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poll results[edit]

Poll closed at 04:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC) - 26 Support, 16 Oppose, 4 Neutral, 2 Comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support
  1. Support. - Agree with comment by Qst (talk · contribs), above. This will be a nice way to motivate users and WikiProjects to become more active in improving articles on Wikipedia to a higher level of quality. Cirt (talk) 19:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, as I stated above. Qst (talk) 19:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Good work Cirt. Why do we need Good topics? We have a number of prolific GA writers who could fill topics with their chosen subjects. Lack of FA work may prevent its portal recognition, so a good topic would suit them nicely. That's my opinion anyway. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support - Great idea in the long run -I have a great amount of topics for it, too.Mitch32(UP) 19:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support A good idea and natural extension of GA and Featured Topics, to highlight quality material. No rational reason not to do this. Something like this could be a natural breeding ground for future FAs/FTs/FLs, as well, kind of like a minor league. rootology (T) 19:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support we have GA and Featured Topics, why not this? Anonymous101 (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I have no excuse to object. Alientraveller (talk) 19:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support I'm all for legitimate, encyclopedia-improving ways to motivate users who are spurred on by recognition. Jclemens (talk) 20:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Sounds like a great idea! -- iMatthew T.C. 20:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Like it. RedThunder 20:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - I like this actually. On several occasions, I've looked at potential featured topics, and thought "getting that extra FA/FL would be too taxing for the sake of a topic". I can see this encouraging article improvement much more than featured topics do, and GA writers would have a field day in making topics. sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support -- Brilliant idea! --LAX 21:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Makes sense. LegoKontribsTalkM 21:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, a very good extension to the Good Articles project. We should have had this all along. Nikki311 23:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support I've written one good article so far, and hope to write more. Having featured topics is a good idea, and it makes sense to have Good topics for articles that are classed as lower quality. how do you turn this on 23:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. I love it. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. I'm going to support even though I don't know how the nomination process is going to be because this is a good idea. Small kinks like how the nom process can be discussed later. OhanaUnitedTalk page 04:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support A good idea - • The Giant Puffin • 06:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, an excellent idea. Not every article can be turned into a FA, and this will give us room to showcase quality content that might otherwise go undernoticed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  20. Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support I like it. FAC is such a nitpicky place that I choose my FAC battles very well nowadays. Recognizing sets of GAs and FAs of a lower GA/FA ratio, as a GT would make the whole Topic process more attractive again, and doesn't prevent improvement to FTs. – sgeureka t•c 23:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support good for the encyclopedia: motivates people to bring families of articles up to a recognized threshold. Fills a gap in between no recognition and the very high bar of a featured topic. People who can raise one GA often have knowledge and interest in related subjects. Very synergistic and sensible. DurovaCharge! 00:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Conditional support, the condition being, that the second straw poll below also passes - rst20xx (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Good idea, though I do think the whole structure of the Good topic stuff should be incorporated into the Featured Topic pages, and perhaps when the topic page gets much bigger, they can split. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Wholehearted support it's a good stepping stone to Featured Topics. To complement this, the featured topic criteria should be made more stingent - i.e. 33% of articles should be featured, instead of 20%. Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 15:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I think it will be a great way to highlight subject areas that may not meet the rigorous FT standard. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - Great idea. Mastrchf (t/c) 14:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support It'll allow some people who don't have a million hours on their hands(like me) to do something that will be recognized by the community as the quality of the GTs will obviously less than FTs. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 21:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

Oppose as it stands - Wikipedia:Good topic criteria has no equivalent of 3.c) at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria, and hence 3 contradicts 1.d) - rst20xx (talk) 01:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero contradicton at Wikipedia:Good topic criteria. If all articles in a topic cannot attain at the very least WP:GA-quality status, then IMO it is a misnomer to call the topic a "Good topic". This seems to be in-line with the spirit of this comment by Juliancolton (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what would you do then about gaps?!? Take for example this and this - these featured topics would fail 1.d) to exclude the articles, and yet under your criteria they would also fail 3 - rst20xx (talk) 01:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is correct. IMO the is quite odd, those articles should be able to get through at the very least the WP:GAC process to WP:GA. If all articles in a "Good topic" are not of "Good" quality, no sense calling it a "Good topic", IMO. Consensus on that may not agree with me, but I think that is the best way to go. Cirt (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well firstly, I agree that they should be able to get through, but the situation, at the moment, is that they can't, and hence until that changes, there needs to be an allowance for them. Secondly, you've only thought about articles of limited subject matter, and haven't thought about inherently unstable articles, which are also catered for by WP:FT? 3. These are articles that can't pass GA/FL yet because they relate to an upcoming or ongoing event, and yet they must also be included in any topic or else it is incomplete. For example, Lost (season 4) was included in Wikipedia:Featured topics/Seasons of Lost for over 8 months as an article of this variety - rst20xx (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your reasoning here, but still think that defeats the purpose of calling a topic a "Good topic", if all articles are not of WP:GA or WP:FA/WP:FL quality. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So then. How would you get round this gap? Would you ignore the problem, and hope it goes away? (I'm surprised that you think that -articles aren't good enough for GTs, despite their being good enough for FTs) - rst20xx (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think that -articles is a poor idea for WP:FT as well. Cirt (talk) 01:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(reset) I never said you didn't. I said that FT thinks they're good enough for FT, not you. And can you address my question please, namely, "How would you get round this gap? Would you ignore the problem, and hope it goes away?" rst20xx (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what you mean by "ignore the problem, and hope it goes away". It is quite simple, IMO. "Good topics" must be all WP:GAs, WP:FAs, and WP:FLs. Nothing more, nothing less. This idea of "-articles" is an odd quality-rating system that exists nowhere else on the project. Please note that "-articles" is not a part of any of the quality class ratings at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. Cirt (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are not addressing how you would deal with this problem. Let's use an example: if you were presented with, say, this, as a GT candidate, what would you do with it? rst20xx (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my responses above (and below) regarding WP:GT? and that all articles in a "Good topic" should be WP:GA/WP:FA/WP:FL, or not considered a "Good topic". Cirt (talk) 02:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So... that's a no? rst20xx (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Oppose. The FT and GT criteria are not substantially different to justify the existence of Good Topics. In some respect GT criteria are slightly more strigent than FT criteria, on the other hand some of them are less strigent. The creation of GT in the proposed form will lead to confusion. Ruslik (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not badgering you, but how, I might ask, would this be confusing? It is a very simple concept, and not in the least confusing, IMO. Qst (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Ruslik is opposing for the reason I'm opposing, namely, the lack of -articles, which means some things can be FT and not GT - rst20xx (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am opposing for two reasons: 1) there is no need for this almost duplicate project; 2) subtle differences in criteria will lead to bizzare situations when FT having, say, 70% FA, 20% GA and 10% other articles is not considered a GT. The latter objection is same as that raised by rst20xx. Ruslik (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Since we really don't showcase GA much to our readers, I really don't see the purpose of this other than to give people more badges to collect. —Giggy 12:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about motivating users and WikiProjects to work on improving the content of articles to higher quality status? Cirt (talk) 12:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But featured topics already does that, and its standards really aren't that high when you think about it. —Giggy 13:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Featured topics can't have good articles though. So the standards require a featured articles - which is a high standard. Anyway, with the main page being redesigned, maybe GAs will get more prominence on there. how do you turn this on 14:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'll find that most featured topics contain more GAs than FAs (both of "my" FTs do). I really, really don't think showcasing GA (and this, by extension) on the Main Page is a good idea. —Giggy 14:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm then I misunderstand... why is this new group needed if good articles can already be showcased in a featured topic?? how do you turn this on 15:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Featured topics require 20% of the articles and lists contained within them to be featured, and this percentage looks likely to go up. The idea behind good topics is that there is no percentage requirement, and that topics can be entirely made up of good articles - rst20xx (talk) 15:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In all fairness, Giggy, its not about badges for people. A project like WikiProject Family Guy which I'm involved in, we could probably never get a FT, as episode articles for FA are difficult to write, so this is an excellent alternative to motivate smaller WikiProjects. Qst (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose - I don't see the need to set up an entirely new process. There are 54 FTs right now. The way you're setting this up there's going to be what, a handful of GTs? I don't see why we can't just have a two-tier system at FT, like originally proposed. --PresN (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean is, why can't we have it so you nominate it at FTC, it passes, it either becomes a GT or an FT based on the percent of FA/Ls, and moves between the two seamlessly. This only works if the only difference between the two lists is that percentage- retention periods are the same, audited articles are the same, gaps are the same, everything. If you have a 5 article topic with one FA it's a GT, if you get two more it becomes an FT. I don't care whether we display the GTs and FTs on the same page, or on separate pages, but I don't see the need to set up a whole new process with its own rules and bureaucracy just for a dozen topics. Lets work on growing FTopics, not splitting it. --PresN (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what the second proposal is aiming to achieve - rst20xx (talk) 17:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet with a "two-tier system at FT", you it is possible that eventually the lower-tier criteria would be the same as the current criteria at WP:FT?, with the upper-tier being something more stringent. In other words, both critiera could be prone to changing, with the second-tier catching up to the upper one, which is not the intention of WP:GT?. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - I like the idea of having something with not so strict of standards for FT (strict in the sense that it needs multiple FA's), but for something so similar I don't like the idea in having a separate project. I would support having GT as a lesser level of FT, however. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Hink has a great idea; so if you don't have enough FA's, you would get the GA cluster image and be a good topic. I envision it being like the Featured Topic becomes all Featured material, and Good topics are everything down to a minimum of all GA for articles, and all FL for lists. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Too much overlap with FT for it to be significantly different, and is mostly pointless. naerii 00:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - 3.c) from WP:FT? has now been added to WP:GT?, so any opposes for this reason are now invalidated - rst20xx (talk) 13:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. Sorry, this comment was badly placed, it was designed to inform potential future voters, not as a challenge to your oppose - rst20xx (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is still only a one-requirement difference: FT has a minimum number of FAs required, and GT does not. The fact that 3c has been added to GT makes the two processes even more similar and thus better candidates for a merge. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Completely Opposed to this idea. This is quite clearly a split from FT because of a perceived canyon between the quality of article needed, which is simply inaccurate. Frankly, this is merely a badge for mediocrity; if it can get GA, then it can get FA. I cannot see any reason why this needs to exist. Woody (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    False. Articles about topics such as television episodes can achieve GA easily, but only very few could ever be brought to FA due to the information not being out there, so I have to disagree with you about it being a "fork", but you're free to your opinions. Qst (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose: I am against it! Too childish, don't you think? Raina_noor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raina noor (talk • contribs) 19:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC) — Raina noor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  8. Oppose Sorry to do this, but this is my decision after reviewing the discussions. Gary King (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. This proposal is an unfortunate development, in that IMO it will undermine GA's strengths and magnify its weaknesses. One of GA's strengths is to be found in its best and most thorough reviewers engaging articles in detail; one of its weakness is that anyone can pass a GA, so any GA is only as good as its reviewer. This proposal is likely to increase GA nominations, stretch the best reviewers thin, and result in more quid-pro-quo passes of "my buddy's" inferior article in the quest for awards on the path to RfA. Many GA proposals garner a lot of support early on, as only the GA regulars are aware of the proposal, but are eventually defeated as other editors become aware. I expect this one may pass, as most editors won't see it having an impact on mainspace and won't see any harm in the proposal ... that is, until the abuses of process start to take over and undermine the better qualities of GA, and then it's likely to end up MfD'd, as yet another process abused of by award-seeking editors. Because any individual GA is only as good as its reviewer, it's unclear to me what a collection of GAs would mean. It is unfortunate that this proposal may tax the best GA reviewers, encourage faulty GA passes, affect the FT process, and likely create more articlehistory maintenance issues; this proposal unfortunately is likely to compound unresolved quality control issues in the GA process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:02, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that's a negative view of the future. Maybe, instead of opposing this due to problems with the good article process, you should look at ways the good article process could be improved? For example, you could have a select group of 5 or so trusted editors, who are allowed to randomly check reviews to ensure this kind of thing doesn't happen. Or perhaps you could have a rule to say that if an article at GAC is by someone who has reviewed one of your articles, you're not allowed to review it, to stop oneupmanship. After all, there's always plenty of articles needing reviewing. And perhaps we could change the rules of WP:GT? to say that editors are allowed to look into the quality of good article reviews there, too - rst20xx (talk) 18:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't want to re-open an old debate, but I've made several similar proposals in the past, which haven't been enacted (I prefer the idea of a GA clearing house). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the venue to be discussing improvements to the GA process, which I've long been a supporter of. I happen to agree with most of what SandyG says. This is a distraction, a duplication, and doesn't seem to be adding very much at the risk of damaging the GA project itself. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I like Sandy's explanation and I think it rings very true, especially being a fairly regular Good article reviewer myself. Gary King (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Dr Cash sums up my view pretty well in Neutral #2. I simply feel a little more strongly about it than he does. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Unless the criteria is thought out more I have to say no. Zginder 2008-08-20T22:16Z (UTC)
  12. The criteria are nearly identical to the FT criteria. If we're going to expand the "Good article" system to other areas, topics should probably be near the end of the list. The only "Featured *" system that has fewer * than topics (54) is Featured sounds (26), though FT has been around for 4 more months than FS. Mr.Z-man 23:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose: criteria to similar to featured topics as said elsewhere. Also, the GAN process is bottlenecked enough I reckon without getting a Good Topics underway too. Surely the time spent reviewing GTNs could be better spent reviewing GANs and getting rid of that bottleneck. Deamon138 (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Concerned about the criteria, as above. I might not be so opposed to it if the FT criteria were made a great deal more stringent so that there's no overlap. Sandy and Giggy also voice concerns that worry me. Nousernamesleft (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Per all above. Sceptre (talk) 18:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. This overlaps too heavily with FT. The only way I would support is if Good Topics COULD NOT have any featured articles. That would end the overlap right quick.--Danaman5 (talk) 21:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So how would that work? "Your article just improved in quality, which means you can no longer be a good topic, sorry. However, you're not good enough to be a featured topic, either" - rst20xx (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to misunderstand that it was people at FT that originally brought this proposal, not people at GA. Many of them feel that a split IS needed, and they're the ones that should know! That seems to be a common misunderstanding here - rst20xx (talk) 22:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, his point contradicts itself. OhanaUnitedTalk page 06:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Sceptre. I question the need to add more bureaucracy to a process that only has ~60 members (in this case, topics). bibliomaniac15 23:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral This seems like a good-hearted proposal, but I'm afraid I don't see the need for a whole separate project just to change one criteria. When I first saw the title "Good topics", I expected something more along the lines of a topic that consists of only good articles. That would have struck me as a better idea for a new process such as this. Moreover, at least it my eyes, a featured topic should be of higher quality than a good topic, so the featured topic should be the one with only good and featured articles. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a proposal for topics with all good articles. If you look at WP:WIAFT, you will see the criteria there are much more stringent. Cirt (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have been more clear—I meant a topic with exclusively GAs. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand, are you saying that a topic with all GAs - where one of its articles becomes FA but still does not have enough FAs to satisfy the criteria at WP:FT - would then lose its WP:GTOP status and not be able to become a WP:FT, and remain in limbo? That seems odd. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To echo Cirt, this is totally separate from the Featured projects, and is extension of WP:GA to it's natural conclusion. rootology (T) 19:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Julian, all articles being GAs is a requirement, none have to be FAs. The only exception is that lists must pass FL, as they need to have been given soem sort of formal classification to be eligible for the topic. And seeing as lists cannot be passed as GAs, the only formal classification would be for it to go through FLC. Qst (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I understand. Unfortunately, I still don't see the need for a this. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral I'm casting a 'non-negative' vote here. If other GA folks want to pursue this, I won't stop them. But I'm not sure if this is exactly the direction we want to take, as I'm not sure exactly how this will contribute to the overall encyclopedia we're trying to develop. For starters, this is actually the first I've even heard of "featured topics", and I don't think that process has really developed enough to warrant separating it into a new "good topics" area yet. It seems like doing so would add to more bureaucracy and take more time from folks that would be better spent improving and reviewing articles. Secondly, I think that the quality of GA has improved tremendously in the past year. I've seen the quality of reviews increase a lot, the backlog stabilize somewhat, and the overall process seems to be finding its niche in the overall review system as well as finding some sort of common ground between FA and GA. I also see lots of articles moving "through the system", attaining GA, then moving through peer review and A-class, and finally achieving FA status. I think we need to focus more on developing GA's reputation within the review community and how it integrates with the larger wikipedia community, rather than just instituting a new "good topics" program appears to be little more than a straight duplication of the "featured topics" program which already exists (e.g. GA does not have to be "FA-lite"). But if enough GA folks really want to pursue this, I won't necessarily stop them. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral My opinion reflects that of rst20xx in the support section and Arctic Gnome in the oppose section. I support the concept of Good Topics but not how it is laid out here. The Good Article project has gained a lot of ground in establishing a niche in the content review system. By splitting out a new, independent review process, it will be simply mirroring Featured Topics and further isolating the GA project. This is an opportunity to integrate the GA project further into the review system by using the existing infrastructure available within Feature Topics. I encourage using gradients of quality within one system, rather than two independent systems. maclean 00:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose — An entire new process seems like overkill to change one criteria. Since there is clearly support for GA-only topics, we should move to a discussion of the proposed three-tier system in the FA process. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral or Conditional support — I'm moving from oppose to neutral; I think there are some merrits to the idea, I just don't like the way it is being currently implemented. I'll support GT if the merged nomination system goes through. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  1. Comment - as the one who kicked this off, I've put a fair bit of thought into it. The reason I didn't create this proposal myself is that, while I see that having separate good topics is a good idea, I don't see that we need a separate process for nominating good topics, as the only difference between good topics and featured topics is that featured topics have a higher proportion of their content at featured quality. So what I'm saying is that if a topic is nominated whilst it has enough good content to be good, but then later gets enough featured content to be a featured topic, it should be able to automatically move from one to the other. How would you address this concern? rst20xx (talk) 20:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would address this by saying that, hopefully, the criteria at WP:WIAGT will be static and will not change over time. However, it is quite likely that the criteria at WP:WIAFT will not be static and will change over time. Therefore, it will most certainly not be a simple process to move from Good topic to Featured topic. Cirt (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So beyond strengthening of FA/FL requirements, what changes do you foresee FT criteria could undergo that GT criteria would not want to also undergo? rst20xx (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO, Good topic criteria would always remain the same. The criteria would never change. All articles in the topic must be WP:GA or WP:FA, all lists must be WP:FL. Cirt (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Also, if this proposal passes and "good topics" come into existence, it will give more weight to those pushing for more stringent requirements for featured topics, so we'll probably see the present 20% requirement move upwards, making the distinction between featured topics and good topics clearer. Furthermore, once this process gets going, I can foresee a lot more improvement drives for making GTs rather than improvement drives for making FTs, so WP:GTOP will be populated pretty quickly. Also, if the FT featured percentage requirement increases, we might have FTs becoming GTs as well. sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good points Sephiroth BCR (talk · contribs), agree on all. Cirt (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I just realized I already have a good topic - List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow (FL) + Soma Cruz (GA) + Alucard (Castlevania) (GA). More incentive for me in passing this :p sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry to say that neither of you are understanding what I'm saying. I agree that good topics are worth having, but as far as I see, they will only ever differ from featured topics in the criteria that featured topics have a certain number/percentage of featured articles. I do not see they will differ in any other way, and am yet to see anyone point out any other way they will differ. So, my comments deal with levels of overhead; something that passes as a good topic, and then gets enough featured articles/lists to be a featured topic, should in theory then be able to automatically become a featured topic without any additional nominating. In fact, it is possible, using categories, to make it so that topics automatically move from good to featured once they have a certain number and percentage of featured articles/lists (I outlined how to do it in the original discussion at featured criteria). But your proposal seems to require this extra step.
    So basically, what I'm saying is that I don't see that this requires a separate space from featured topics, but could in fact be merged into it, and have a combined space dealing with both good and featured topics. Can you provide any convincing reason why it shouldn't be merged into it? rst20xx (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you can convince the folks at WP:FT to this sort of automatic-promotion process with no additional 2nd nomination hurdle, and make it seamless from WP:GTOP to WP:FT when a topic has enough WP:FAs, that is one thing. But I actually kind of like having completely separate processes. For one thing, this way the layout on the main WP:GTOP page's Table of Contents can be structured exactly the same as it is on WP:Good articles. New Good topics could be announced in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Newsletter, there are many other advantages of this. Cirt (talk) 21:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (reset) We could actually do both of those things either way (just keep everything apart from the main page merged), and you really didn't give me a chance to convince the FT people to do both before you rushed off and made this. Not all that many FT people had replied, and only one (ONE!) really seemed against it. Further, you still haven't addressed my concerns. To paraphrase what you just said: "I actually like having completely separate processes. For one thing, here's a thing we could have separate which is the ONE BIT you haven't mentioned as should really be merged" - rst20xx (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Those extra featured articles are a big deal. If the requirements for a featured topic become more stringent (say 40-50%, which it probably will if this proposal passes), then there will be a big gap between a GT and a FT (usually 2-3 items of featured content). Taking an article through FAC is a much more daunting task than taking the same article through GAN. With a GT, you could possibly have an all-GA topic, and it will encourage improvement drives much more often than trying for a FT. I can see this page getting populated at a much faster rate than WP:FT due to the lower requirements. That said, I do agree that having two review pages (Good topic candidates or similar) is a bit redundant, and centralizing all GT and FT nominations on one page might be the right way to go (just have different sections). We just would have separate pages for the actual listing of topics (WP:GTOP and WP:FT). As for articles being promoted from GT to FT, if the criteria at WP:WIAFT is set at a percentage, then the transition should be seamless. The nomination for the initial topic for GT status should address whether the topic is suitable, if there is enough items, etc. Either that or you can nominate the good topic for featured topic status. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, merging the candidates pages and criteria pages is exactly what I'm proposing, you seem to understand me. No noms for FTs, or GTs, just noms to check if a topic is unified and has no notable gaps (which is basically what noms at WP:FTC currently check for), and then topics move between GT and FT as the number of FAs/FLs merits. I'm going to set up an additional proposal - rst20xx (talk) 22:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If consensus at WP:FT is agreeable to what you have just said, Rst20xx (talk · contribs), I think that is a good way to go. Cirt (talk) 22:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    However, it should also be noted that at least at this point in time, consensus here for this particular proposal seems to be strongly in favor of "Support". Cirt (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer that the nomination page have different sections for GTs and FTs. Same review process naturally, but you're placing topics on different pages and updating different areas. I would say it reduces any possible confusion on the matter. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that's true Cirt, but I bet it would have also been true for my proposal. Anyway, sephiroth, that completely makes sense, we can certainly have it so that noms for things that will be FTs appear in a first section on the page, and noms for things that will be GTs appear in a second section - rst20xx (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Comment - I think that many people are seeing this as WP:GA trying to expand, and as a result are focussing on GA and issues with that. However, this proposal in fact originally came from WP:FT trying to deal with some of the issues of the process there. Namely, the general feeling that if FT percentage criteria continue to go up, then some topics, such as the Simpsons ones, wouldn't be able to keep up, and yet they deserve to have some kind of recognition. See the first, second and seventh discussions at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria - rst20xx (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poll closed on 25 August 2008 after over 7 days. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup discussion on implementation found here - rst20xx (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguity of question will necessitate a follow-up straw poll[edit]

A big problem with the above straw poll is that some people are voting for whether or not Good Topics should exist at all, whereas others are voting for whether or not GT should have a separate nomination procedure. Most of the support votes do not even mention the debate about whether to have two nomination procedures. I personally like the idea of GTs but don't think that they need their own nomination space, so where should I have voted? The ambiguity of what people are voting for make using this straw poll tricky. If the above poll ends up with a consensus to support, we will need to have a follow-up poll that specifically asks the question of whether people want two separate but very similar nomination procedures. The second straw poll bellow is similar to the kind of poll that I'm asking for, but even it has led some some confusion among voters. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More or less, the present proposal is for whether the concept of good topics has support. The nomination procedure and so on are details that would be hammered out by subsequent discussion. IMO, I would have WP:FTC simply have two sections for GT noms and FT noms respectively. WP:GTOP and WP:FT can stay as separate pages, as the former will probably grow at a much faster rate than the latter. sephiroth bcr (converse) 06:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arctic Gnome, I agree. I tried in the second poll to clear this up, and it appears to have gained support, but there is much voter confusion. However, if the second proposal passes, this whole thing would be incredibly frustrating as it'd basically result in what was already being discussed in the first place - rst20xx (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to write a fully detailed, step-by-step plan of how exactly I would proceed - rst20xx (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've now done this at my userspace, and would like to bring it forward. Should I wait until the good topics nomination is over, or not? Please answer this question here - rst20xx (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Straw Poll for additional proposal designed to complement the former[edit]

Description[edit]

The only difference between featured topics and the proposed good topics is that the latter requires a certain number and percentage of featured articles/lists, whilst the former will not. Hence, I add to the above proposal that good topics and featured topics have one nomination/demotion process, which simply checks that topics meet criteria 1, 2, 3.b) and 3.c) of the current featured topic criteria, and if a topic passes this, the topic is promoted to be a good or featured topic as appropriate. Then, after that, topics moving between being good and being featured (or vice versa) will be based on whether the topic starts to meet or stops meeting FT criteria 3, and a move would require no additional nomination procedure. This moving can in fact be largely, if not fully, automated, using categories (I know how to do this and would be happy to program it). Additionally, I think we can merge the WP:GT? and WP:FT? pages, and can also merge the featured and good topic logs. In essence, the only pages that wouldn't serve both would be the main pages of each. To have the rest separate would present redundant overhead - rst20xx (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poll results[edit]

Poll closed at 04:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC) - 9 Support, 1 Oppose, 2 Neutral, 2 Comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support
  1. As proposer - rst20xx (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, simplifies the whole process, and Good topics can be indicated by the Good article cluster symbol so there is no confusion. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support, if we're going to do multiple tiers, I'd rather do it this way than a break-off. --PresN (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support. - I have given this some thought and though I don't think this is the best way to go, it is certainly a fine alternative to the above, or perhaps even complement to it. Cirt (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I feel this is a good thing because in this way their are topics that are not yet featured but are of good quality, and meet a criteria that can classify them as "Wikipedias 'Good' Work".--SRX 01:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, though more talk needed — I have some reservations about how the main page of GTopics would work, but it certainly makes sense to merge processes that are nearly identical. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - only having the nomination process on the same page. I would prefer the criteria to be separate, and WP:GTOP and WP:FT to exist as separate listing pages. sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The only difference between the criteria is 3.a) and 3.b). Hence, I think we should merge them now, and if they diverge further then we can always break them apart again - rst20xx (talk) 22:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not be opposed to merging at this point (providing we mark clearly that WP:GTOP does not require any percentage to be featured) but would rather we wait on actually doing the merge until the polls are over. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - this is preferable to avoid further divisions in the review process. maclean 03:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support — Only makes sense. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose

Oppose. - If there is a consensus to go ahead with WP:GTOP, I would be strongly against merging the WP:GT? and WP:FT? pages. Cirt (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you would be in favour of merging the nomination pages? I think it's very naive to think that criteria changes to one won't happen to the other... rst20xx (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point in time after further thought on this I do not think I would be in favor of merging the nomination pages. The intention of WP:GTOP and WP:FT are different enough to have different processes. Cirt (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If they start to diverge (which I can't see them doing), then we could split them. But I ask, how do you think they might diverge? rst20xx (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They have already diverged. The intentions of both pages are completely different. The processes may be the same because one was initially modeled on the other, but the due to the varying nature of both pages (one with ever-changing criteria and one with stable and static criteria) I think it best for them to be kept as separate processes. Cirt (talk) 02:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I quite clearly meant, how might the nomination procedures diverge? At the moment they seem exactly the same to me - rst20xx (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably it is also possible that the nomination process for WP:GTOP might proceed a bit faster, as the criteria are more straightforward. Therefore we might even think about reducing the required minimum nomination discussion period. Cirt (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the entirety of the debate at WP:FTC is about whether there are any obvious gaps, not whether a topic meets criteria 3 - as it is incredibly easy to check if a topic meets criteria 3 or not. And all this discussion would still have to occur here. Further, if you did reduce the time, this wouldn't mean the two things would need separate pages. It is already established above that the two things would probably have separate sections so people don't get confused which they're voting on, and hence which version of 3 to read - rst20xx (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree and think that the two should be separate processes as the nature of the two is different and will continue to be different and diverge. We are starting to repeat ourselves a bit, perhaps it is best if we both take a break and a breather from this discussion and see what others think. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Strong oppose. This proposed GT does not require any FAs - it only requires lists to be FL if any are included, as FL is the only formal classification that can be given to a list. Strongly against merging the two. Qst (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Err, neither does what I proposed... rst20xx (talk) 13:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That comment by me must have been meant to go somewhere else on this page, then, but I remain strongly against merging the two as you suggested. Qst (talk) 15:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No point to having a good topics if it's structured that much like featured topics. The central idea of the good topics proposal was to create a vetted quality category without forcing editors to jump through the hoops of FAC. That's very much worth having; it motivates editors to create more good articles and raise the general quality of topics. This "small" change would reintroduce the precise layer of bureaucracy that the original proposal was designed to avoid. DurovaCharge! 04:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstood the proposal. This would allow people to nominate topics of GAs without having to set up a new nomination page that's nearly identical to the existing one. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Moving to neutral. Good articles do fine with independent standards; I'm not convinced that twinning good topics to featured topics is an effective idea. Featured topic standards have changed several times; if they change again, would that automatically cascade to good topics? DurovaCharge! 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No. It depends on the change - rst20xx (talk) 21:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral
  1. Neutral: I'm still on the fence about this whole thing. This sounds like a reasonable idea, but one that should be explored at a later time. I feel with only 54 topics, it doesn't make much sense to divide them. I also worry about confusion over the distinction of a good topic versus a featured topic to our readers. I'm not sure what the implications would be in regard to good topics on the Portal:Featured content. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    IMO, Good topics should not be included at Portal:Featured content. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per comments above. DurovaCharge! 20:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  1. Comment. - I am not yet certain that instruction creep won't occur for the criteria here as well. As I said above, I think the WP:WIAGT criteria should be simple, static, and should not change over time - All articles must be WP:GA or WP:FA, and all lists must be WP:FL. I don't think we really need this "audited level of quality" thing. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly disagree with that. The reason that is in place at WP:FT is so that articles which can't attain GA can be included, and so topics can be complete. And if you don't include it here from the start, I am sure it will quickly get included through a vote for a change to the criteria. Further, as I said above, tell me where you think there's room for instruction creep, because I see none - rst20xx (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, now you've pointed out to me that you've taken out 3.c), I'm going to have to oppose your proposal - rst20xx (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) - That can be open for debate, but that is just my opinion. Articles listed at WP:GTOP should at the very least be able to all attain WP:GA-status, see also this comment (above) by Juliancolton (talk · contribs). And as far as instruction creep, as it is very prevalent at WP:WIAFT, that is a stark contrast to WP:WIAGT, which hopefully will be static and never change. Cirt (talk) 01:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree about instruction creep at WP:FT, I think changes in instructions so far have been along the lines of a very slow initial codification than subsequent policy changes. And further, I still don't see that there'll be any future policy changes, a charge you're ignoring. But anyway, as for audited articles, it seems we're now discussing this twice, so let's only talk about it at my oppose above - rst20xx (talk) 01:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay sounds good. We shall have to respectfully agree to disagree about the nature of WP:FT. Cirt (talk) 01:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Comment - the "audited" quality item should be in. It exists basically for items that are notable enough for articles, but currently cannot pass at GAN or FLC because it isn't comprehensive (i.e. a season of a TV series that hasn't finished airing, a video game in a series that hasn't been released yet, etc.). As for the merging of the criteria, I disagree with that. The good topic criteria will never change - it's the absolute minimum bar. The featured topic criteria, however, will be subject to change based on the state of current consensus on the matter. It's not a big deal to keep the two sets of criteria pages. IMO, keeping both of them separate works towards differentiating GTs and FTs. sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously I will defer to community consensus on whatever is decided - so if consensus is to keep using the "audited quality" part of WP:FT? in the WP:GT? process, I will certainly go along with that. But I am still strongly against merging the WP:GT? and WP:FT? pages. Cirt (talk) 12:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, well so far, I've heard 3 people (myself, Ruslik and now sephiroth) commenting in favour of audited articles, and only you commenting against... rst20xx (talk) 13:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I don't think I will change my own position on it, merely that I would defer to consensus. I just can't wrap my head around the idea that at WP:FT, all articles could be "audited" quality, (which does not exist whatsoever as a quality-rating at WP:1.0) with 20% Featured-quality, and zero WP:GAs, and be a "featured topic". That just seems quite odd indeed. Cirt (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At WP:FT there are currently only 5 audited articles, out of 432. One topic has three of them, but this only makes up 12.5% of the articles in this topic. The other two topics with an audited article have 1/7, or 14%, and 1/15, or 7%, audited. While obviously I can't be specific about such a hypothetical situation, I suspect that if such a topic occurred where a large percentage would be merely audited, then what would actually happen is that several of the more minor ones would be merged together, to form articles that would be substantial enough to get GA/FL - rst20xx (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't know, to me the idea of "audited quality" is something that is just so foreign and outside of every single other quality-rating process anywhere on Wikipedia. It seems quite odd. If it were already a built-in and accepted part of the quality rating system inherent at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment, then that would be a different matter entirely, but it is not. It is not even a rating used on any WikiProject. Cirt (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While I see where you're coming from, it was decided that a completed peer review was the fairest way to ensure the quality of those articles which aren't GA/FL. We can't even guarantee these articles are B-class, or maybe even C-class, because some are very limited in scope - rst20xx (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I sort of get that, I guess I would be a bit more sympathetic to that type of notion if someone had tried and failed a couple times to get those articles past WP:GAN, instead of giving in to the "audited quality" that only exists at WP:FT... Cirt (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, interesting you say that. I hope you notice that there are no audited articles so far, only audited lists. As to this point, no article has failed to pass GA. In fact, if you look at my first reply here, I say that "I would oppose any inclusion of a non-GA, unless that non-GA has been nominated for GA, and failed solely due to inherent shortness". I would do the same for featured lists, however all the existing audited lists got through before I came to be involved in the project so I was unable to. Having said that, one I wouldn't have opposed as it did just what you're saying - if you'll look here, List of Nunavut general elections failed an FLC solely due to shortness - rst20xx (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then why not change WP:FT? to read that the "audited quality" parameter only applies to Lists, and that all articles must be WP:GAs or WP:FAs? Cirt (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well this is de facto what the situation has been so far, but if someone came along with an article that failed GA for the reason of being limited, and we'd changed the criteria, then I guarantee you, some people would oppose the topic, and then we'd be stuck, wouldn't we? - rst20xx (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "stuck" you mean we demand a higher level of quality-rating before topics are nominated at WP:FTC, then yes. If you mean lowering the standards specifically because people do not even want to try to put their articles and lists through WP:GAC/WP:FLC because they assume that there is no chance they will pass or can be improved enough to pass, then IMO that is a defeatist attitude on the part of those nominators before even trying to improve the article/list further. Cirt (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (long overdue reset :P) Well I meant the former, as I said, the person in my example "came along with an article that failed GA for the reason of being limited" - rst20xx (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But anyway, none of this has any bearing on inherently unstable articles, which cannot be GAs/FAs/FLs due to their instability, and rightly so. How would it be possible to promote an article for a TV series, when it changes every week due to new episodes? Similarly, what about a videogame that has yet to be released? This article will undergo huge changes come release date to the point that it would not be recognisable. And yet these articles need to be included in topics from their point of inception, or else the topic is incomplete, it has a notable gap - rst20xx (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure, though perhaps you do have a point for inherently unstable articles only, if they have been through a peer review and all points addressed from the peer review, and if it is blatantly obvious that a WP:GAC/WP:FLC would fail due to the fact that the article/list will be changing significantly in content in the near future. Cirt (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said on your talk page, I would be in favour of changing the rules to force all short but stable articles/lists to go through GAC/FLC before they can be considered for passing as audited articles of limited subject matter - rst20xx (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yay! - Okay great, after some good constructive dialogue I think this is a very good agreement/consensus for changes to WP:FT? and WP:GT?. Cirt (talk) 21:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oookay... I agree, I think we're just ironing out a kink now, over peer reviews. However, this was only one of two issues, the other being, whether GTs should be integrated into FTs. Now, I see you've supported that above. Here's what I propose: We start with them integrated (apart from the main pages of each), and then, if you (or anyone for that matter) later think that articles (such as the nomination procedure, the candidates page, the logs, etc etc) merit splitting in two, then these be proposed for splitting at that time. This way, if the two projects turn out not to diverge, then we have no redundancy, but equally, if they do turn out to diverge in a certain place or places, then it would be no extra work to split that divergent place or those divergent places at that time of divergence (if you follow me!) - rst20xx (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree, there is a huge possibility of having two redundant processes, and it makes total sense that they share the same criteria page, topics list, and nomination/demotion process. The only real change that would be needed is that the Good Topics would be marked by the Good Article cluster symbol to differentiate them from the Featured Topics, so we can tell them apart. Also, this radically simplifies what needs to be done to implement this very good idea than it would if we set up two separate processes and pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Judgesurreal777 (talk • contribs)
    I still think it would be a good idea to have separate pages for WP:GT? and WP:FT?, or at least to be very very clear that the criteria for WP:GTOP will remain static and will not change over time, as WP:FT? will. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Un-indent) Cirt, unfortunately, I don't think that's not something that can be promised. Wikipedia's guidelines, policies, FA criteria, GA criteria, and everything else related to quality has always tried to move forward in a positive direction. The open nature of a wiki contradicts the idea of static content. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Poll closed on 25 August 2008 after over 7 days. Cirt (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Followup discussion on implementation found here - rst20xx (talk) 14:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

FYI, images to use for WP:GTOP:

Many thanks to Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Increase in the featured content percentage for FTs[edit]

It seems that concerns have arisen that GTs are too similar to FTs, and I agree. However, the creation of GTs was originally born out of a discussion concerning raising the bar for FTs in terms of the amount of featured content. Currently, 20% of the topic needs to be of featured quality, which doesn't create a big gap between GTs and FTs (considering that many GTs will have featured lists given the need for a main article, many of which are lists). As such, raising the bar for FTs to say 50-60% (rounded down instead of up) of the topic for featured content would create a larger gap. These are just numbers I'm throwing out for discussion, but the creation of GTs does lend weight to those who clamored initially for raising the standards for FTs, so raising the bar for FTs seems to be a natural extension of creating GTs. sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This can't really be decided here, it would have to go to the FT page, but I don't see it gaining much ground there. You would have a hard time making a rule change that would cut the number of existing FTs in half. The only way I can see the discussion here affecting the FT rules is if some agreement is reached to merge the nomination process into a tiered system. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50% rounded down would push down 14 FTs out of the current 54. 8 of those 14 would be off by one item of featured content. Two of the remaining six are the Simpsons topics that were widely seen as prime candidates to be pushed down as a result of any increase in the criteria. So it's not a giant catastrophe, and certainly not half of the current FTs. Anyhow, I don't mind discussion taking place at WT:WIAFT or WT:FTC, but saw it relevant to raise the point here since it addresses the small gap between GT and FT. sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, it would still tend to lower the quality of FT as the ones more likely to be kept would be ones that consisted of more FLs, which are much easier to write. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, think this is a discussion for WT:WIAFT - rst20xx (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow small percentage of B's[edit]

I agree with the above comments that the gap between GT's and FT's is too thin. Since Featured Topics allow Good Articles to be included, I think that Good Topics should allow B's. Since Good Articles are easier to get than Featured Articles, obviously we can't allow 80% to be B's, but perhaps a smaller percent. How about this:

  • All articles included in a good topic must be of B-class quality or higher. Lists will be considered separately
  • A Featured Article or Featured List is worth 5 points, a Good Article 3 points, and a B-Class Article 1 point. B-Class Articles must be audited to confirm their status; non-Featured Lists must be audited to assign a point value to them; ineligible (short) articles must be audited, but will receive 0 points. See FT (3c) for more info. As a whole, the articles in the topic must average at least 2.5 points each.

How does this sound? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As long as GT is some sort of subset of FT, I say no. Absolutely not. Rename it to "Pretty good topics", distance it from Featured Topics, and you can do whatever you want, but as long as its attached to FT, I would be very opposed to any inclusion of sub-standard self-assessed articles in something that tries to call itself a collection of good and excellent articles. --PresN (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. There's no fail-proof way to review B-class articles, unless we create yet another process (but I know people will strongly oppose this as if FA and GA are not enough to cope with) OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have written several B-class articles, and although they have a lot of useful content, they still suck in one way or another (or I'd have taken them to GA already). Improving a B-class article to GA usually takes a couple of days (plus GAN queue review time), which isn't too much to ask for a GT. I therefore do not support this proposal. – sgeureka t•c 10:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While this sounds like a reasonable idea, I don't think it is practical. Because the quality control of B-class articles is so vastly different from GA and FA, there is not enough guarantee of a Good Topic maintaining a certain level of quality. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • I completely disagree with this proposal, for the reasons given above, and seeing as how the original proposal I made was actually proposing that FT goes up and GT takes the spot of FT - rst20xx (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No way in heck should B articles be allowed. They aren't assessed by anyone specifically; an article can be bumped to B-class by one person but easily be considered Start-class by another. Gary King (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Disagree with this proposal, per OhanaUnited (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 21:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that B-class articles must be checked as well, during the nomination process, to make sure they are really B-class. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But there's no requirement for a formal nomination process. Someone could just take an article and make it B-class and if it's a good C class it could quite possibly go unnoticed - rst20xx (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lists[edit]

I support the general concept of a Good Topic as a complement to the Good Article project. What I'd suggest first is the creation of a Good List process to better parallel the GA/FA concept. Under my idea, a GT would then only need GA/GL articles. Otherwise a GT would mandate a level of feature-quality articles included that might make it too close to the FT criteria, blurring the distinction. Also, I'd further support a GT project if the FT project increases the bar on feature-quality articles in a FT, or even drops the audited article requirements. Imzadi1979 (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good lists have been brought up several times before, but the general consensus is to not have them. I believe the rationale is that a list either works or it doesn't. So there technically can't be a middle tier between a List-Class and a Featured List-Class. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Good lists have been turned down several times. The gap between a FL and a list that should be merged into a parent list or article is not large enough to justify the creation of GLs. sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I really wish people would try and understand why there are audited requirements. They're not there as another way to beef up strictness. They're there as otherwise the rules would contradict themselves, so they can't (and shouldn't) just be removed; "no notable gaps" + "must all be GAs" + "this article here is too unstable/inherently short to be GA" = contradiction - rst20xx (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_topics/Straw_poll&oldid=1142665289"