Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Slipknot discography
Thoughts on this? Are the two audited articles accepted or not? They have gone through a long history of events, including failed GANs, completed PRs, and passed AfDs. Gary King (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Gary King (talk) 18:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I've filled in icons for you. I don't know about the unlisted articles. For the demo, could more not be written about the two songs that were later singles: charting etc? Have the band talked about the tape in interviews? I think that, if hit hard enough with a hammer, it could make GA. Then again, I don't know the subject matter. By the way, are video albums a necessary part of discographies? Only I'm working on No Doubt's discography and didn't think I needed to include their three video DVDs. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 19:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I purposely left the icons out since they don't affect which articles should be included. We've already had lengthy discussions at the GAN, PR, and AfDs and no, there isn't much else to add. Yes, video albums should be included. Gary King (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I thought you'd just forgotten the icons. If the two audited articles have been discussed and peer reviewed, then it should be fine. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 20:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I purposely left the icons out since they don't affect which articles should be included. We've already had lengthy discussions at the GAN, PR, and AfDs and no, there isn't much else to add. Yes, video albums should be included. Gary King (talk) 20:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think video albums need including, the existing discography topics don't have them, though obviously including them is not going to hurt :) As for the real question here (the audited items), well I think you have done all you can really, there's nothing more to say, so I would vote for this topic. (Though note they should have 
s not 
s :P) rst20xx (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Slipknot discography Gary King (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Possible FT: Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition
I am considering a Featured Topic based on this major expedition of 1914–17. The topic would consist of six articles; the main expedition article, three sub-articles dealing with aspects of the expedition, and biographical articles for the two leaders. All of these articles exist; five are featured and one is GA.
The problem is that another editor (who is no longer active) started an article titled List of personnel of the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition, which attempts to list the fifty-odd participants. Available information is very sketchy on many of these people, and it is hard to see how this list could ever become featured. So which of the following should I do:-
- Ignore the half-completed list, on the grounds that it adds little if anything to the topic, since the principal personnel are discussed in the "Personnel" sections of the main and sub-articles, and the expedition leaders have their own articles. But would this be deemed cherry-picking?
- Drop the idea of the topic until I, or someone else, can produce a version of the list that is of featured standard. This might be possible by about 2020.
- Add an unadorned personnel list as a appendix to the main expedition article.
- Something else, which I haven't thought of.
Suggestions would be very welcome. Brianboulton (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Featured topics are in a sense not fair because not all topics are as easy to get featured as others. I'm sorry, but in my opinion that list needs including - rst20xx (talk) 02:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why would the list not be easy to get featured? If information is very difficult to find, then surely we can give some leeway over at FLC. Gary King (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I take it you've looked at the list? About three-quarters of the people are unmemorable, there being no information available beyond their names. I'm not sure, either, about the PD status of some of the images. In short, even in its best state the list is likely to look uneven and incomplete, and may be a poor comparison with other FLs. But, if that is what is required, I will do my best with it, though this will take a while. Brianboulton (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just use em dashes for empty cells to show that the information cannot be found. This method has been used in several featured lists such as those for alumni of universities where the birth and death dates are not known. Gary King (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't like a list with too many blanks, although some are ok (especially in an "additional info column"). But the problem i see with the list is the lack of citations. Having no other info than name and rank for some would be fine for FL, as long as they are cited. How would we know anything about comprehensiveness though? The list should be at least approaching comprehenisive, if i read the criteria correctlyYobmod (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Just use em dashes for empty cells to show that the information cannot be found. This method has been used in several featured lists such as those for alumni of universities where the birth and death dates are not known. Gary King (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- I take it you've looked at the list? About three-quarters of the people are unmemorable, there being no information available beyond their names. I'm not sure, either, about the PD status of some of the images. In short, even in its best state the list is likely to look uneven and incomplete, and may be a poor comparison with other FLs. But, if that is what is required, I will do my best with it, though this will take a while. Brianboulton (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Why would the list not be easy to get featured? If information is very difficult to find, then surely we can give some leeway over at FLC. Gary King (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Which articles do album topics have to include?
If a topic has a music album as its lead, which articles have to be included? Obviously, songs will have to be included. Does it only require songs officially released as singles? Or, all songs that have an article? Also, does it require all songs that even appeared on limited edition versions, or only appear on copies of the album in certain countries? Gary King (talk) 00:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would say all notable songs (ie. all the songs that should have an article) on any version of the album because they are associated with the album. If you name the album you are considering, we could help clarify better. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 18:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Some albums are obvious as to which songs should be included. I think Dangerously in Love is a good example of an album that has different versions, each containing notable songs. Check out the track listing; which songs do you think should be included? Gary King (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I would say all songs with articles on all versions of the album. Apart from maybe cover songs, not sure about them. Anyway, Dangerously in Love would need all 7 songs, IMO - rst20xx (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Seconded. All songs on all versions. I should point out that something like this has been hanging around in Efe's sandbox for a while. I don't know who the contributers were but you may want to drop him a note. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 16:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Some albums are obvious as to which songs should be included. I think Dangerously in Love is a good example of an album that has different versions, each containing notable songs. Check out the track listing; which songs do you think should be included? Gary King (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also going with all notable songs. If the song isn't notable enough to get a GA and be included, it probably shouldn't have a seperate article, and should redirect to a section in the album article.Yobmod (talk) 09:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Seattle Buildings GT?
I am considering making a good or featured topic about the twenty tallest buildings in Seattle (including the Space Needle). The main article, List of tallest buildings in Seattle, is an FL, and all 20 of the articles have a chance at GAN. Any suggestions on what I should include before I start? ~~ ComputerGuy 00:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Is it perhaps arbitrary to include the top twenty in the topic? I mean, sure, the list needs a cut-off otherwise it will go on endlessly, but I'm not quite sure if the topic is the same? Might as well iron this out here rather than in a future FTC. Gary King (talk) 01:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Here is how it will all play out:
~~ ComputerGuy 01:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Gary King. You need to find a non-arbitrary cut-off point. I don't know that such a cut-off point exists so I am not sure this is a viable topic - rst20xx (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well the main list got featured with some sort of cut off point, so I'm not sure why a topic couldn't become featured with the same cut off point. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Would this be considered a featured topic?
If the following were all featured articles.. a girl group's discography and the discographies of all current and former members of the group? For example, if each member of the Pussycat Dolls or Spice Girls created a solo career and had more than ten releasese? Any ideas, please help. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think that a topic about the "Discography of Spice Girls and its members" could work as a topic as long as your lead article talked about each of the solo carers and all of the discographies linked to each other. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
- Very good. I believe two of the five member's discographies may be ineligible for featured list status, due to their limited subject matter. There will still be at least three distinct articles and 25 percent featured class and thus I still think it might achieve featured topic status. The only real problem I can see is with the "linking of each discography". Any ideas. Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I would support this topic. I am not convinced that it makes sense to exclude the albums for any reason other than that it is less work. Also history suggests people are usually wrong about things not being able to make FL, so I will oppose until you at least give the lists a try - rst20xx (talk) 02:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- If it's true that you can't get FL with fewer than ten items, then an artist with only a couple albums couldn't get their discography to FL status. That being said, all solo albums would have to be included in one way or another. There are probably several ways that you could accomplish this. For example, maybe there could be an amalgamated list along the lines of "discographies of former spice girls members". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Arctic Gnome, you forget singles ;) and if a band has less than ten of ANYTHING (singles + albums + EPs), well then they probably wouldn't have a separate list, it'd probably all be in the band's main article - rst20xx (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- For example, each member of the Spice Girls have each released ten or more albums, extended plays, compilation albums, live albums, singles or music videos. I believe it could reach featured topic status. 203.63.185.102 (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Which article to use for the lead of this topic: Canadian first ministers?
User:Arctic.gnome and I are working on a topic of Canadian First Ministers, which includes the country's Prime Minister (head of the federal government) and its thirteen Premiers (heads of provincial governments). It's obvious that they are all related in some way, but we are unsure about what article to use as the lead. Originally, I used List of current Canadian premiers, but eventually Arctic.gnome suggested we move it to List of current Canadian first ministers, which expands the scope to include List of Prime Ministers of Canada. Here is the current topic below:
What I'm wondering is, is this an acceptable lead for the topic, or should we get another article such as Premier (Canada) as the lead (which would require that we remove List of Prime Ministers of Canada from the topic)? Gary King (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think the list of current first ministers might not work because there is little to no historical information in that article. The article Premier (Canada) has historical information, but nothing on the Prime Minister, and I'd like to have the prime ministers list in the topic, as anyone researching past premiers would likely also want to know about past prime ministers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arctic.gnome (talk • contribs)
- Hmmm well this appears to me to actually be a "Lists of..." topic. If you include Premier (Canada), then my inclination would be to say that you should also include Premier of British Columbia, and so on and so forth. Maybe you can make an article List of Canadian first ministers, which would firstly act as a disambiguation to the other lists in your proposed topic, but beyond that could have some statistics about first ministers, such as the number each province/territory has had, any quirks to do with that province, who the longest and shortest serving first ministers of all the provinces/territories are, etc. The contents of this article would be distinct from the Premier (Canada) article as it would be more about what's happened with past first ministers, whereas Premier (Canada) would be more about the role that the position of premier fulfils, what their job description is, etc. Thoughts? rst20xx (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting idea. We do need an article that links to the others outside of the navbox, either in the text or using {{main}}. A disambiguation/trivia could work, although it might be hard to get it to FL while avoiding WP:TRIVIA. I guess this article could have a mini table for each province summarizing number of premiers per party and average term length, that would be a meaningful list. I'll start looking into that. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- rst, thoughts on using List of current Canadian first ministers as the main article, though? Gary King (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think that article would be a good inclusion in this topic but I don't think it should be the lead, it doesn't contain the whole topic within its scope - rst20xx (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, so we've boiled it down to this, from what I understand. Keep the topic as it is at the very top of this thread, but replace the lead article with List of Canadian first ministers. The List of current Canadian first ministers may or may not be in the topic; either way is fine, at least to me, since it's already at FLC so hopefully it will be an FL soon. Gary King (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also, rst, another question: Should we keep the List of Prime Ministers of Canada in the topic, or scrap it and change the lead to List of Canadian premiers? Gary King (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- My opinion on that is that anyone researching the history of premiers would likely also want to know the history of PMs, so I think keeping it as part of the topic is helpful. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Also, rst, another question: Should we keep the List of Prime Ministers of Canada in the topic, or scrap it and change the lead to List of Canadian premiers? Gary King (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, so we've boiled it down to this, from what I understand. Keep the topic as it is at the very top of this thread, but replace the lead article with List of Canadian first ministers. The List of current Canadian first ministers may or may not be in the topic; either way is fine, at least to me, since it's already at FLC so hopefully it will be an FL soon. Gary King (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think that a name like History of Canadian first ministers would be a more suitable name, as the list would not be a list of every premier ever, but rather a very quick overview of each province's political history with a link to the province's list. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think that article would be a good inclusion in this topic but I don't think it should be the lead, it doesn't contain the whole topic within its scope - rst20xx (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- rst, thoughts on using List of current Canadian first ministers as the main article, though? Gary King (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
- Interesting idea. We do need an article that links to the others outside of the navbox, either in the text or using {{main}}. A disambiguation/trivia could work, although it might be hard to get it to FL while avoiding WP:TRIVIA. I guess this article could have a mini table for each province summarizing number of premiers per party and average term length, that would be a meaningful list. I'll start looking into that. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hmmm well this appears to me to actually be a "Lists of..." topic. If you include Premier (Canada), then my inclination would be to say that you should also include Premier of British Columbia, and so on and so forth. Maybe you can make an article List of Canadian first ministers, which would firstly act as a disambiguation to the other lists in your proposed topic, but beyond that could have some statistics about first ministers, such as the number each province/territory has had, any quirks to do with that province, who the longest and shortest serving first ministers of all the provinces/territories are, etc. The contents of this article would be distinct from the Premier (Canada) article as it would be more about what's happened with past first ministers, whereas Premier (Canada) would be more about the role that the position of premier fulfils, what their job description is, etc. Thoughts? rst20xx (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Arctic Gnome about the PMs list, it's not necessary but would be helpful. He might be right about calling the article "History of Canadian first ministers" as well - rst20xx (talk) 00:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that the article would look something like this. Do you think that is relevant enough to avoid WP:TRIVIA? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- It looks good. Would this be going to FA or FL? I don't think I've ever seen a list like this, so I don't have anything to compare to. Gary King (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- It's similar to List of universities in Canada, albeit without the charts, and that went to FL. The problem is that I don't think it would have the word "list" in the title; as I said above, I don't think the name "List of Canadian first ministers" works because this doesn't have every first minister. I wonder if there is any precedent for giving it a title like "Overview of..." or "Summary of...". If this had been branched off of the Premiers of Canada article, what would we have called it? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- It looks good. Would this be going to FA or FL? I don't think I've ever seen a list like this, so I don't have anything to compare to. Gary King (talk) 16:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'm thinking that the article would look something like this. Do you think that is relevant enough to avoid WP:TRIVIA? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 15:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Thematic FT
I've been working on a number of articles all related to Homosexuality in science fiction. I was hoping to make a featured topic on this, but am unsure which articles would be needed for this. It differes from most other topics in that it is not something that can be certainly delineated (like a game series), but it would be the most comprehensive collection of information on this topic in the world.
The five articles here include all the notable general aspects: the world's only notable organisation, both the notable awards, the only notable convention, and the GA on the general history. Would this be a viable topic? I could include 4 other featured lists of awards (currently going through review), which is currently there as a subtopic, but it seemed to skew the content towards one organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yobmod (talk • contribs)
Here's the plan:
- What about List of lesbian science fiction and List of gay science fiction? They would be very, very hard lists to write, but I feel they'd need to be included. Horror is a genre of speculative fiction, so you might want to add Queer horror. And similarly for Slash fiction/Gayfic/Femslash. Also I'm unsure about LGBT characters in comics, because most comics are speculative fiction (superheroes!), but not all, so I guess that would probably not be a necessary addition.
- I can't say I know much about this topic, so I will take you at your word that all notable organisations/cons/awards are included - rst20xx (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- I'll ask for input from the LGBT and SF projects, but can probably even find references for these being the only notable convention & awards. I wrote the comics page too, but didn't include it, as i only wrote about superhero comics (the majority of which i summarised in the main article), and i suspect that most LGBT characters in comics are in different genres altogether, so there is not more overlap than that already given by the summary (Wikipedia just has a superhero comic bias!)
- The problem with the list articles is that they can never be comprehensive, so cannot make FL - that's why i made the awards lists. I could make them audited articles - or i could source 500 books easily and ask at FLC if there is any number that they would consider comprehensive. Slash fiction i'll look into - i have no idea if this is especially related to SF, isn't there slash for everything nowadays? Queer Horror i purposely excluded by defining the topic as science fiction, if only cos i'm not convinced the genre really even exists (no sources!). With no sources, there is nothing to write, but i think it will be impossible to get it deleted.
- But thanks for the input (its strange how many people avoid any comments on these at all the PR, FL, GANs.) If consensus is against it, i'll just have to make lots of mini topics, which in my opinion looks worse, but would get the recognition for the work. Maybe some discusion should be started about such broad topics getting recognised by different means, assuming FT will never grow beyond weather, battles and franchises with the current setup ;-). Yobmod (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Lists don't have to be comprehensive and still become FLs. Examples: List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: R, List of USAF Test Pilot School alumni Gary King (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Wait, science fiction or speculative fiction? You put "SF" in the topic box above, but the lead article is "speculative fiction", and hence that includes horror. Science fiction obviously doesn't include horror.
- I agree that some topics are harder to get to GT/FT than others, but all that means to me is that I am more impressed with some topics than others. It's just like how some articles are harder to get to GA/FA than others - rst20xx (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
An Itchy & Scratchy Show FT
Would this be an acceptable topic, or is it too subjective?
Those are the only episodes where Itchy & Scratchy figure into the main plot and are anything more than just a self-contained 30 second short. There really are none where they play a sort-of-major role. They either are the focus of the plot, or they are just 30 second jokes. However, the problem is that it can still be seen as an arbitrary cut-off based on POV about what makes an appearance major. Thoughts? -- Scorpion0422 03:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- But you can easily include the rest, by adding List of Itchy & Scratchy cartoons to the topic! Also you should possibly include The Itchy and Scratchy Game and Itchy & Scratchy in Miniature Golf Madness, because this topic does not seem to have any mandate for one form of media over others - rst20xx (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the official definition of this topic will be "The Simpsons episodes featuring The Itchy & Scratchy Show". -- Scorpion0422 15:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- To be honest, I think every Simpsons series will have its own topic before long; we've seen what the Wikiproject can do. And therefore I don't think this topic is really needed. It seems a little crufty. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 17:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Can this be a FT?
Here is the topic I am thinking about.—Chris! ct 02:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Should be fine. It is similar to Wikipedia:Featured topics/Aston Villa F.C., Wikipedia:Featured topics/Gillingham F.C., Wikipedia:Featured topics/Ipswich Town F.C., and Wikipedia:Featured topics/York City F.C.. Gary King (talk) 02:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Could add Logos and uniforms of the Los Angeles Lakers, Los Angeles D-Fenders, Los Angeles Lakers radio networks, List of Los Angeles Lakers broadcasters. Including the past stadiums would be nice - IIRC the only past football stadium not included in a topic is Fulfordgate, and that was only used for 10 years from 1922-1932, so not very notable - rst20xx (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Is The Simpsons FT-able?
| Main page | Articles |
 The Simpsons series
|
 History · The shorts · Episodes · Movie · Awards won ·  Writers ·  Directors · Cast ·  The family · Characters
|
What articles in the list above are not (really) needed, and which others have to be added? Nergaal (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Simpsons family could be relegated to a Characters subtopic. I would say you also need List of guest stars on The Simpsons, Non-English versions of The Simpsons, Media in The Simpsons, Politics in The Simpsons, Religion in The Simpsons and List of fictional locations in The Simpsons (which needs reworking a bit to cover all the other location articles). Then optionally you could add The Simpsons opening sequence, The Simpsons Theme, Recurring jokes in The Simpsons, D'oh! and List of products in The Simpsons. Finally, other optional additions include List of advertisements featuring The Simpsons characters, The Simpsons DVDs, The Simpsons discography, List of The Simpsons video games, List of The Simpsons books, List of The Simpsons comics, Simpsons Illustrated, World of Springfield, Simpsons Jeopardy!, The Simpsons Trading Card Game and The Simpsons Ride. It might be sensible to create a "merchandise" article for this topic so you could subtopic DVDs to Ride to a merchandise topic. In fact I think this would be a very good idea.
- This would be a very ambitious project. The Simpsons is one of the biggest TV shows of all time, and quite possibly the one with the most articles on Wikipedia. As a result, to get it to FT would require a lot of work, more than many (if not any) other show. But it also means the rewards would be all the sweeter ;) rst20xx (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- My question was what is the smallest set on which a Simpsons topic can be built? For example look at the Solar System topic: you could put 153,982 articles in the topic, but that is not really the point. The topic there was set up such that is comprehensive, but discards the less important material. Similarly, Religion in The Simpsons is not even worth considering in the grand topic of Simpsons, but might be a part of a subtopic of it. I just want the minimal set with which the topic "The Simpsons" would be able to stand as a comprehensive topic. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- What subtopic could it be part of? I couldn't see any way to subtopic it, and it seems pretty important to me, hence I said you needed it. Basically I was trying to say that I thought the bare minimum is what you proposed - Simpsons family + the first 6 articles I listed, maybe + a newly created merchandise article - rst20xx (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I suppose you could create Themes and Hallmarks articles too... rst20xx (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you keep the topic scope narrowed to just the tv show I think that would keep out things like merchandise. That would also kick out things like the movie and shorts articles though. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
- I suppose you could create Themes and Hallmarks articles too... rst20xx (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- What subtopic could it be part of? I couldn't see any way to subtopic it, and it seems pretty important to me, hence I said you needed it. Basically I was trying to say that I thought the bare minimum is what you proposed - Simpsons family + the first 6 articles I listed, maybe + a newly created merchandise article - rst20xx (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- My question was what is the smallest set on which a Simpsons topic can be built? For example look at the Solar System topic: you could put 153,982 articles in the topic, but that is not really the point. The topic there was set up such that is comprehensive, but discards the less important material. Similarly, Religion in The Simpsons is not even worth considering in the grand topic of Simpsons, but might be a part of a subtopic of it. I just want the minimal set with which the topic "The Simpsons" would be able to stand as a comprehensive topic. Nergaal (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Not just articles?
I thought of an idea. Could a good/featured topic be not a group of related articles, but one single topic being presented in multiple media? In other words, could a topic include Featured sounds or Featured Images? As far as I know, nothing like this has been proposed before. Here's one example I came up with:
Eh? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 06:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Articles", "Lists", "Featured Articles", and "Featured Lists" are explicitly stated several times in the criteria. You could propose a change to the criteria if you'd like, though. Gary King (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- It's been talked about before. The problem comes down to image cherry-picking. If you include one image on the subject, why not another, if there are dozens of other pictures on it. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not advocating this particular featured topic, but just for the sake of clarity, I'll address your arguments using the robin example:
- To Gary King: Yes, I suppose I am proposing a change to the criteria.
- To HurricaneHink: So in addition to the photo of the robin, you would expect to see photos of a robin in flight, robin eggs, male/female comparisons, etc.?
- To Gary King: In this case, I can't imagine what other sounds would be associated with this topic, besides maybe the a young Robin chirping.
- To Rst20xx: Perhaps I don't fully understand what you're arguing, what does worth have to do with anything?
- If featured pictures/sounds are not deemed to be of equal value to featured articles/lists, then your proposed topic would fail at FTC, as it does not have enough featured content. Also there is currently a requirement of at least three articles/lists, for both FT and GT - can pictures/sounds contribute to this minimum number of three? These things would need to be decided, if the rules are to be changed to allow the inclusion of pictures/sounds - rst20xx (talk) 21:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- To all: It seems that you would be hesitant to expand the guidelines to include pictures and sounds because of the increased potential for cherry-picking. I do admit that in most cases, we could expect to see this happen. However, imagine the perfect case: A central article, a series of featured images (if applicable) which accurately depict all aspects and variants of the subject, a series of featured sounds (if applicable) which do the same thing. In this case, it seems to me that making a good/featured topic would be entirely appropriate. Whether or not we adjust the guidelines should be based on the best possible scenario, not the worst. AGF!!11 lolz --Cryptic C62 · Talk 19:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- But you don't seem to have thought about the impact on all the existing topics. If we simply change the criteria to allow for pictures/sounds, it is likely that every single one of them would suddenly fail the cherrypicking criteria.
- I like the idea of pictures and sounds being includable in topics, but I am not sure that they should count for anything, because they cause too many problems, as outlined above. Maybe we could have it that cherrypicking guidelines don't apply to them, but as a tradeoff for this extra slack towards them, they don't count towards any of the minimum number rules in WP:FT? criteria 3 - rst20xx (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm trying to imagine this for a hurricane topic. A hurricane has hundreds to thousands of images on it, of which only a few are used in an article. Only an extreme minority have a chance of becoming featured, since so many are so similar (not just of one storm, but so many storms look similar). That's only for hurricanes, but I'm trying to imagine for other topics, and I don't see how it could work. What about larger topics, such as a military one with 12+ articles and which have many, many images? I don't see this idea as very feasible. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if cherrypicking rules don't apply to pictures/sounds, then there would be no problems if topics don't have their pictures/sounds featured - rst20xx (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- I like that idea. It just makes it possible to group photos/sounds into topics without making the criteria more or less difficult. The way I see it, if a featured topic is about a subject for which there exists a featured image/sound, it would be silly not to add that media to the topic page.
- Another possibility, which solves HurricaneHink's dilemma: If the topic's creators choose to exclude featured media, that's fine. If they choose to include featured media, they must include (at least) one piece of media for each of the subjects of that topic. Examples: The Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Saffron topic would need only one image: a picture of saffron. The 1998 Pacific hurricane season would need 3 images: One of each hurricane (Isis, Lester, and Madeline). It would be all-or-nothing, essentially. A little more structure without making it too difficult. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, if cherrypicking rules don't apply to pictures/sounds, then there would be no problems if topics don't have their pictures/sounds featured - rst20xx (talk) 04:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the example given would be insufficient. The sound and image can (and should) already be in the parent article, so the topic gives nothing to the reader that the single doesn't article give. However, i do think it would be nice to be able to include featured media as extras in an already featured topic, but only with discussion of each addition and a good rationale, ie, if the articles and lists already have enough images, so a featured image had to be exluded from the articles, but would still make a great addtion to the topic. I think this is pretty rare though.Yobmod (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Any gaps?
Should there be any additions to this topic? User talk:Yellow Evan (sandbox)00:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unless you think any of the other storms deserve articles (Cristina? Fausto? And the rest are fish spinners...), then I'd say that's complete. I suppose a Timeline might be merited - the Atlantic Season FT has one, and I've just found that one is under construction for the 1997 Pacific Season FT - rst20xx (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- Christina and Fausto would probably need articles (with serious research put into them), and maybe even Elida. The timeline can easily be created, although it's not a considerable gap if it doesn't exist. --♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team
| Main page | Articles |
| GAC after the season 2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team | Michigan Wolverines men's basketball · Manny Harris · DeShawn Sims
|
I am not sure what is required for a GTC, but I am thinking about nominating this at the end of the season. I may need to take John Beilein to GA. Is the coach necessary. The only other players I would take to GA would be players who end up being at least Honorable mention All-Big Ten or All-Freshman Big Ten. I think the only additional players might be Laval Lucas-Perry and Zack Novak. Is this a potential GT?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I would say that you should include the coach - a pretty important part of the team. Beyond that, I'll leave it up to your judgement as to which of the players merit their own articles, but in my opinion, any which do have their own articles when you nominate, will need to be included in the nomination. And any which have articles created at a later date, will need to have their articles added to the topic - rst20xx (talk) 14:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I will create articles for every player who is notable. So far only two are. Will I have to do Crisler Arena?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think so, because the the Arena seems to be higher up the scope chain than the season. If you were doing a topic on Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, then it'd need to be included there, but for one season, I'd say no - rst20xx (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Suppose a freshman is not notable this season but becomes notable as a junior or later. Do I have to create a good article for him to maintain the article's GT status after it is achieved? I think above you are saying yes. Does this hold for any assistant coach who becomes a notable enough coach to have his own article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm saying yes for the players. I'm not sure about assistant coaches - I guess that means no - rst20xx (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- We can cross the bridge when we get to it. However, I think the line might be drawn by who is in the article. I guess assistant coaches have a smaller role than supporting players. You may be right. A person like Dave Balza who may go on to have a notable coaching career, but who would not have been in an article would not need to be added. These are not concerns for me. I just need to worry about Beilein and any other players that may prove to be notable this season for now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, one more thing, you shouldn't include Michigan Wolverines men's basketball, because it's of a higher scope than the main article. It's like how discography topics don't include the band, or season topics don't include the show itself - rst20xx (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- We can cross the bridge when we get to it. However, I think the line might be drawn by who is in the article. I guess assistant coaches have a smaller role than supporting players. You may be right. A person like Dave Balza who may go on to have a notable coaching career, but who would not have been in an article would not need to be added. These are not concerns for me. I just need to worry about Beilein and any other players that may prove to be notable this season for now.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm saying yes for the players. I'm not sure about assistant coaches - I guess that means no - rst20xx (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- Suppose a freshman is not notable this season but becomes notable as a junior or later. Do I have to create a good article for him to maintain the article's GT status after it is achieved? I think above you are saying yes. Does this hold for any assistant coach who becomes a notable enough coach to have his own article?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think so, because the the Arena seems to be higher up the scope chain than the season. If you were doing a topic on Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team, then it'd need to be included there, but for one season, I'd say no - rst20xx (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I will create articles for every player who is notable. So far only two are. Will I have to do Crisler Arena?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Spice Girls discography FT? Is it possible?
_56.jpg){kind=small}
All of the band members have releases atleast ten albums, singles, music videos, compilation appearances, extended plays, compilation albums, live albums, video albums, etc. I don't believe is a band discography featured topic and don't believe one has been nominated as of yet. Victoria Beckham's discography and Melanie Brown's discography are not currently stand-alone lists and thus I would have to create new articles. I raised this question months ago, but I have now checked to see as to whether all of the band members have had ten releases and they all have.. so if I achieve featured list status for all the discographies named above, would it meet the featured topic criteria? Thanks! Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think I would support this, because a topic called "Spice girls discography" should IMO include the Spice Girls albums. In other words, the scope does not match the content. You might be able to call it "Spice Girls members discography" though, that might work, to distinguish it from a straight up discography topic - rst20xx (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
query
Is this a good topic?
| Main page | Articles |
| Battle of Grand Port
|
Action of 31 May 1809 - Action of 18 November 1809 - Action of 3 July 1810 - Invasion of Île Bonaparte
|
Nergaal (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- Not for you it isn't - rst20xx (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Adding an article to an FT
Physical geography of Somerset is already a Featured Topic. This morning River Parrett achieved GA status. Is it possible to add this to the FT?— Rod talk 11:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- See the instructions. Gary King (talk) 17:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
- ...But be prepared to argue why River Parrett is more notable than any other river in Somerset, and hence why including that river but no others does not constitute cherrypicking - rst20xx (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Halo topic
All the articles have gone through or are undergoing a peer review, as they are unreleased. Any glaring issues? (The Cole Protocol is due to be merged). --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk)
- Why is Halo: The Cole Protocol worthy of merging, when none of the other novels are? Where can it be merged to that won't give it undue weight? Apart from that, this seems good to me, but it would be my opinion that this would excessively overlap with the existing Halo trilogy topic, so I think that would need removing - rst20xx (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've been aware of this topic for some time now, but I never noticed that the games were also included. Now that I do, though, it does make sense to merge the other topic into this one. Too bad for Halo (series), though! Gary King (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Meh, the series article is overrated :P As to The Cole Protocol, for whatever bizarre reason, aside from being a NYT/PW/USA Today bestseller, no one has bothered to actually write a review about it, let alone provide any sort of background. It's rather strange and pathetic... I've scoured all the journals and databases I can find and there's not a drop of info besides "it's gonna be released". --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- And yeah, this is intended to replace the Halo trilogy FT. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Meh, the series article is overrated :P As to The Cole Protocol, for whatever bizarre reason, aside from being a NYT/PW/USA Today bestseller, no one has bothered to actually write a review about it, let alone provide any sort of background. It's rather strange and pathetic... I've scoured all the journals and databases I can find and there's not a drop of info besides "it's gonna be released". --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- I've been aware of this topic for some time now, but I never noticed that the games were also included. Now that I do, though, it does make sense to merge the other topic into this one. Too bad for Halo (series), though! Gary King (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- Who knows, maybe in a few months it will be able to stand on its own again. In the meantime, Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Halo series media --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
How similar does formatting have to be?
Sometime in the future, another editor and I would like to nominate professional wrestling halls of fame as a featured topic. I have structured the ones I have worked on a little differently (eg. in St. Louis Wrestling Hall of Fame, I wrote notes such as "Won NWA World Heavyweight Championship ten times and NWA Missouri Heavyweight Championship once." in the table. In NWA Hall of Fame, the other editor wrote notes like "Won the NWA Mid-Atlantic World Tag Team Championship (4 times) and the NWA World Tag Team Championship (4 times)"). Would I have to change my format to the parentheses, etc. to make it appear more uniform, or is this just considered a trivial detail? Is there anything noticeable that would need to be changed for more similarity between the two? Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:27, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Uniformity would be nice but I don't think anyone will oppose because of the issue you've outlined above. I think the "similarity" referred to in 1.b), while certainly to an extent referring to similarity in formatting, is more referring to similarity in subject - rst20xx (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
World of Naruto topic
| Main page | Articles |
| World of Naruto
|
Jutsu (Naruto) - List of Naruto characters
|
I'm currently planning to expand World of Naruto so that the current "Ninja ranks" section becomes a section discussing "Ninja" in the series more generally (I would move the "Jutsu" section into this new section and expand a bit also), and would have a {{see also}} pointing to List of Naruto characters. As practically all characters in the series are ninja and reside in this fictional world, would this constitute a viable topic? Thanks, — sephiroth bcr (converse) 17:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yyyy-yes. I think so. World above Characters is not a perfect fit but it's alright. Also you're verging on oversplitting here, but again I think this is just about alright. The various Characters articles would of course be unneeded for now, due to subtopicing - rst20xx (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think such a topic should have the main Narutu article as the main article (although with a different topic name - "The Naruto fictional universe" or somesuch?) - 3 fictional articles with no real world overview is not so useful to those of us who don't know the series. Then the world, characters and jutsu would be the constituent articles of that.
Author topics
I couldn't find any author topics, so wanted to see what would be needed. I envisage a basic one similar to band topics, so the main authors bio page, a list of works, and a list of awards. An example:
| Main page | Articles |
| Geoff Ryman
|
Geoff Ryman bibliography - List of awards and nominations received by Geoff Ryman
|
Chosen as he has enough works and awards to make featured lists, and enough sources to write at least a GA, and works in intersections that might get various projects input. Anything missing for this example or author topics in general? The only other author topic is Mary Wollstonecraft, which includes all her major works. But i think the bibliogrpahy as a subtopic is preferable for more prolific writers.YobMod 08:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think you're right. If articles such as "contributions to popular culture" or "media based on the author's works" are worth creating, then they'd need to be included too. In fact some authors would probably need loads of articles. But for Geoff Ryman it appears to me that those 3 articles you've outlined above would have all bases covered - rst20xx (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)