Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates/2021

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Is this kind of good topic allowed?

So, here's the topic (so far, at least):

Paper Mario (series)

7 articles

Paper Mario

Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door

Super Paper Mario

Paper Mario: Sticker Star

Paper Mario: Color Splash

Paper Mario: The Origami King

I've asked this question before in the past but didn't receive a concrete answer, and now the topic has arisen again: Although the list is a larger scope, is a good topic allowed to scope in on a specific portion of said list? As above, this covers only Paper Mario. However, the list is about every role-playing game, such as the Mario & Luigi series and others. Does it have to include all of this? If so, here's what it would look like, and it's gonna take much more work:

P anini ^🥪 01:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If there's no Paper Mario series page that topic won't work out. The second one might. GamerPro64 02:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

GamerPro64, Do you mean it's own series page? It's got its own spot in the larger list. P anini ^🥪 02:51, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes it needs it's own Wikipedia page. GamerPro64 03:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Hoo boy. Well, after multiple discussions (even recently, and every time declined) about splitting Paper Mario to its own article, looks like I got a lot of work on my hands. Thanks for the response. P anini ^🥪 03:40, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

There's definitely room for Paper Mario (series) to be an actual article, rather than just a redirect, at which point that article would be the lead for your proposed GT. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that. @Panini!: where was the split proposal declined? I see a bit of chat about it on Talk:List of Mario role-playing games, dated to 2008, 2017 and 2019, but if anything there looks like a slight consensus to go ahead and split. I'd say just do it per WP:BOLD and take it from there! Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

I bet everyone was thinking something like "List of Paper Mario games" but not a "Paper Mario (series)", which is what I'm planning to do. I started up a draft here. P anini ^🥪 16:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Might be something to look for

Since around October/November, there has been an ongoing FA sweeps to check on quality of older FAs. Since then, 53 featured articles have been delisted, mostly from before 2010. I haven't been keeping too close of track on the featured topic end, but I know at least some like Jupiter and Chew Valley Lake are part of featured topics. There might be some need of some sort of periodic checkup on some of the featured topics, given that FAR delistings have really picked up. Hog Farm _Talk 04:22, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

We kind of have this, yes. See Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria/Retention. I tried to help at URFA with the Flag of Belarus (for the featured topic) but the main article was recently delisted and the others—like a lot of the oldest FTs—are just a set of low quality articles. I suspect a lot more FTs will be brought to FTRC in the immediate future. I noticed Jupiter a while back, but am too disappointed at the prospect of bringing such an impressive FT to FTRC myself, especially since it even has its own subtopic... though as a delegate I would rather not be the one to do it anyways. Aza24 (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 January 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates → Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates – Having discussed this with fellow FTC delegate Sturmvogel 66 and the director GamerPro64, we agreed it would be appropriate if the name were changed to Featured and good topic candidates, so that it's all encompassing to the page's actual purpose. I figured that while (I think) mostly uncontroversial, such a change would be worth doing a formal RM as a change to a featured content page name. Not sure what else is left to be said, but with a title like Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates, the page's inclusion of good topic candidates is rather hidden, and indeed at the top it already says "Featured and good topics in Wikipedia". Aza24 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Support per nom. Reywas92^Talk 07:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Neutral: As long as the shortcuts WP:FTC and WP:GTC continue to point to the page, it won't much affect me. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

They will yes. I've also added WP:GTN a few days ago. Aza24 (talk) 19:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Support Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Support. The name actually three me off a little when I nominated my first one. We'll just need to be super careful with the links and shortcuts when the page is moved. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, and I plan to go through them all if moved; most should stay the same by default though. Aza24 (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Support per nom. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC) 00:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Support I’ve always thought this was confusing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Support per nom. Chompy Ace 03:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Support sure. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Support I see no reason why this can't go through. More accurate for sure. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Support, but I wouldn't try to change every subpage. Just the properly public-facing ones. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.8% of all FPs} 01:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

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.

Technical implementation

Aza24, I've left the move un-implemented for now since you stated above that you wanted to sort out which subpages needed to be moved. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. (t · c) buidhe 20:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks Buidhe, I think I have a good idea about what I need to move now, am going to move the main page first in a second Aza24 (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just kidding, I'm not because it looks like you have to be an Admin to do so... is there an appropriate place to find someone to move this Buidhe? Aza24 (talk)
  - Aza24 WP:RM/TR is the place to get admin help for moving protected pages. (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
- Moving this page properly seems to need a special privilege or a special tool, as it has 1654 subpages. I can move only 100 subpages at a time. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

GamerPro64 02:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Discussion that may be of interest to the project

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#The_future_of_the_Book_namespace contains several proposals to make significant changes to the book namespace. As Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Nomination procedure states that books should be created when nominating FTC/GTC, these proposals may be of interest to the project. Hog Farm _Talk 21:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm:, that has never been in the criteria as far as I can tell, so I've removed it from the nomination procedure. Delegates/directors have not checked for books for some time now when promoting, and there have been tons of FT/GTs passed without them. I really don't get why such an opposition is warranted for that. Aza24 (talk) 22:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: - I did not realize that this was no longer expected - I followed the instructions to the letter in 2020 for my one GTC nomination, and did not realize that it wasn't necessary. Hog Farm _Talk 22:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

It's okay, it was never explicitly said, but fell out of fashion and has been irregular since (and I guess it was never in the criteria to begin with). I think its best to keep them out, mainly because I don't know where readers would even access them from, there's no link in the topic box or anything. Aza24 (talk) 22:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: It used to be a link in the top of the topic's box, but it was removed once the book project died by an editor not involved in the FT process ([1]); since they weren't involved that guidelines were never updated. --Pres N 01:47, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Make "Introductory Summary" a requirement for Featured topics

I'm proposing that this current "recommendation" in the Featured and good topic criteria be made into a formal requirement for Featured topics:

"The topic should contain an introductory paragraph that summarizes the topic for any reader who might want to find more about it. This paragraph should be a short version of the introduction of the lead article. See this for a specific example."

My rationale is as follows

It is certainly a helpful way to tie things together, and explains the scope of the topic succinctly. It's also worth noting that this has been de facto practice for a while now to include a summary regardless.
After discussing with fellow FTC delegate Sturmvogel 66 and the director GamerPro64, we are interested in pursing (probably later this year) showcasing some Featured topics on the main page. In this respect, it would make sense to get these summaries made a requirement in preparation for that possibility, as they would be plausible options for the

With regards to older FTS that have passed without one: I tested the waters a bit and contacted the four nominators of our four "Art, architecture and archaeology" featured topics; two responded and provided solid introductory summaries. I'm more than willing to write some myself for any now inactive nominators, but this would probably only need to be done with the FTS that would (hypothetically) be scheduled to be on the main page. My general feeling is that Good topics are a bit too casual to make this a requirement, but that's not an opinion I hold strongly and perhaps others disagree there. Aza24 (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

This definitely should be a requirement for FTs. As you say, it's a necessary step before they can be more broadly showcased, and it's not a high bar. The summaries can be easily enough retroactively added to older topics that don't have them. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 12:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Completly on board with this. Users already try to do something like that when they nominate stuff for GT and FT, but of course, make it official. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 08:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

I would completely support that requirement for both FTs and GTs, it is not exactly difficult to write considering it can mostly be summarised from the main article of the topic. It would also be a good idea for GTs since when they automatically become FT (after >=50% articles become featured) there would not be a rush to make an introduction. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 00:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, given the unanimous support and largely uncontroversial nature of the proposal (demonstrated by the lack of participation, despite posting to each of the featured process talk pages) I'm going to put this into the requirements formally. Best - Aza24 (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured topics § Bot to promote good and featured topics

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Featured topics § Bot to promote good and featured topics. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment on Featured Topic candidate

@Wtfiv and Chariotsacha: We're tantalizingly close to having the articles for a Featured Topic:Frederick the Great here. We've got Frederick the Great, Silesian Wars, and War of the Bavarian Succession at FA, and First Partition of Poland at GA, covering the biography and the major events of his reign. In order to complete the topic, it looks to me like we also need Sexuality of Frederick the Great, probably Sanssouci, possibly Equestrian statue of Frederick the Great, and probably not any of the other articles in Category:Frederick the Great. Specifically, I don't think we need Tomb of Frederick the Great (in fact, I think this article should probably be deleted as non-notable). What do others think? Which articles do y'all think should be in this topic? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bryanrutherford0:, I agree with your picks. I also think we should merge Tomb of Frederick the Great into his main article, its a pretty redundant article to have and most of the information on it could easily be squished into the Frederick the Great article. Let me know what you think! Sexuality of Frederick the great I think is the best article to start improving, its central to Fredericks life and would absolutely need to be in the featured topic. The statue article I'm not sure frankly, the article is well made and I believe stands on its own quite well. Especially considering it is not mentioned in his main article. Anyways, Sannsouci would be vital. I remember @Vami IV:, a cooridnator for wiki-project Germany was interested in making it a fully fledged Featured Article as well. So we may have some extra hands here! Chariotsacha (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

@Chariotsacha: This does sound like fun! And it sounds like something to jump into. I know that Vami_IV wanted to clean up Sanssouci, so I think starting there might be the easiest, if there are the sources. I'm glad we kept the sexuality article, it has great promise, but it is quite weedy and really needs some structuring. Though if we could get it into shape, it might help out with all the constant reverts on the Frederick page. (though I doubt it, few of the people who revert probably click further.) Unfortunately, I've got myself caught up in another article in Featured Article rescue (saving an article from losing its status) that was worse off than poor Frederick when we started, so I won't be able to take a lead, though I definitely don't mind being support, and doing what I can, particularly citation-wise! Though I think I like article "rescuing" better, I'll gladly do what I can to get them all featured! Vami could take Sansoucci; Chariotsacha, would you be willing to do something like the Equestrian statue for starters? Thanks for opening this conversation, Bryan! Wtfiv (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Wtfiv and Bryanrutherford0: I could definitely handle the equestrian statue article for sure! Its image placement is pretty terrible and it needs a tone cleanup, which are two things I love fixing. I am very much also interested in polishing the sexuality article but I think that can wait a bit if necessary, although I do feel it's probably the most important of the three. If we hear from Vami about Sanssouci I'll be on board that as well! In the meantime, I'll be working on the statue article. Cheers! Chariotsacha (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm game for Sanssouci, though at the moment my focuses are pretty divided. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 17:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd love to help with a merger between the two statue articles, if the discussion concludes that way, and I've also started a merger discussion on the tomb article. I have some physical sources on Frederick that I can use to try to contribute some content with citations to the sexuality article. Thanks for the replies! I think Good/Featured Topics are cool, so I'd love to assemble all this work we've done into one. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 17:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

GT to FT

If a good topic gets to the situation where at least half of its articles are featured, is there a process to update it to featured topic? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no formal process (like, a new nomination); I think you or anyone who notices can just move it from the GT list to the FT list? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:43, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe that a handy bot turns up and makes it happen. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I looked at the revision history of Wikipedia:Featured topics, and I don't see any bot activity; I think it's usually Gamer who's moving them manually, as in this edit. Regardless, I think it's okay for anyone to do it who notices the need. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, both! I've gone ahead and moved Wikipedia:Featured topics/Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln to the FT page as I think it qualifies... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Closure query

This is probably going to come across as me being impatient, for which apologies, but my nom Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Mercenary War/archive1 has now been open for eight weeks and has received seven straight supports and no quibbles. Can I ask if the F&GT coordinators have guidelines as to how long a nomination needs to be open and/or how many supports it needs before promotion is considered? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as a former delegate here, I have volunteered to manually close any nomination and do the leg-work surrounding that, if any of the current delegates want to merely give the thumbs up on any that are open. I know there's a bot being trialled but it doesn't seem to have sped up the process to any extent, and I don't mind doing the bot's work if anyone in a position to approve a close wants to usher anything onwards. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:03, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was moving slowly as we are testing the new bot and the other coords are more or less inactive (at least at FGTC). Grapple X, actually would you mind doing the demotion process for Wikipedia:Featured topic removal candidates/Inside No. 9/archive1? There's some instructions here: User:Spy-cicle/FTC/Demote Instructions, I can do some of the other demotions ones in a little bit. Aza24 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

No worries. A functional bot would obviously be a huge boon so hopefully it pans out well. I'll get that topic sorted now sure. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Should be Inside No. 9 processed now; let me know if I've missed anything. If it went smoothly you can foist the others on me and I'll be able to get through them during tomorrow. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of wearing out my welcome, Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates/Hundred Years' War (1345–1347)/archive1 now has six supports. Yes, I am hoping to see it promoted before the WikiCup closes on the 30th. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present the delegates and the director jointly and severally with this barnstar in recognition of their tireless work to keep this project going. It is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Mercenary War

A couple of things.

1. Mercenary War is showing on it's talk page as the main article in the Punic Wars series (it's not, it is a part of it; Punic Wars is also, but correctly, showing as the main article) and as part of the Mercenary War series instead of the main article. I am loath to mess with code I don't understand, but hopefully this is easily fixable by someone?

2. The promotion of Hamilcar's victory with Naravas took the Mercenary War series to FT, from GT. Should I be doing anything to move the series appropriately?

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey there. I think I fixed #1. Diff. Please let me know if I need to adjust it further. I'll let someone more experienced speak to #2. Would probably need to add an additional action to the {{Article history}} of the articles in the topic. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@User:Novem Linguae, thanks. That's fixed it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

If a topic has 5 FAs and 5 GAs, is it a good topic or a featured topic?

I was under the impression that it is a good topic. But the code in {{Article history}} thinks this is a featured topic. What is the correct answer? Thanks. cc User:Aza24. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I read WP:FT? At least one half (50%) of the items are featured class as pretty clearly requiring half or more, so a FT. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that was the intention when it was bumped from 1/3 to 1/2, that exactly 1/2 counted as an FT; I can't find the discussion now, but at one point a decade ago there was a proposal to change it to greater than 50% at a later date, which never happened. --Pres N 15:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll make sure the FGTC bot follows this. Thanks for the clarification. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)