Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates/2012

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

UK Singles Chart topic?

It has suddenly struck me that the lists of number ones on the UK Singles Charts from the 1950s to the 2000s are all featured. If we could hypothetically get the UK Singles Chart article up to GA status, would this make for a potential featured topic? I ask because I have absolutely no experience in FT area. It'd look something like this:

edit | discuss
UK Singles Chart
7 articles
1950s number ones
1960s number ones
1970s number ones
1980s number ones
1990s number ones
2000s number ones

There are similar lists relating to Christmas number ones and Posthumous number ones on the chart that are also featured - could these be included as well? Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

In that situation, the main topic would be List of UK Singles Chart number ones, rather than just UK Singles Chart. Once that's an FL though then it seems like a solid topic to me. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Dang, I don't think that article ever really could be a FL - it's basically just a list of lists. Might be something to think about though. Thanks very much. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Lists of lists are often grand for featured status—several Featured Topics lead with a list of lists, so have a good poke around for some of those to get a feel for how one would be best done. GRAPPLE X 19:47, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
This one, for example. GRAPPLE X 19:56, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... You know, you've actually given me an idea now. Cheers, Grapple X! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 23:19, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI this was originally my plan. I got the remaining lists to FL and I had started to improve UK Singles Chart with a view to completing the topic. I managed the first two and a half sections of the History, the Broadcasting, Records and alternative charts done but I never finished the History and hadn't checked the Criteria for inclusion (some of their development is included in History). I also think List of UK charts and number-one singles (1952–1969), which I created, should probably be included as there was no pre-1969 UK Singles Chart. There might be stuff in my userspace of use but I won't be doing much in the near future and am probably considered inactive. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Question

If I have promoted 10 out of 11 articles within a topic to GA, can I still nominate for Good Topic? Calvin • Watch n' Learn 01:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes of course you can, just let the remaining article's promoter know about your nomination. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:11, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks. Calvin • Watch n' Learn 01:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
It would depend for the reason the 11th topic isn't a GA yet. If it's waiting at GAN or can't be one for whatever reason, it's fine. If it just hasn't been worked on yet, that'd be a problem. I imagine the situation is the former though. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple nominations

Are multiple nominations allowed at GTC? I can't see anything permitting or forbidding it, but I might have overlooked something. I ask because I'm one GAN away from having a topic candidate ready, and still have one on the nominations page. The next (and any subsequent) GTC I put forth will count towards the 2012 Wikicup so I'd rather not find out the hard way that multiple noms are disallowed, but I'd also not want to play it safe and wait for this first one to finally wrap up if it turned out not to be necessary. GRAPPLE X 02:41, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple noms are fine. I'll try and find some time to close a few this weekend, my edits are next to nil this month alas. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Help?

Hi, I was wondering if I could get some help here. This nomination was initiated in November. Since then, it has gotten all supports. What is taking this one so long? I realize there is a bit of a back log, but... TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll close what I can today and thursday (would have done it wednesday but can't now). Unfortunately all three of us are dropping the ball on the backlog, definitely too many noms. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Backlog

I hate to sound like a dick, but is this process moving any more? There are nominations approaching three months old with no noted problems, including one with seven supports; while there's also a stale nomination with multiple opposes and no serious attempts at fixing the issues. At the very least, passing and failing those two might help things move along, but things definitely seem to need a toe in the backside here. Is an additional set of hands required (I know that promoting a topic does require a fair heft of grunt work)? GRAPPLE X 23:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm willing to do it, but I'm not sure what to do. I know a lot about the FT process, so I can help more if someone helps me out. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
Likewise, I don't mind doing the heavy lifting if that's all the the problem is. GRAPPLE X 12:30, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
There are 3 delegates that are supposed to take care of this. The problem is that the promotion procedure listed at Wikipedia:Featured_topic_candidates/Nomination_procedure#Promotion_procedure are fairly complicated and people outside delegates that have done promotions have skipped some of the steps. If you guys do it just make sure you go through all the steps. Nergaal (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
I guess the question is why aren't these 3 delegates taking care of this. If there are obvious cases where topics should have been promoted by now (like the ones cited above), I see no problem in another editor stepping up and taking care of it if they can follow all the steps to do the promotion correctly. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm comfortable taking the necessary caution to follow all of the steps of the procedure, but I'd not be comfortable actually promoting/rejecting without the involvement of one of the delegates. If one of them wanted to simply sign off on any of the nominations (the two listed above are the most clear-cut so would be a good start) then I'd be glad to pitch in with the rest of the steps. GRAPPLE X 14:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Most nominations are usually pretty clear cut, and either meet the criteria or not. If a nomination has been open for at least a month and has nothing but supports it should probably just be promoted. There is really no need to drag out a nomination longer than that unless there is some problem that has been brought up. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
There are indeed a good number of those topics that can be closed immediately. Unfortunately the only reason I haven't yet is an utter lack of time on the site; each topic takes a good while to close and I haven't even had a 30 minute block free to put aside in weeks. If one of you guys want to close one of those bottom two you're more than welcome to, and I can clean up anything that went wrong. There's a lot of steps but if you do all of them then it's hard to mess it up. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 15:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
Have promoted the Bond topic; if someone wants to double-check that I did everything properly I'd appreciate that. GRAPPLE X
Isn't it possible to request a bot to do all of those steps, similarly to how FLCs and FACs are closed these days? Nergaal (talk) 22:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I imagine a bot could update the article history template provided it had something to work with at first—if all articles in a topic nomination used a nom template on their talk pages, it would probably be quite simple to have a bot automate that whole step. The rest of it's pretty quickly done by hand though, dunno if that would benefit from automation or not. Iunno. GRAPPLE X 22:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Removal candidates

Had a quick look at Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria#Retention, and three topics listed there have met or exceeded their deadlines for promoting content or being removed; none of the three have succeeded in doing so. Given that Wikipedia:Featured topics/Atlantic Coast Conference football championship games has missed this mark by nearly three months, and Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games has missed it by two months, is it worth opening up a full removal request? Wikipedia:Featured topics/Family Guy (season 5) has only reached that mark today so I'll open that one now, but the other two have come and gone by quite some time; what's the usual way to handle that? GRAPPLE X 05:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed this now; those other two are going to have to be put up at FTRC. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 23:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Backlog again

Hey everyone, looking at the history, no topics have been promoted since June. Can this serve as a poke to the delegates to clear out the older nominations that have sufficient support? ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:52, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Might be best to poke the delegates on their respective talk pages for a quicker response. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 11:21, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    I'll do what I can promoting (closed a couple FTRCs yesterday, will do the rest today), but being the only guy tackling this on top of one of the only guys handling the GA drive takes awy far more time then I actually have for the site. It should get back to normal within a couple weeks. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    I feel like before there were delegates, the topic nominations were closed at a much better pace. I'm not trying to knock you guys, I'm sure you're busy with other things. But I'm wondering if designating only a few delegates and excluding other editors from helping close old nominations is the best thing for FTC. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    At this point just letting people close would be fine. Only reason I made the delegates was to make sure closes were done properly; if someone wants to close a couple they're more than welcome to. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

All the topics have a clear consensus if someone wants to give promoting one a try. I can double-check contribs to make sure everything was tackled. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

  • It took me several hours to do it, but I've promoted 15 GTCs. Given that there were so many, and this is my first time doing it, there's bound to be a mistake or two, so would you mind checking behind me? Only thing left is to create the categories, but that should be done by the night is over. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    Had a look; all the articles in the topics need their article history updated rather than just the lead article; I'll go over some of those now and fill that in. GRAPPLE X 00:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    Messed up the count too at Wikipedia:Good topics/count. There were of course more than 15 articles total. I'll figure that out now though. You also forgot the categories for nearly all of them. Quite a few steps missed, but at least you got the main ones down. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 00:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    X-Files Mythology, Volume 3 has had all articles updated. Will post other topics as they're done so we're on top of what's still needing attention. GRAPPLE X 00:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    Well, as I said in my original message, I was planning to finish the Categories/talk pages in just a little bit. But, if y'all are willing to do it, go right ahead. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    I'll leave the categories for you as I bloody hate triple checking I've done them right (they appear as redlinks now so it's easier to get the titles right if you take a page from each topic and follow them). I've also finished Millennium season 1's article histories now. GRAPPLE X 01:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    According to what TheAustinMan (talk · contribs) is saying on IRC, I believe that all the categories are finished. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    TXF season 8 closed up too. GRAPPLE X 03:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
To do
  • Pearl Jam studio albums  Done
    Fringe (season 3)  Done
    Mythology of The X-Files, Volume 2  Done
    The Office (U.S. TV series) season 1  Done
    The X-Files (season 6)  Done
    The X-Files (season 7)  Done
    The X-Files (season 8)  Done
    Doctor Who (series 5)  Done
    Broken Sword  Done
    Video games developed by Key  Done
    Battleships of Greece  Done
    1989 Pacific hurricane season  Done
    I will get these tomorrow if you want me to. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 04:38, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    Whatever suits; it's mostly a bookkeeping task as the guts of the thing's already been done. I'll be away for a day or two so what I've done now is all I'll be doing til the weekend again but I can pick right back up again if you'd rather leave them. If you do do them, just watch the X-Files ones for topic overlaps, remember to add |ft2name= if there's a second topic involved. GRAPPLE X 04:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    All done. Wizardman said I could promote/oppose articles given that he was busy, and you can take a break if need be. TropicalAnalystwx13 (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I was wondering, why were my two topics on Third Day albums (Revelation and Move) not promoted? One person isn't very strong consensus but there haven't been any comments or objections in nearly a month. Toa Nidhiki05 00:55, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Likely because they only have one support. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
      • There should almost never be any promotions without 3 or so supports. Nergaal (talk) 07:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Botting up the closure procedure?

It would make sense to try to setup one of the feature content closure bots to run FTC and GTC closures. I think the steps could be easily automated. Nergaal (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I left a note at User_talk:Gimmetrow#FTC and GTC closure procedures for those interested. Nergaal (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
If possible (not sure if it is) then it would help greatly. Topics can take a good 20 minutes to close and the articlehistory stuff is half that. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is part of the reason why it is backed up IMO. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
I think this idea of having a bot handle the topic promotion has come up before. Hopefully this time we can find a way to see it through since manually promoting topics is such a time-consuming pain in the ass. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:41, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest

I'm planning a FT based on the North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest, and the nature reserves which make up 80% of its area. The main reserves are

This leaves four reserves with small size and/or limited access probably not capable of even GA

I thought of dealing with these in the Nature reserves in the North Norfolk Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest (current FLC) and, for the two sites adjoining larger reserves, to mention them in the relevant article. What do you think? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The former approach would work; it's how the hurricane topics are generally handled. Though you'd be surprised what can make it through GA in terms of size, as long as quality is good and there's the evidence of a solid level of comprehensiveness to explain the size. If the smaller articles aren't going to make it through GA though you'd need to see about merging them into another article; if they stand alone as their own articles then they would need to be included. GRAPPLE X 14:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that the smallest 3 ones aren't worth a separate article. Nergaal (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I'm a long way off yet, not even started on research yet for two of the potential FAs; If the smallest reserves can't reach GA, I'll bury them in a larger topic. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:19, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

River Martin

It's been some time since I posted a candidacy, so just checking that the rules haven't changed. River martin is part of a current GT with White-eyed River Martin and African River Martin as the other two article. The first of these is now an FA, and the second is at FAC. Assuming the FAC is successful, do I need to do anything else for FTC? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope, once you hit that 50% mark that's all it needs. Just remember to remind one of us when it happens and the topic can be bumped up. I've amended it already to reflect the article which is currently featured. GRAPPLE X 13:17, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Great, thanks for that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:26, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Template

I just noticed that Template:Featured topic log is about to run out of space after this month. Should more months be added or something? GamerPro64 16:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Added everything for 2013. Was considering going from monthly to yearly for the FT and GT logs, but there are frequent enough promotions that those should be fine. Wizardman 02:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

crag martins

edit | discuss
Crag martin
5 articles
Eurasian crag martin
Dusky crag martin
Rock martin
Pale crag martin

This FT formerly contained four topics, but the former Rock Martin is now generally split into two species, the new one being Pale Crag Martin. I've successfully taken Pale Crag Martin to FA (still waiting for the bot to update the history), and added it to the topic as above. I'm assuming there is nothing else I need to do other than post the FT history onto the new article's talk page once the bot has been through. Please let me know if I'm wrong Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

  • As a new article, you'll need to follow the "Adding new articles to an existing topic" process on Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure. As silly as it seems in this case, the rules say a new article has to be nominated, not simply added, even though it is purely a formality here. Courcelles 08:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Maya Angelou FT

Hi, it's one of WP goals to have a Maya Angelou FT created in 2013. Since my first edit of the main BLP article back in 2008, at the beginning of my editing career, I've worked almost alone at improving it and improving and creating other MA-themed articles. As of now, articles have been created about all six of her autobiographies, and 2 are FAs. (I didn't create the first, about I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, but I did lead it through its FAC.) See here [1] for my lame attempt at gauging where we are thus far. I'd like some input about whether a MA FT is even possible; one of the obstacles I foresee is the gaps in the topic. The sources out there about MA don't warrant the expansion of many of these potential articles, even to GA. Do folks here think that this topic would be better suited to a GT, or would a subtopic be acceptable? Thanks for the advice and input, which will be much appreciated. Happy New Year. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

What are you planning on the topic to be? Is it on her autobiographies or every literary work she's made? Because to be quite honest, having one for just her autobiographies can work. GamerPro64 00:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, I assumed, from my understanding of the criteria, that I had to submit it with every possible article about her, which included all her autobiographies, poetry, and other stuff she's done. If we could have a FT on just her autobiographies, my understanding is that all we'd need is the six articles about them, two of which are already FAs, which means that we'd only need one more to fulfill the 50%. That doesn't include MA's BLP. I'd also seriously considering including Themes in Maya Angelou's autobiographies (FA) and List of Maya Angelou works (FL), which would bring the total to 9, which means that with 5 out of 9 FA/FLs, it would qualify today. Is that a correct interpretation, she asks hopefully? ;) And perhaps as we get closer to the larger goal of a MA FT for more articles about her, we could add it later, right? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Everything in a topic has to be of GA/FL/FA quality, with some narrow exceptions (mainly for stuff that would fail the stability requirements of those processes). Depending on the scope of the topic, however, List of Maya Angelou works could be considered sufficent to cover the ground of her published body of work of things not notable enough to pas GA. But as a rule of thumb, anything that could be a GA has to be in a topic, it isn't just "9 articles, 5 FA's, done", the quality of the other four matters, too. Courcelles 06:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
I understand. The other four articles I mention are GAs, and it's my intention to eventually bring them to FAC as well. Your response brings up another question for me, though: Would we be able to create a MA FT with the current qualities of the articles we have at this point? Let me break it down for you; here are the status of the articles that could potentially go into a FT for Angelou:

Here are the status of additional articles with the potential to go into this FT:

Thanks for the input; it's muchly appreciated. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

  • If you take out the Maya Angelou article, and put the list of works at the top, then include all these articles (including the bottom) and then reasn why the other works she did are not worth a separate article, then you will have a great topic. Nergaal (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
An overview topic would have to include List of awards and nominations received by Maya Angelou also. If you get the last to FL then you can have an overview topic with the awards, themes and works, and with Maya Angelou as the lead FA. Nergaal (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
So it looks like there are at least a couple of ways we could do this. For now, I'll submit the above-mentioned list to FLC, and get back to you guys later. Thanks! Yippee, I'm closer to this than I thought! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

2013 WikiCup

Hi, this is just a note to say that the 2013 WikiCup will be starting soon, with signups remaining open throughout January. The WikiCup is an annual competition in which competitors are awarded points for contributions to the encyclopedia, focussing on audited content (such as good articles, featured articles, featured pictures and such) and high importance articles. It is open to new and old Wikipedians and WikiCup participants alike. Even if you don't want to take part, you can sign up to receive the monthly newsletters. Rules can be found here. Any questions can be directed to the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_and_good_topic_candidates/2012&oldid=1142529123"