Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates

Archives:

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

FGTC Reforms – Part 1[edit]

With no votes in the last 11 days, I find a clear consensus to implement all three reforms. Editors can move on to discuss how exactly to implement #3 and what the aftermath of #3 would be, as more input from editors are needed on these points. starship .paint (RUN) 14:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

MaranoFan, Gog the Mild and I would like to present a series proposals to reinvigorate the Featured and Good topics process. After careful discussion, we identified numerous areas in need of improvement. Below are a handful of initial proposals,^[a] with further explanation in attached footnotes.

Abolish the one Director, two Delegates system; instead there will be three evenly-ranked coordinators. The director has no extra responsibilities, so evenly ranked overseers is preferable.^[b]
Combine Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates (this page) and Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions into a single talk page. Neither is active enough to warrant the separation.^[c]
Mass renaming of Good topic pages. At the moment, every good topic is on a page labeled "Featured topics". For example, the "1 Line (Sound Transit)" is a good topic but its page is titled Wikipedia:Featured topics/1 Line (Sound Transit) stations. It would make much more sense as Wikipedia:Good topics/1 Line (Sound Transit) stations.^[d]

Thank you, and please leave your thoughts below. – Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes

^ Another batch of proposals will be presented in the near-future, involving the simplification of nominations/criteria, as well as formal elections for new delegates/coordinators.
^ In doing so, we would be following the same practice as FAC, FAR, TFA and GAN. Although FLC includes a one Director, two Delegates system, the FLC director has extra responsibilities (TFL scheduling), whereas there are no extra responsibilities for the FGTC director.
^ Ostensibly, the two talk pages have different purposes: Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates is related to the process, while Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions. In practice, both are only occasionally active, making the separation largely unhelpful. A combined page would result in more page watchers and lessen confusion over where to post questions.
^ These mislabels has been a huge source of confusion in the past—I've had many, many complaints over the years. It is simply a practical and logical matter to actually name the page after its actual topic level. If you're wondering why it is even this way to begin with: I believe it goes back to an ancient practice, where good topics were considered merely a subcategory of Featured topics. For instance, the Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates was originally named "Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates", yet included good topics.

Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support all 3 changes. Especially glad to see the third one hopefully being addressed. Assuming the third one is implemented, would there be a way to keep track of topics that in the future go from GT to FT or vice versa? Or would someone have to manually keep track and rename the topic page? Also on a related note, I assume with the third point, GTCs would also get Category:Good topic nominations and Category:Good topic nominations/YearHere instead of the featured equivalents? Or would the categories stay the same? -- ZooBlazer 23:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume with the third point, GTCs would also get Category:Good topic nominations and Category:Good topic nominations/YearHere instead of the featured equivalents? Great question. What are people's thoughts on this? –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as an involved proposer, but I would think a new category is fitting. Really, there's nothing about GT's that makes them a subcategory of FTs, so having them fully differentiable with categories makes sense to me. Aza24 (talk) 06:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support all three. I have also always been thrown off by the fact that GTs are presented as FTs in their titles, so this is a welcome change to put these all where they should already have been. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support all three. Way back when GTs were added, the legwork was never done to make a parallel set of pages for GTs- the focus was just on creating a way to make the requirements for FTs 50%+ featured without throwing out all of the topics that were majority GA. Years later, when the process was renamed, it wasn't done beyond the candidates stage (or else it would be "Wikipedia:Featured and good topics/1 Line (Sound Transit) stations"), so we've just perpetuated the confusion around what's a good topic vs. a featured topic. They're both distinct categories and should be treated as such. --Pres N 00:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a technical perspective, will probably need a WP:BRFA to rename the topics, then I will also need to modify my FGTC promotion script to create the correct pages. This is not an argument for or against, just starting the planning for it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. The article history and topic templates would also need editing. Would be a slight hassle, but a huge payoff. When we moved the candidate pages I just went through RFM technical requests. Would that not work here? Aza24 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the quantity is hundreds? If someone is willing to do it manually, sure. Else will want to use a bot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Last time JJMC89 moved the pages—see here. I assume he used something like AWB, but maybe I'm wrong. Will definitely look into bot management if these reforms are approved. Aza24 (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support all three proposals. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support see no downside to any of the proposals. I do think that redirects should be created from Featured topic article titles to Good topic ones and vice versa for ease of navigation. (t · c) buidhe 04:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support all three. All logical and well overdue. I also suggest adding supplemental instructions on how to handle a GT-to-FT promotion as well as renamings (as the 1 Line GT has gone through several of them). Sounder Bruce 06:11, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on #1. Support #2 Combining these pages would be helpful especially as some questions take a long take to get answers on the other page. Oppose #3 Seems to add more needless work for renaming page, particularly when GT gets automatically upgraded to an FT when one article goes from a GA to an FA. A topic can be determined to be good or featured by just checking or talk page or just looking at the topic itself. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 23:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support all three for the reasons given – seem like reasonable proposals to me. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support all three. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:53, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support all three; seem like reasonable, common-sense proposals. AryKun (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Several nominations ready for close?[edit]

Hello, I noticed there was previous discussion of the length of time it takes to close nominations, and wanted to point out that there are several nominations with clear consensus for promotion and have been sitting for quite a while. If no one has objections and they aren't promoted soon, as an uninvolved third party I am going to be bold and promote any unanimously supported nominations that have been open for longer than the ten day voting period. These would include:

There are more that should probably also be closed, but these are the most clear-cut. I believe some more discussion may be needed to streamline the process for unanimous promotion; for example, including a caveat in the instructions that allows any editor to close one X amount of unanimous support has been reached. Fritzmann (message me) 17:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, these are already on my list for today, and I'll take care of them. Please note that one of these, any many others are not first time nominations (they're renomination of previous demotions). The bot cannot promote these ones and they have to be done manually, which is a very time consuming process. Aza24 (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that the bot was essentially broken for ~2 weeks, and the issue has just these past two days been resolved. Aza24 (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, thanks for the super quick reply! That makes a lot of sense, and I appreciate you volunteering your time to steward this process. Fritzmann (message me) 17:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that one of these, any many others are not first time nominations (they're renomination of previous demotions). The bot cannot promote these ones and they have to be done manually, which is a very time consuming process. Idea: If you blank the (Wikipedia:Topic name) and (Wikipedia talk:Topic name) pages, then run the bot, it'll probably work. Then you can manually fix the (Wikipedia talk:Topic page), which will need to have its FGTC history template and wikiprojects fixed manually. Then you can check the contribs/diffs carefully for any other problems or mess-ups. If there's any, note them and fix then. Then, armed with the data from this test run, we can chat about how to code the bot to do these non-first time nominations. Wanna try that? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, you did already tell me this recently—completely forgot. Although I wasn't sure if you were proposing it as a practical solution or merely a technical possibility. I'll try shortly with Astroid belt. Aza24 (talk) 05:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have tried just now. If it works I'll do so with Emirates Cup and Dwarf planets as well. Aza24 (talk) 05:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it worked; I'll adjust the article history tomorrow and get some others going soon as well. Aza24 (talk) 06:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait on the other 2 so I have some test cases for the new code I'm about to write. Can you check your test run you did just now carefully (diffs) and make sure article history and wikiprojects on that one page is the only difference in the process? Let me know and I'll work on coding it up. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a bug unrelated to it being a former featured topic. Filed #92 Bot confuses {GAList} with {GA}. Looking forward to seeing how you do the manual diff of Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Asteroid belt. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have been on an on-and-off wikibreak for a while but will get to processing many of these soon if the other coords have not.--N Ø 18:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Feel free to knock out any delists if you have a moment; they're a bit of a chord since no bot, but most of them around under 10 articles per topic. Aza24 (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential topic question[edit]

Eventually, I'm hoping to make a GT/FT for The Dark Pictures Anthology. The series is planned to have at least eight games, with four released so far, along with a spinoff VR game, The Dark Pictures: Switchback VR.

My question is would the VR game have to be included, or could I get away with just the games in the main anthology?

The Dark Pictures Anthology

6 articles

Little Hope

I suspect that the VR spinoff would be required in the topic to pass it as a candidate. Idiosincrático (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The VR game would make a good addition to the topic since the proposed parent article discusses it as part of the series, and there do not seem to be multiple spinoff games to be a separate topic.--N Ø 04:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 Potential 2 topic question[edit]

So I was planning out possible topics for WP:DRWHO and had a question regarding this possible topic.

. So these actors have portrayed the numbered incarnations however their are other version who could be included, Jo Martin appears as the Fugitive Doctor, John Hurt appears as the War Doctor, and Michael Jayston appears as The Valeyard. Should these articles be included? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Potential topic question: Inclusion of band members BLPs to topic scope[edit]

Hi! I am in the process of overhauling articles/lists about SB19, with the intent of putting those for candidate at WP:FT. Now, each band member has their own Wikipedia articles (Josh Cullen (musician), Pablo (Filipino musician), Stell (singer), Felip (musician), Justin (Filipino singer)), and I am not quite sure if those should be included in the topic's scope, especially since I have not seen a band FTs that include each band member's biography. I want to ask for comments on whether the articles of each band member should be in the topic scope or not; this is so I can see the consensus before nominating the topic for candidacy, and I can act accordingly to meet the topic for the criteria. Thanks! – Relayed (t • c) 17:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SB19

6 articles

Discography

Songs recorded

Awards and nominations

Videography

Live performances

[1] Another batch of proposals will be presented in the near-future, involving the simplification of nominations/criteria, as well as formal elections for new delegates/coordinators.

[2] In doing so, we would be following the same practice as FAC, FAR, TFA and GAN. Although FLC includes a one Director, two Delegates system, the FLC director has extra responsibilities (TFL scheduling), whereas there are no extra responsibilities for the FGTC director.

[3] Ostensibly, the two talk pages have different purposes: Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates is related to the process, while Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions. In practice, both are only occasionally active, making the separation largely unhelpful. A combined page would result in more page watchers and lessen confusion over where to post questions.

[4] These mislabels has been a huge source of confusion in the past—I've had many, many complaints over the years. It is simply a practical and logical matter to actually name the page after its actual topic level. If you're wondering why it is even this way to begin with: I believe it goes back to an ancient practice, where good topics were considered merely a subcategory of Featured topics. For instance, the Wikipedia:Featured and good topic candidates was originally named "Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates", yet included good topics.

[a]

[b]

[c]

[d]