Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic criteria/Archive 2

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

Number of featured-class articles

I propose that the requirement gets formalized as follows:

  • 3(a) A number of articles are featured class (featured articles or featured lists), dependent on the size of the topic:
    • Two featured class articles if a topic has three to eight articles
    • Three featured class articles if a topic has nine to fifteen articles
    • Four featured class articles if a topic has sixteen to twenty-five articles
    • One fifth of the articles (rounded down) at featured class if a topic has over twenty-five articles

There are only two current topics that wouldn't meet this - The Simpsons (season 8) and The Simpsons (season 9), which are only one short. Tompw (talk) (review) 20:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of logical problems about your proposal; therefore, I propose this simpler version:
  • 3(a) A number of articles are featured class (featured articles or featured lists), according to the following rules:
    • 3(a)(i) One fifth of the articles (rounded down) at featured class
    • 3(a)(ii) At least two articles are of featured class
Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 21:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Again this would only affect the two Simpsons articles. We would give them a grace period to fix that if we changed the criteria. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 21:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I like the simpler 1/5 model than the squareroot model. However, the 1/5 model is a bit too easy on the low teens, which would only require two FAs. How about we make it round up, so that a topic with 11-15 require 3 FAs. In this model the Simpsons are still the only ones affected, though more harshly, as each of them would require two more FAs unless we made a cap to the number of FAs required. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
How about:
  • 3(a)(i) At least one fifth of the articles are featured class.
This removes the rounding and replaces it with an at least. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 22:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll support "at least one fifth". Tompw (talk) (review) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
But we still have to decide how we will do rounding, regardless of the wording of the rule. Does a topic with 14 articles need two or three FAs? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:35, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Three as the "at least" proposal says. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 23:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
One fifth of 14 is 2.8. You and I may both see this as requiring at least three FAs, but if we do not say that we are rounding up, I guarantee that many people will try to submit topic with too few. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
What about:
  • 3(a)(i) At least twenty percent of the articles are featured class.
Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
There is a bit less chance for confusion with that, but why not just use your original wording with "round up" in place of "round down"? --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Because it is unclear what is being rounded the fraction or the number of featured class artilces. I thought that the round down was the faction, but you thought it was the number of featured required. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 15:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

(indent reset). I wanna add, (being someone who's starting a 40 article FT), that the 1/5 one is better. I also think about 22% of the articles should be Featured instead of 20. In my case, that would be 9 Featured. I know 22 is a little bit random but it may help in a bad situation. Otherwise, if my idea doesn't work, I'm all for the 1/5 proposal.Mitch32contribs 15:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where you got 22%; I thought we were just arguing semantics. It looks like we all agree with a minimum of 2 FAs for small topics; and bigger ones need 1/5 or 20% (which are the same thing), and in either case you would have to surpass the minimum if there are fractions. This would give us:
  • 1-10 articles: 2 FAs
  • 11-15 articles: 3 FAs
  • 16-20 articles: 4 FAs
  • 21-25 articles: 5 FAs
  • 26-30 articles: 6 FAs
--Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 00:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Twenty or twenty-two I do not care. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 00:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Arctic Gnome: I chose 22 because 20 seems too little and 25 seems to high. So average it out, you get 22. I feel its better than both and should help in the long run.Mitch32contribs 20:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Using 22% gives us:
  • 1-9 articles: 2 FAs
  • 10-13 articles: 3 FAs
  • 14-18 articles: 4 FAs
  • 19-22 articles: 5 FAs
  • 23-27 articles: 6 FAs
Overall, I think the difference is too small to be worth the extra complicated of 22% over one fifth (and that's speaking as someone happy with maths). I still support the "one fifth (rounded up)" plan. It's simple and produces an acceptable number of Featured-class articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tompw (talk • contribs) 20:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree. While 22% might be a better number, I think the project would be best served by a nice round 1/5th. That being said, I bet a year or two from now we'll be looking into upping the requirements (this and all other FC standards have gone up over time). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 03:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
<--- (I think FL criteria have remained remarkedly steady, personally). Anyway, does anyone have objections to implementing 20%? Tompw (talk) (review) 19:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a question: Does the number of articles include the keystone article? Forex, in the Simpsons FTs, does the Season 8/9 article count towards the number of FAs needed for a FT? JKBrooks85 (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It counts. As for the proposal, it seems to be fair. 20% appears to be a relatively easy-to-understand way to do it also. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The reason I ask is that many keystone articles are Featured Lists rather than Featured Articles. If you do include them in the article total, then it might be worth mentioning that featured lists are acceptable as featured articles when tallying the total needed for a topic. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If you read up to the top where the proposal is spelled out, it says "A number of articles are featured class (featured articles or featured lists), according to the following rules:" Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 15:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see it now. If I could overlook it that easily, other people might do the same. I'd support the 20% rule as well, even though it'll create more work for me in the featured topic that I'm currently developing. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, everyone! I think we finally have a rule that makes sense.--Pharos (talk) 02:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Grace period again

I think we should have a grace period stated before this comes up again. I propose three months for a demotion of an article, and six months for a grandfather topic with a change in the requirements. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Tompw (talk) (review) 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If this gains consensus, it would be nice if we could also decide exactly when the grace period would begin and end; e.g., should the topic be nominated for removal so that in the two weeks to gain consensus the deadline passes, or should they not be nominated for removal until the deadline is past. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 22:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I also propose having three months if the topic expands;e.g., "the release of a next in a series." Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 00:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, we can always change it again if it is too long, but for now it sounds good. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Criterion 3.c

I propose that criterion 3.c be changed to

  • (c) Items that cannot achieve a high rating (as stated in 3.a and 3.b) due to their limited subject matter have passed an individual audit for quality which included a completed peer review with all important problems raised fixed. Such items cannot be used to fulfill criterion 1(a).

I would change it myself, but I am not sure of the intent of the last sentence: I am not quite sure whether the "This" in "This can not be use" refers to each individual limited-subject-matter item, or to criterion 3.c itself (the former sounds right, but some consensus would be nice here anyway).

—an odd name 19:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a simple change for the sake of specificity; there probably won't be any objection. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 01:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting more strict for series and lists

I think that it might be time to make some of the recommended criteria mandatory for topics that are in a clear series or are nothing but list articles. For all-list topics, I think that it is reasonable to expect them to have similar headings and have a similar structure. Check out the lists in the hurricane topics, they all have tables in the same places and list the same information in the same places. I think that this is key in making the topics unified, giving FT a more concrete objective. Obviously this wouldn't apply to all-prose topics with articles like "history of". Looking over the existing list-topics, most of them already comply with this optional requirement, and given that it's easier to pass FL than FA, I think this little bit of extra work is reasonable to ask of them. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. That would be the first recommendation? Zginder 2008-04-15T18:58Z (UTC)
Yes, and possibly the infobox one too, as long as we keep the line "when appropriate" in there. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Changes in April are vague

In my view, the text was better beforehand. I propose that it be reinstated. Was 20 undesirable? Choose a different number then.

[1] TONY (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It could stand to be rephrased, but I don't think it's in our interests to pick a definite number. It said 20, but then the Simpsons seasons were promoted with a clear topical scope that spans 26 articles. Really there need not be any rule about size, even an optional one. It might be best to just rephrase it as advice to not try to make a topic needlessly broad. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 14:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but "needlessly broad" or narrow say nothing: where is the boundary between needless and needful? Better not to say anything about size unless it's defined in objective terms; even "not so broad as to ..., and not so narrow as to ...". TONY (talk) 16:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion of change to last recommendation

In light of the discussion here, I would think it would be sensible to change the last recommendation to:

"To avoid wasting time, the topic should not have any Good article reassessments, Featured article reviews, Featured article removal candidates, or Featured list removal candidates when nominated for featured topic, and should only have Good article nominations, Featured article candidates and Featured list candidates if the result does not affect whether the topic meets the featured topic criteria. Please have all required processes done before nominating."

This is slightly more complicated but more logical and avoids future discussions like the one at Orange Box. Thoughts? - rst20xx (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Zginder 2008-05-15T13:06Z (UTC)
Well I'm going to be bold and change it. Though upon reflection, I got the above wrong, and it's only FAC that could possibly not affect whether a topic meets FTC, not GAC and FLC as I said. So I've reflected this in how I've changed the recommendation - rst20xx (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I concur. Zginder 2008-05-24T13:38Z (UTC)

Retention

The Star Wars topic needs to undergo a retention period, given that one of its articles was recently demoted from featured status. Also, another may be demoted soon. I was going to nominate it for removal, but thought it'd be better to post this message here. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones was demoted from FA status on June 3, so it has until September 3 to attain at least GA status for the Star Wars topic to be kept. The issue will probably be resolved quickly since the article is already a GA nominee. Kariteh (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed rule change regarding future events/series/etc

One thing that I've noticed is that there's no clear policy regarding including articles in topics which are about current/future events/TV series/etc (Henceforth I'll simply call these "future events" or else this'll get painful), where this last article cannot become a GA yet due to inherent instability.

Sometimes (for example, with the Degrassi and Lost series topics) the articles for future events are audited, and then included in the topic as such until the event is finished, at which point the topic has a retention period to get the article to GA. Other times, the article is not included during this period, and simply goes straight into the article as GA during the retention period (for example, the Devil May Cry topic tried to take this route, though this ultimately didn't happen as DMC4 didn't get to GA within the retention period).

I think the rules should be clarified regarding such articles. Here's what I propose should be the case:

  1. All future event articles should be audited and included (and then the normal retention period policy for after the event occurs still happens).
  2. When an article for a future event is created for the first time, the topic has a retention period in order to get the article audited, with the article being added to the topic immediately.

Why do I think the extra articles should be included? Because they're part of the topic! Whether an event has happened yet or not, it's still part of the topic, and therefore should be included from the start.

Yes, this makes things slightly more complicated (especially point 2), but the new rules would lead to more complete featured topics as a result.

So which current featured topics would be immediately affected by point 1? The following:

I think that's it.

I realise it'd be annoying to have to put these topics into grace, but as I said this rule change would lead to more complete featured topics, and we could always make exceptions for these two existing topics and allow them to continue under the current system.

Thoughts? rst20xx (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? rst20xx (talk) 12:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. New articles should try to be added to topics as soon as possible. That being said, the issue of new articles is going to be just as hard to keep up with as the issue of knowing whether any constituent articles of FTs have been demoted. I wonder if a script could help us double-check this stuff. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 05:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I doubt it'll be the case for new articles, unless we do it off categories, but even then that assumes the new articles are categorised correctly in a reasonable amount of time, and that there's a category containing exactly the articles we want, which often there isn't. I imagine it should be doable for demotions though.
Thanks for the support - any more feedback from anyone else? And what should we do with the existing FTs which would fail the criteria if it's changed? - rst20xx (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Besides, I never really understood these "unreleased = unstable" arguments. The stability criteria for GA, FA, etc. refer to edit wars and "day-to-day" changes; they don't say anything about unreleased or future products. Just for example, 2008 ACC Championship Game hasn't been edited at all since June 4 apart from a minor AutoWikiBrower maintenance edit. Also, articles about productions stuck in development hell can be very quiet yet very extensive. Kariteh (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Well OK, I think to make this change, we'd have to change criterion 3.c. from

Items that cannot achieve a high rating (as stated in 3.a and 3.b) due to their limited subject matter have passed an individual audit for quality which included a completed peer review with all important problems fixed. Such items cannot be used to fulfill criterion 1.a.

to

Items that cannot achieve a high rating (as stated in 3.a and 3.b) due to either their limited subject matter or inherent instability have passed an individual audit for quality which included a completed peer review with all important problems fixed. Such items cannot be used to fulfill criterion 1.a.

I've been bold and made this change. Shall we put ACC championship games and Kingdom Hearts into retention periods? That's what I'd do - rst20xx (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, upon rereading the retention criteria, I see that's actually what it says we should do - rst20xx (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm putting the two topics under retention. I hope my doing this isn't overstepping what I'm allowed to do, and I'm sorry if it is - rst20xx (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll bite. How do we get an article audited? I'd like to get Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days, Kingdom Hearts Birth by Sleep, and Kingdom Hearts coded audited. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC))
Well according to the criteria, it must "include a completed peer review with all important problems fixed", i.e. it basically needs to go through a peer review - rst20xx (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Update: Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days has been peer reviewed and issues raised were addressed.
See Wikipedia:Peer review/Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days/archive1. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC))
Just to clarify, I assume that once the three KH articles (third one just went up for PR yesterday) have finished their peer reviews, they'll have to be added in via a supplementary nomination? (Guyinblack25 talk 14:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC))

People removing and adding articles to featured topics unilaterally

This has happened several times, and one of them was with the newly classified dwarf planet. It should be written in the Featured Topic rules that you cannot do this, as it seems to keep happening. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of us should just watch them all so we're aware of that. I'm watching the ones that I nominated. Gary King (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that people are zealously finding gaps in the topics and adding the gaps for improvement to GA. What I do and needs to be done is notify the Wikiproject that the article needs to be added, but not change the topic. Zginder 2008-07-15T20:43Z (UTC)
If you look at Wikipedia:Featured topics/count there appears to be 5 articles that have the template on them that should not. I went though the official list of topics and counted articles and the man-made count is correct. Does someone what to find these 5 articles? Zginder 2008-07-15T21:55Z (UTC)
I found these 4.
I'm not sure about the last one. Currently, Category:Wikipedia featured topics all articles states there are 389, so I'm assuming the difference is because of the time difference between when the count page was generated and now. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC))
Those were members of a former topic. The topic must have not been removed properly. I removed them and added it to the histories. Category:Wikipedia featured topics all articles now lists the right number 385, but Wikipedia:Featured topics/count is still 1 to high 386. I wounder why. Zginder 2008-07-15T23:21Z (UTC)
{{PAGESINCATEGORY}} counts all pages in a category, including subcategory pages. So Category:Wikipedia featured topics main articles is the 386th page counted. Kariteh (talk) 23:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Why does the subcategory not show? Thank you Guyinblack25 for finding those four articles. Zginder 2008-07-17T20:05Z (UTC)
Subcategories are sorted like other pages, so this one shows up on the second page[2] (since it starts with a W). Kariteh (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I have all of them on my watchlist, but sometimes they still sneak through. I'm thinking about protecting the boxes, but then users won't be able to update the GA/FA icons when articles get promoted. For now I'll add an invisible tag at the top of all problem boxes asking users not to add new articles without a nomination. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you instead convert it to a template? Will be a lot easier to manage. Gary King (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Overview topics

I've started a talk on how we should handle overview topics atWikipedia_talk:Featured_topics#Overview_topics, comments are apriciated. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 10:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Individual audit

"Items that are ineligible for featured or good article status, due to either their limited subject matter or inherent instability, must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed. Such items do not count towards criterion 1.a."

Since when does brevity prevent an article from earning GA or FA status? WP:FACR 4 only states that the article should not be too long, and 1b states that the article should be comprehensive. Francium (FA) is only 22kb, Tropical Storm Mindy (2003) (GA) is only 13kb, but they both passed because they are extremely comprehensive given how little there is to write about the subjects. So long as an article is comprehensive, its length should not prevent it from achieving GA/FA. Or, if there really isn't enough information to make an article worthwhile, it should simply be merged into one of the other articles in the topic.

Insufficient length should no longer be a factor in FT criterion 3c. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The only time that part of the criteria has applied is in the case of lists- FLC does oppose lists from being featured based on being too limited. --PresN (talk) 18:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you would be better off raising this issue at WP:WIAFL than here - rst20xx (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Require more FAs?

Or FLs, of course. During Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/The Legend of Zelda titles, there were some opposes due to the low number of FAs in the topic, even though the topic met the 20% threshold. I'd like to consider raising this to 25% (from one in five to one in four). Looking through the existing FTs, the only two that do not already have at least 25% featured content are the two Simpsons seasons (feel free to double-check me, though), which do not meet the 20% requirement either, and are eligible for removal near the end of the month. In addition, all FTCs also have at least 25% featured content, so this seems like as good a time as any to raise the standard. Pagrashtak 18:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm kind of indifferent, but this doesn't sound unreasonable. Since these are suppose to be some of the best groups of content on Wikipedia, it makes sense they should be as good as possible. I can only see this strengthening the topics and future ones. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC))
I'm a bit torn about this. Apart from Solar System, there are no article-based FTs that are anywhere near as big as the Simpsons ones, and I think raising the bar like this would discourage WikiProjects from taking on projects with a large number of articles like they did. Having said that, this will ultimately lead to better FTs, and I think it's the way we should eventually go. At any rate, I think we should hold off a little bit before strengthening the criteria, in order to give the Simpsons guys time to get their topics up to current code. We should have a better idea in 18 days when their retention periods expire. If they fail, then they've already failed, and if they succeed, then their topics will need only one more FA each which in 6 months should be comfortably doable. But I don't want to say to them, "you haven't got out of this retention period yet and we're already whacking you with the next one" because I think if we do that they're less likely to get through this one with their topics intact - rst20xx (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
How about a sliding scale that increases the number with the number of articles in the topic? A FTC with only 5 articles with 1 featured should be fine (the current 20%), but an FTC with 20 articles should have 5 as featured. Exactly where the line is would be around 9 articles (as that's the first numerical case where a %age falls between 20 and 25%). --MASEM 14:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We probably should wait until the Simpson's retention period ends to really give this serious thought. It would also probably be good form to notify the editors of the Simpsons topics.
But just to get the gears turning, another alternative would be to have a process to audit large topics that only fail the 25% FA criteria, but have 20% or more. That way they will still strive for 25%, but would have a small safety net if they don't quite meet that. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC))
Yeah, this discussion should take place at least after the Simpsons topics either make it or don't, and when we talk about it we need their imput. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
We can discuss it now and plan to make it effective on 01 Sep, or some other date after the grace period for the Simpsons topic has expired. I'm afraid if we wait that an existing topic will slip into the gap, or a candidate will come along that is between 20% and 25%. Pagrashtak 17:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
September first would be fine, just as long as they get an even longer compliance time than they did before, it is probably a strain on the Simpsons project to have to keep running to catchup with the rising standards. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The criteria page says that we give "six months following a change to the Featured Topic criteria". If either of the Simpsons topics gets between 20% and 25%, I have no problem giving them six months to rise above 25%. Pagrashtak 18:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Article count 20% FA 25% FA
3 – 8 2 2
9 – 10 2 3
11 – 12 3 3
13 – 15 3 4
16 4 4
17 – 20 4 5
21 – 24 5 6
25 5 7
26 – 28 6 7
29 – 30 6 8
(Un-indent) Just to help give some perspective, here's a table of numbers and how the two FA counts will differ. After looking at the numbers, the barrier for new topics doesn't seem that much stricter for large topics.
Since the difference basically works out to only a single FA for most topic sizes, I'm in favor of making the change plain and simple; 25% FA with no exceptions.
I think it would be very unlikely that a topic with 13 or more articles wouldn't be able to squeeze one more FA out of the 10 or more good articles in the topic. Thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 20:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC))
The FT project has a proud tradition of instruction/criteria creep, and I'm all for continuing the trend. --PresN (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I just ran the numbers on all the current featured topics and currently nominated ones, and the only change this would mean is that the two Simpsons topics would each need 7 Featured articles or lists instead of their current goal of 6 to meet the 20% rule. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Featured topics seem to me to come after a good deal of the candidate articles have been promoted to FAs. Proportions of 20% and 25% seem rather low. Tony (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but remember that 20% is a long way from when this started, and who says it won't move beyond 25% in time? I agree that it should move much further up, but only gradually, people need time to comply with the new criteria. Heck, people are still peer reviewing article for currently existing topics, and the Simpsons topic is still trying to comply with the 20% requirement. So I agree, but it should still increase slowly, and I think 25% starting on September 1st of this year (or now if people prefer) is a good idea. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I for one fully expect that percentage to continue to rise. Remember- when this whole thing started, it was just "A collection of pretty good articles". Then it was "A collection of articles where they're all B+", then GA+, then GA/FA/FL only, then there was the minimum of 2 featured, then 20%min2, and now it's going to 25%min2. I believe that as soon as this new 6 month grace period expires (or sooner, if the Simpsons topics don't make the 20% cut), it'll get bumped up again, to 30% or 1/3. The continual goal is to make the idea of a "featured" topic to be as respectable as possible, without cutting down all of the existing topics. --PresN (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the change, but think that it should be a blanket 25%. PresN hit the head on the nail- all our featured processes have seen their requirements creeping slowly up, and that's a good think for everyone as the encyclopedia matures. To think that articles with no inline citations merited FA in 2004, let alone the fact they wouldn't pass C class now, is sometimes chilling... yes, this will require some readjustment, but I think a simple rule of 25% (along with the minimum 2/3 FA rung) is a low-hassle, easy to understand adjustment (if it were up to be, I'd just boost that puppy to 50% right now, but I'm sure in a year or two we'll be clamoring for that anyhow :P ) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not make it at least a third, and give everyone 12 months to satisfy the condition? That could underpin an improvement campaign. Tony (talk) 02:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, as stated above: one question, though; what is the status of any grace periods? I'd hate to jump the criteria before they've had a chance to meet the current terms. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it would go "As of September 1st, 2008, all FT's must have 1/3rd (rounded up) featured articles/lists. Any current FT's that do not meet this criteria have until September 1st, 2009 to meet this." As of tomorrow, the two Simpsons topics can have their removal candidacy started, as it normally lasts two weeks, and after two weeks, they will have hit the deadline. Anyway, I think I would support that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of not being such a huge burden, I would suggest "rounded down", otherwise we are going to kill several 2/6 featured topics fairly recently promoted (Orange Box). No pain, no gain, and I'm not particularly worried that another FA can't be made, just a thought for some... lost track of where I was going with that sentence, but opening up both suggestions to input. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 03:11, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the rush really. Plus we wouldn't want the Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons to think we're trying to drive them out. I'm sure we'll get to 1/3, and even 1/2 after a while. If we go too fast, the growing pains may be too much for editors. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
And I agree, but reaching 1/3rd by September 2008 would not actually be that difficult... here is what would happen if we did 1/3rd rounded up by September 2008...

Topic No. of FA's

  • Hurricanne Isabel - 3-4
  • Lost season 4 - 4-5
  • Simpsons season 8 - 4-9
  • Simpsons season 9 - 5-9
  • Star wars episodes - 2-3
  • Wilco - 2-3
  • State Touring Roads - 3-4
  • Zelda - 4-5

So you see, all but the two simpsons topics would have only one FA to raise to meet the much higher criteria. True, Simpsons Wikiproject would have their work cut out for them, but they would still have a whole year to do it in. I personally think it would be doable. Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be doable. But I think we should get their thoughts on it too and some of the other contributors to the FT content before we proceed. (Guyinblack25 talk 03:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
Agreed, perhaps they could get a further extension because they have such a big topic, maybe another half year-9 months. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, OK. 1/3 looks good. Though if ANYONE doesn't support 1/3, then can we agree on 25% instead? Also yes, before we make any decisions, we NEED to bring WP:DOH on board, because I really don't want them to feel we're just trying to push their topics out. (Of course, this is assuming their topics are retained, if not then I think we should still inform them but be less worried about it) - rst20xx (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I have notified the Simpsons WikiProject. Although I initially suggested 1/4, I will not oppose 1/3, even though it would put my FT at risk. ;) Pagrashtak 18:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As one of the editors who has worked on the Simpsons FTs, I am going to say right now that I am not even going to bother with this catch up game. Here we are (potentially) a week (or so) from saving one of the FTs and suddenly the bar is going to be raised again. Who is to say that someone else isn't going to want to raise the bar to 40% or even 1/2? For anyone who has ever worked on an episode article (especially decade old ones), you would know how difficult it is to raise them to FA standards (especially now that the FA standards are higher than they were 6 months ago) and the prospect of having to get five more for season 8 and four more for season 9 is more than disheartening (and it pretty much kills our season 4 drive). So instead of these "we'll give you a year" games, why not just delist them now and save us all a lot of time? -- Scorpion0422 20:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Second Scorpion0422 (talk · contribs). The increase to 20% was annoying, but understandable and doable. This new development is indeed quite frustrating. Cirt (talk) 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Getting 2 more FAs for each of our topics will be hard; getting 4 wouldn't be just hard, it'd be damn near impossible. So if this does go through, as Scorp said, we're out, just delist them and spare the fuss. Gran2 20:59, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Would six months to address an increase to 25% be more reasonable? (Guyinblack25 talk 21:09, 14 August 2008 (UTC))
Um, that is what appears to be currently proposed. I also don't think that is the issue here, but whether certain articles in The Simpsons series have enough material out there to ever be WP:FA, thus increasing gradations of these changes effectively prohibit inclusion of this topic in the future. Cirt (talk) 21:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, and I think perhaps the Simpsons topics should be given more time, but going to 1/3rd rounded up is a natural progression. The question is how much time the project should be given, not what is the lowest common denominator for Featured Topic criteria. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps at some point Featured topic will mean that all articles within the topic scope are of WP:FA/WP:FL status. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but we don't want to lose 3/4ths of all of our current topics, and that's why we want to phase in the requirements so people have a chance. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Six months is not long enough. I say make it 12 months—1 September 2009—and a third. That's a good, medium-term gameplan. Is it really that difficult to work towards the promotion of a few more of the Simpsons articles in that timeframe? Tony (talk) 00:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the info and sources just aren't out there to get some articles to FA. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC))
It is unfortunate, and if we ever go to all-FA/FL, some of the topics I like and have worked on, like Halo characters or Final Fantasy titles may not be able to get all their articles to FA, but I still think we should press on and raise the standards. And who knows? Perhaps they will find what they need to meet the standards, now or in the future. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem here is with the Featured Article process, not Featured Topics. If an article is truly as well-researched as is reasonably possible, why shouldn't it be able to get to FA? Yes, it may be shorter than some other article of comparable type, but featured content should represent content that is the best Wikipedia can offer, and if an article is as good as it can be, but short, then it should still be featured IMO. I hate the fact that there is this glass ceiling on the accreditation many articles can attain, as if an article is the best it can be, then it should be of the highest accreditation there is - rst20xx (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Given these various issues, I think we should take smaller steps with the increase of the standards. 25% sounds like a perfectly reasonable increase for the time being. Good articles have their place on Wikipedia, and WP:FT is one them. There's no need to push them out quickly and no rush to ramp up the criteria. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC))
Like I said above, I'm fine with that. I should also point out to those worried about total "FA-ization" of FT?, it's highly unlikely we're ever going to require above say, a 50% FA, as GA is not only an intermediate measure of quality, but also the "last stop" for articles which cannot become FA. I doubt we're going to totally shoot the bar up entirely because of this reason (or at least, not in a while.) So what's the process for ratifying the 25% threshold, then? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Is this 25% threshold going to be rounded up or rounded down? sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the intent is to be rounded up. With the smaller numbered topics, rounding down wouldn't change the number of FAs needed. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC))
I have an idea that should hopefully appease everyone, but it's quite a big idea, and I don't have time to write it down right now as I'm about to go out... so expect it tomorrow I guess - rst20xx (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
OK... sooner than expected. See below - rst20xx (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Comment - I think we can all agree that, if the Good Topics proposal does not launch in the near future, we should up the required number of FA's to 25%? That seemed to have a consensus. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I propose that on September 1, the FTCriteria be changed to 25% rounded up from the current 20% rounded up, with the standard 6 month grace period, regardless of the status of other proposals. If WP:GT goes live, we can reopen the discussion to move it higher, if need be, but lets at least try to pull something from the discussion right now, to simplify things. --PresN (talk)
My only concern, and if I'm the only one I'll shut up, but making it 25% only effects the simpsons topics, and no other FT needs to improve, whereas 33% rounded up makes a few more topics have to get more FA's like zelda, wilco, touring roads... like the simpsons people said, it we are going to raise it, and they can't come up to even 20%, then we might as well try to raise it for all the rest so that actual improvement takes place because of the raising of the standards, because 25% wont really change anything at the moment. Just a thought. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with the last comment by PresN (talk · contribs) - there seems to be consensus for the move to 25%, so might as well do it and get it over with. Cirt (talk) 06:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree too, September 1st 2008, we should go to 25%, but in 6 months...we should consider 33% rounding up :) I think we have achieved consensus on 25% rounded up. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Yup, seems like consensus to me. And there's still that 6 month grace period, which is a good thing. - :) Cirt (talk) 06:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, this has now gone to 25%, and under current plans the Simpsons topics will become good topics once good topics are implemented - rst20xx (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Seasons of Degrassi: The Next Generation topic

Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 7) got its featured list star today so I removed it from the retention list. Season 8 has been greenlit for production, but Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 8) is currently salted as there are not enough sources for an article yet, and 14 year old fans keep creating it. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 19:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a good thing you're watching that and that you are already an administrator then :) Gary King (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
It was me who salted it after the fourth creation :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 04:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, cool. Well as you probably realise, you'll have 3 months from the date it is finally created to get it included - rst20xx (talk) 16:13, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. And will it be given 3 months after the final episode has aired for it to become Featured, as with Lost Season 5? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

A Proposal regarding a three-way split: Good Topics, Featured Topics and Fully Featured Topics

Firstly, let's make clear this proposal is only going to deal with criteria regarding the percentage of articles that need to be featured in a topic, i.e. 3.a) The rest of the criteria will be left untouched. OK, now let's examine the conversation above. There seems to be two camps here, and I think they both make strong arguments, so let me outline them.

Consensus amongst many editors is that featured topic criteria need to go up over time, as they think that 20% is simply too low. How can they be "featured" topics, the thought goes, when only one in five articles in the topic need be featured?!? And I kind of see their point.

Equally, consensus amongst many others is that they should not go up. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, for certain topics, it may be impossible to reach higher criteria; for example, WP:Simpsons are arguing above that most articles in their two topics simply aren't notable enough to get featured, and as much as it saddens me (I think all articles, if they are written as well as is reasonably possible, should be able to get featured, no matter how substantial they are... but I digress), I think this is true.

The second reason is that if the bar is set higher, then people might not even bother trying to get their topics featured in the first place, which would, ultimately, be detrimental to the quality of content in Wikipedia. Evidence for this, again, is that WP:Simpsons are now saying they might just give up. They probably wouldn't have even bothered trying in the first place, if the bar was at 33% from the start. Having said that, you could equally argue it the other way; with criteria as it stands, people often get their topics to about the 20% mark, get them featured, then leave them at that. By pushing the criteria up, people will get their topics that bit farther before leaving them be, and certainly I think that pushing the criteria up will cause the majority of topics that would no longer meet the criteria, to improve so that they continue to meet the criteria. And similarly for new topics. And I don't expect that this would happen otherwise. (If you follow me.)

So my proposal is that, while we could push the criteria up, instead we could make several levels of accreditation. This way, editors will have an incentive to keep working on existing topics, but topics such as the Simpsons series don't get cut out.

I think the best way to do this would be to have three levels: "good topics", "featured topics", and "fully featured topics". (Obviously the names are open to debate, but these names work for me.) Then the general name for a good/featured/fully featured topic could be a "unified topic", or "accredited topic". I see two natural ways to split the percentages: exponentially (25% for good, 50% for featured and 100% for fully featured), or lineraly (33%, 67%, 100%). That's open to debate. I'd lean the former, but I expect if we went for the former, people would later clammer for the latter, so I don't know. I'd still vote the former, for now at least, and I hope (and expect) that if the latter is taken, the criteria would stop going up after that. Anyway. Doing this would also mean that those who think topics with only 20% of articles featured don't deserve to be called featured, get their way. Whilst those who want to get some accreditation for their unified topics, but don't think it's feasible to get a high number of the articles involved featured, also can do so.

Current FT star.

Let me clear up one over thing about what I'm envisioning - three levels of accreditation, yes, but still one process. Percentages aside, the criteria as they exist are simply designed to ensure that a topic is unified and complete. So in this new system, the process would stay the same as in the current system, in that people can apply for accreditation if they have a good topic which is unified and has no obvious gaps. And then to move from good to featured to fully featured is simply a matter of getting more articles in your topic featured, and in no way involves coming and making some additional nomination here. There could then be different logos for the three levels of featured topic, so the current FT star could be for fully featured topics (say), and there could be variants (involving GA icons?) to represent the other two levels. And then the appropriate logos appear on the appropriate talk pages etc. depending on how accredited a topic becomes.

The only thing I'm not sure about is what to call the new process. "Unified topics"? "Accredited topics"? Either way, it'd provide disruption as it'd (ironically) break unity with the other featured content process names. However, I feel it probably would have to be renamed, as (unless we create a second separate process, which would be stupid as the only difference would be percentage of articles featured) not all content involved would be called featured if it passed the process.

Anyway, on a more practical level, the disadvantage of doing this is that it's more complicated, but I'd be willing to help out with the work to move things about to reflect the new system, and think up clever ways to make it self-maintaining (I'm quite good at writing templates and utilising article categories - I recently overhauled the current system here to a much better one - and I already think I know roughly how I'd do this). And hopefully, if we do this, then the "featured" bar would be sufficiently high to appease everyone, and yet there would also be no more shifting criteria, so no more topics pushed out, when I think we all know the Simpsons people, and others, deserve some recognition here for their fantastic work.

So, what does everyone think? - rst20xx (talk) 21:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: See my 23:33 message below for some clarifications - rst20xx (talk) 23:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea. Cirt (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I have several points to address. First, the Simpsons project saying that some of their articles are not notable enough for a featured topic is a non-issue. If the episode isn't notable, it shouldn't have its own article to begin with. I believe the issue is that there aren't enough reliable sources to promote many of the episodes to FA. A possible solution is to merge lesser episodes into a List of type article and then only have fully independent and expandable episodes be their own articles (Stargate SG-1 has done that) but that is another proposal for another place and time.
I think the basis concept we must grapple with here is whether we want to break up Featured Topics. I agree that this holds appeal to both sides, given that along with increases to GA, FA, and FL criteria, FT? criteria will slowly and largely inevitably creep up, at least to 50% in the future, but who knows where in so many years. That said... I'm uneasy about it. GA has been proven to be a singularly unreliable process, and I'm afraid the occasional issues of "review (and tacitly pass) my GAN, I'll review yours" would only become more prevalent if a new WP institution codified topics for only GAs. Secondly, we have to decide what exactly featured topics means. To Tony and others, it may seem logical to assume FT would only include FAs, but that was a major reason GAs were established; some articles cannot become FA due to limited subject matter. So GA is intrinsically linked to the current FT criteria, and changing it would be an arduous process (but difficulty admittedly is no reason to keep any system.) That said, however, I'm concerned about the splitting of the oversight, overhead, and reviewer/nominator attentions this would cause. On a related note, a possible compromise for the GA-can't become-FA process might be to require audits of the GA, thus, bad GAs might be weeded out and the articles will be more likely to be the best they can be. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Err, I think you're confused. At no point did I propose GA-only topics, which is what you seem to imply. In fact my proposal still strengthened the bottom criteria from where it currently stands. Also, I proposed calling only the more FA-heavy topics "FTs", and many of the GA-heavy topics would be moved to "GTs", addressing the concern of Tony's you mention. Further, you say "I'm concerned about the splitting of the oversight, overhead, and reviewer/nominator attentions this would cause" - well I think I sufficiently showed that the latter would not occur and the process would stay the same, and as for the former two, again as I said I hope to be able to set up a system to automate things, though yes, it may lead to more oversight of the FT process being needed, which (again, as I said) is the only drawback. Finally, I'd point out that there are only 54 topics at the moment, so moving the topics across to a new system at this stage wouldn't be that bad by any means.
Though you make me clarify that when I said some of the Simpsons articles aren't notable enough to get featured, I meant to say that they have too limited subject matter to get featured. I think they're more than notable enough to have their own articles - rst20xx (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, unrelated, but I find it ironic that above you say "it's highly unlikely we're ever going to require above say, a 50% FA", and now you're saying "FT? criteria will slowly and largely inevitably creep up, at least to 50% in the future, but who knows where in so many years" - rst20xx (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
If something is notable enough for its own article, but somehow not notable enough to be featured, then there is a problem with FA, but that's off the topic of this discussion. I'm still thinking about "good topic", but I don't think we need fully featured topics to be separate. They are already denoted with the special symbol. If you want to bring larger attention to them, that's fine, but I don't think we should put them on a separate page. Pagrashtak 22:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I should point out there was a related discussion about so-called "limited" articles getting FA at WT:VG a while back, when I was trying to promote DotA. It goes to show that so-called "limited" articles can pass FA without support-stacking, but it's probably a special case. As to my 50% argument earlier, I have no illusions that at some point FTC will require possibly more than 50%, however I think that is far away (several years at least) and what could be shouldn't color what will be for the purposes of the discussion. Agree with Pagra that it makes more sense to keep the same structure and perhaps modify contents and markup rather than create parallel structures (that way the oversight need is virtually no different.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I tried to make this clear, but now realise I painfully failed; I was in fact trying to propose that we "merely modify contents and markup rather than create parallel structures"; I don't think we should split the WP:FT page, merely denote different topics as different things on that one page. I would try to work out how to come up with a clever categorisation system, so that appropriate things appeared in topic boxes (e.g. the current FT stars for fully featured topics) / talk page article milestones (e.g. saying "This article is part of a good topic" plus appropriate star), without topics moving between GT and FT and FFT having to be maintained manually. (So everything would have some kind of star in its topic box like the current fully featured topics do, except obviously in some cases it'd be the GT star or some other non-fully FT star.) So the system would not, in fact, provide much more acknowledgement to fully featured topics than it currently does, beyond calling them that in various places, such as on the articles' talk pages, and giving them their own unique star. It wouldn't give them their own page. And similarly for good topics; it would have to acknowledge some topics under the name "good topics" for the reasons outlined above, instead of as featured topics, but all the unified topics would still be listed on one page like at WP:FT, not on three separate pages, and there'd still be one place for nominations, one nomination log and one set of criteria (with different %age clauses for the different types). Topics moving between the different classes should hopefully be fully automated, and as articles are promoted, and Template:ArticleHistory modified to reflect this, cats should change automatically, leading to the logos, counts, etc all updating cascadingly from this - rst20xx (talk) 23:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rst20xx (talk · contribs), again I really think that as you explain it this is a very good idea. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...it's an interesting idea. I know that you don't believe it provides more acknowledgement to change the names of topics with different amounts of featured content, but different topics require different amounts of work. For instance, I worked a lot more on Wikipedia:Featured topics/Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow (2 FAs, 1 FL, 2 GAs) than I did on Wikipedia:Featured topics/Naruto manga chapters (3 FLs), and yet the former would be a "featured topic" and the latter would be a "fully featured topic". A featured topic that I am planning would ideally have 2 FLs, 1 FA, and 8 GAs, yet would only be a "good topic". Whether you intend for the different naming scheme to imply the quality of the topic or not, having the system based on the percentage of featured content will lead to this problem. That said, the idea of "good topics" is appealing. It could have a 20-25% margin for featured content, while a "featured topic" could have a 50-60% margin for featured content. I don't think a "fully featured topic" classification is needed, as we could just use the same system we have now - featured topics with all featured items have Image:Cscr-featuredtopic.svg placed on the topic. sephiroth bcr (converse) 10:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm not hearing much support for the "fully featured topic" distinction, so maybe I'll drop that. Another idea we could have is that the minimum number of FAs in FTs is higher than 2, say 4 or fully featured (and GTs could still be 2). This stops small topics from getting it too easily.

I've worked out exactly how I'd do the categories. Firstly, I'd create 3 categories for each featured topic - one for the topic generally (called e.g. [:Category:Wikipedia featured topics topicname]]), and two subcategories, one for featured content and one for good content. So this would require the creation of 58*3=174 categories, and 3 more for each new FT, but is very doable. Then I'd use Template:ArticleHistory, with its ftname and currentstatus parameters, to automatically tag articles/lists into the right category (non-featured, non-good content can go into the general category). Now, the ftname category matches the title categories in Template:Featuredtopictalk and Template:Featured topic box. Hence, with minor modifications to each template, all 3 can count how many articles there are in each category. And so, using PAGESINCATEGORY and expr functions:

  1. The ArticleHistory template can automatically identify articles as being part of good or featured (or fully featured) topics, based on the %age of articles in each of the three subcategories.
  2. Ditto the Featured topic box template. It can then display the right logo. In fact, this could use these counts to automatically generate the "X articles" bit, too.
  3. The Featuredtopictalk template could use these stats similarly to the ArticleHistory template, but also, it could use them to tag the topics as in one of two categories: Category:Wikipedia featured topics or Category:Wikipedia good topics. Whenever articles get promoted/demoted, the topic will move automatically between the two, if necessary. This can then be used to generate the number of topics of each type, which can be used in Wikipedia:Featured topics/count, similarly to how it is at the moment.

One final complication is that if we do go for fully featured topics (and it might be sensible to tag them as such anyway), then we'd need to set it so that on the 5 or so audited articles, they're tagged as such, and then these, too, have their own category, so then unlike other non-featured, non-good articles, audited articles don't stop topics from being fully featured - rst20xx (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an interesting proposal, but I'm not sure how easy it would be to make the distinctions apparent to our general readers/laymen. I like the idea of having Featured topics and Good topics because it mirrors our quality structure for articles. But there are a few things that I think might be bumps in the road.
  1. We currently only have 50+ topics, it seems kind of a small number to me to warrant splitting.
  2. I think some might be confused by the distinction of Featured topics and Good topics. If they both have good articles in them, I don't think it will be completely apparent to everybody that the difference is the ratio of FAs to GAs. Unless Featured topics are made up of 100% featured content—I assume this was a reason behind the Fully Featured Topics.
  3. A quick question, would this make Good topics ineligible for inclusion on Portal:Featured content? The name kind of lends itself to exclusion by the other standards of Wikipedia.
I think this is a good idea, but am not totally sold on it because I'm not sure how it would fully affect everything. If we can't work things out now, I think this is an idea worth exploring in the future when there are more topics. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

Addressing your points:

  1. Yes, good point, though equally, it seems a bit unfair to give topics no recognition, instead of this recognition, simply because there are not enough topics to merit splitting, and this is what would happen if the criteria goes up beyond the minimum 25%/33% I'm proposing here. Having said that, by the time the criteria goes up beyond that, there would be more topics to start with, so we could indeed wait to do this then.
  2. Again, good point, we'd have to make this clear somehow, though equally, I refer again to the alternative, which would be demoting some topics completely. 100% Featured content was indeed the idea behind fully featured topics, it was to give editors a final benchmark to work towards in improving their existing topics.
  3. That's something I haven't thought about, I guess it might well do. But once again, once the base %age goes up beyond 33%, these articles would be excluded anyway.

Overall, I'd say you raise some interesting issues, and to refer back to point 1, I think here's what we should do: I think that we should temporarily put this discussion aside, and go ahead and raise the FT criteria to 25%/33% this time as planned. Then, next time people start talking about raising the FT criteria, beyond 25%/33%, we reopen this conversation, as by then there should be more topics, so this should hopefully not seem like oversplitting like it does now (though it would also constitute slightly more work, but there you go). And then that time, we can raise the FT criteria again but introduce GTs for the newly ineligible topics - rst20xx (talk) 15:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

What if someone just decided to be WP:BOLD at some point and separate to this process created WP:Good topics with a lower bar of criteria (for example all articles in the set must be WP:GA or higher with at least 4 WP:FA/WP:FLs)... Cirt (talk) 15:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Being bold doesn't mean being pointy. Starting our own rogue Wikipedia processes is never a recipe for good will and work :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking it would be pointy, we have a WP:Featured articles process and a WP:Good articles process, why not a WP:Featured topics process as well as a WP:Good topics process? Cirt (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like the original Featured topic candidates page was created by someone being WP:BOLD as well. Cirt (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I strongly support a "good topics" page. Its well known that some WikiProjects are small, and don't have enough editors and skills to be able to pull off an entire television series season FT. So, saying that, a good topics with all articles being GAs would be an excellent way of boosting the confidence of smaller projects and their members. Strongly support. Moving onto this proposed change for more FAs to be more required, I'm strongly against that. What is the point, exactly, in asking for more FAs? Is it going to make you sleep better at night? It makes no difference whatsoever, and losing two valuable Simpsons topics which a lot of editors put hours and hours of hard work work into in order to make the topic featured is a really silly idea. Strongly object. Qst (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
No one on Wikipedia should be here to feel better about themselves; by the same coin, it's not Wikipedia's goal to substitute editor confidence in place of article quality. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. However it is in-line with Wikipedia's goals to help motivate users to generate higher-quality content such as WP:GAs, and WP:Good topics would certainly help motivate users and WikiProjects towards that goal. I do not see the drawback to the creation of WP:Good topics, it can only serve to motivate others to improve articles to quality-rated content on this project, which is a good thing. Cirt (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
David Fuchs, so are you suggesting we all go around miserable, but as long as we're miserable, the encyclopedia gets better and that is all that counts? On the contrary, a good editor is a happy editor, and having something positive to aim for when writing the encyclopedia is something that will help motivate many users, and therefore, people will be editing constructively and making the 'pedia better. Qst (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting anything to the contrary, but not upping standards because some people might get upset is not a good reason to keep the same low bar. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
And just to note, I am more than willing to help set up and maintain a good topics page alongside Cirt, if he were too interested and it were created. Qst (talk) 17:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

So you guys are proposing setting up a separate space? Well I wasn't proposing that, seems a bit redundant to me if it could work combined with this space. But then it seems others wouldn't allow the changes here, so then it'd be the only way forward. I'm also intrigued by the idea of GTs having no FA/FL requirements at all, just being unified and gap-free. I proposed they take the current FT requirements as this way the bar is still attainable for people like the Simpsons guys and other TV series, but they'd have to improve their topics further before they get to the end, and I suspect many of them would stop working once at the end, wherever that happens to be. So the higher the better, so long as it's doable. Well anyway, as I said, my opinion is we should hold off on this, for now - rst20xx (talk) 17:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is we have a two-tiered system, WP:Featured topics and WP:Good topics, similar to WP:Featured articles and WP:Good articles. Cirt (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
David Fuchs, this is in response to "I'm not suggesting anything to the contrary", just to clarify. Its not a case of getting upset, its a case of giving smaller projects with fewer members (like the Family Guy WikiProject, which I am involved in), a chance to be recognised with a good topic, that is all. Qst (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I understand the rationale, but I think the flipside is whether we should set lower standards just to be inclusive of these elements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll? Maybe we can make a final decision that way. If so, I can set it up.Mitch32(UP) 18:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good topics

Please see Wikipedia:Good topics. Please note: This is only a proposed process. It has not gained consensus to be used as an actual process on Wikipedia yet.

I like the idea proposed by Mitchazenia (talk · contribs) to have a straw poll about whether to start this process, we could conduct that poll at Wikipedia talk:Good topics. Cirt (talk) 18:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

A couple of proposals coming... number 1: Bringing a proposal prematurely should be grounds for a quickfail

Addition of quickfail criteria to WP:WIAFT discussed, see archived section
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This is from Cirt and I. At the moment, the rules state that:

To avoid wasting time, the topic should not have any active Good article nominations, Good article reassessments, Featured article reviews, Featured article removal candidates, Featured list candidates, or Featured list removal candidates when nominated for featured topic, and should only have Featured article candidates if the result does not affect whether the topic meets the featured topic criteria. Please have all required processes done before nominating.

We would like to make failing this be grounds for a quickfail of a featured topic candidate. We realise this will make more administrative work, but it is frustrating to see people prematurely bring nominations time and time again, and if the rules are changed we believe this will happen much less frequently - rst20xx (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea and is very reasonable. Just as long as the quick fail criteria don't get cluttered too much. These make a lot of sense, should be understood to begin with, and relate directly to the FT criteria. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC))
  • Support. - Per Rst20xx (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I see the case for it, but I am concerned it would take more administrative time for the FT director to have to close and then reopen topics, when there aren't yet that many nominations at one time anyway, and they could probably just sit there until they pass or don't. I could see the use of quick fail for repeat offenders, however, as long it is the same issue (FACs in progress, for example), and not a new criteria they didn't know about. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree. To quickfail due to a new criteria would be bad, and that is what happened with the current Guitar Hero nom. However, this should be quite rare, and hopefully we can use common sense when such cases arise - rst20xx (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, it's always tempting to nominate early to save time, but FLC/FAC/GAN is never a sure thing. --PresN (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: If there are mixed feelings about it, maybe a brief mention about the possibility of a quick fail in the "Recommendations" section of WP:FT? Something like "Nominations with one or more articles involved in a process mentioned above may result in a quick fail." (Guyinblack25 talk 14:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC))
  • Sounds good - rst20xx (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
That's a good phrasing; gives the FT director the option of using it if they deem it appropriate, but does not mandate it in every case. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that statement that you quoted assumes that the FA nomination is of an article that is already GA, which fulfills the requirements for a featured topic. A featured list nomination, however, indicates that the list is not featured, but a B-class article or lower, or just a list class, and all lists must be featured to pass a topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
OK Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 05:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

This proposal seems to have passed, if anyone wants to go ahead and add the wording to WIAFT. --PresN (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree with PresN (talk · contribs), but will leave it to someone more familiar with this page to add the necessary wording. Cirt (talk) 02:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I have now done this, so PresN, you can consider it closed with proposal passed - rst20xx (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Supplementary request

It currently states at WP:FTC that "If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination." Can we make this grounds for a quickfail too? I think this should probably also be copied to WP:FP? as annoyingly editors are still missing it and bringing noms for topics they have not put any work into themselves - rst20xx (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should- it's very annoying, yes, but it's not grounds for quickfail or even failure at GAN or FAC, so I don't think it should be here either. A good stern yelling at is enough. --PresN (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Might be useful to consult with SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) and see what is done about this sort of thing at WP:FAC. Cirt (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Funnily enough, it was Sandy Georgia that led to the current situation being set up - rst20xx (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well I've taken the step of copying the nom procedure from WP:FTC to the recommendations section, so people are less likely to miss it. Hopefully this should address the problem somewhat, and so I shall withdraw this proposal to give time to see if the problem persists - rst20xx (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal number 2: A change to criteria 3.c)

NOTE: This proposal is currently on hold, whilst there are other open proposals also competing for editors' attentions - rst20xx (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

After much discussion with Cirt, we have a second proposal to bring. We're going to ask you to vote twice. (This is complicated, bear with us, sorry.) Criteria 3.c) states:

3. c) Items that are ineligible for featured or good article status, due to either their limited subject matter or inherent instability, must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed. Such items do not count towards criterion 1.a.

(Note we are not proposing a change to the rules for articles of inherent instability, only the limited stable articles.) We both feel that if a stable article or list is truly as well written as possible, it should be able to pass GA or FL, no matter what its length. Good and featured content should reflect the quality of the content, not its length. Hence, we would ultimately like to remove the "limited subject matter" bit.

However, we recognise that if an article or list fails GA/FL solely due to being inherently short, then we need to allow the topic to pass FT, as otherwise we are leaving the nominators stranded between a rock and a hard place. But at the moment, the rules don't make the nominator demonstrate the article or list would fail GAC or FLC for this reason, it just makes them peer review it. Hence, we would like to change the rules to force limited subject matter articles to go through a GAC or FLC.

So we would like to see 3.c) be split into 3.c) and 3.d), with 3.d) saying:

3. d) Items that are ineligible for featured or good status, due to inherent instability, must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed. Such items do not count towards criterion 1.a.

and 3.c) saying:

3. c) Items that are ineligible for featured or good status, due to limited subject matter, must demonstrate their ineligibility by going through a good article candidacy or featured list candidacy, as appropriate, and failing solely for the reason that they are too limited in subject matter to pass. Such items do not count towards criterion 1.a.

At this point, Cirt and I disagree slightly. Cirt believes that on top of a GAC or FLC, limited subject matter articles should also go through a peer review, with all problems fixed, as an additional quality check. So he would have 3.c) be:

3. c) Items that are ineligible for featured or good status, due to limited subject matter, must demonstrate their ineligibility by going through a good article candidacy or featured list candidacy, as appropriate, and failing solely for the reason that they are too limited in subject matter to pass. They also must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed. Such items do not count towards criterion 1.a.

However, I do not think this extra step is necessary, as I think the good or featured candidacy should also act as a de facto peer review, and if the only reason the article or list fails is due to inherent shortness, then in theory all other problems are fixed.

So in summary, we would like you to vote twice: Firstly, if you support a change to the rule, and secondly, whether you favour my version of 3.c) (the first version), or Cirt's version (the second version). Thank you - rst20xx (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Just to repeat, as the nominator I support the change, and am in favour of the first version - rst20xx (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support above change, in favor of second version - GAC/FLC and peer review. Cirt (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: While I'm all for improving policy, all the current ongoing proposal seems like a lot to discuss at once. Perhaps we should slow things down and revisit some of the newer ones in a month. Right now we essentially have a full overhaul spread out over several threads on two talk pages. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC))
    • This is actually a relatively simple proposal. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm not disputing that, I'm commenting that the number of topics on the table borders on excessive. I don't oppose the discussion of this, just the timing. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC))
        • I just think that tabling this proposal for a month would not be constructive, and see no reason why it cannot be addressed now. For a page that uses the term "featured", as the first word, it serves to strengthen the review process, which is a good thing. Cirt (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
          • Once again, I'm not refuting its constructiveness. I'm refuting the timing. There are several proposals on the table right now and keeping everyone in the loop with such disjointed discussions is difficult. If you want the input, give people a chance to keep up. (Guyinblack25 talk 01:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC))
  • I am confused by the proposal; if an article is too short to reach GA or FL, then shouldn't it be merged somewhere? It would be a rare occurrence to have the type of article that this makes room for; notable enough for an article, but not notable enough to get to GA? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    Actually, such articles are already catered for in the criteria (under the existing 3.c)), and in fact there are 5 of them currently in topics - List of Nunavut general elections, Gillingham F.C. records, Mark Messier Leadership Award, Roger Crozier Saving Grace Award and NHL Foundation Player Award. It is worth noting that they are all lists, however it is still worth catering for articles in this criteria, in case of the unlikely event that one comes along which does fill this slot - rst20xx (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with Judgesurreal777 (talk · contribs), but my 2nd proposal of requiring at least review from WP:GAC/WP:FLC and peer review will provide a bit more levels of checks to make sure all is done that could have been done to at least try to get the article or list to WP:GA/WP:FL. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the current check marked article are all similar, in that they all demonstrate very clear and very promising growth potential. We can be pretty sure that Nunuvut will have more elections, and that these awards will be awarded again, and that Gillingham will have more records. I think the criteria you wish to modify should probably make reference to this fact. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - you're going to tie up a GA nomination, a FAC, or a FLC when you know the nomination will fail? There are obvious cases in which the lack of stability means that it simply will not pass. Video games that haven't been released yet, television seasons that haven't finished airing, and so on have absolutely no chance of passing whatsoever. Nominating them at GAN, FAC, or FLC is nothing more than a waste of time. Take lists that are too short (say 7-8 items). The relative minimum bar that has been set is ten items, and anything below that must have a significant reason for ignoring that (say List of FLCL episodes, which has large summaries for each, as they're longer-than-normal OVAs). Nominating a list you know will not pass FLC for the sake of a peer review for a featured topic is wasted effort for the reviewers at FLC, who should devote their time to nominations seriously seeking featured list status. A peer review is the best you're going to get for these items, and it's ultimately what the criteria will have to stick with for "audited" articles. sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    Well this change is only designed to deal with short items, not limited items, so your oppose there is wrong, but fair enough about the oppose for shortness - rst20xx (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support the SECOND idea. It is really not a good idea to send articles and lists to GAN/FAC/FLC knowing that they will be quick failed. Not only is it a waste of time for the nominator, it's a waste of the reviewers' time. I think Peer Review is the way to go though. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    You misunderstand; the second idea is suggesting first the GAN/FAC/FLC THEN the peer review. Thus wasting even more time - rst20xx (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Another comment: I mean this in all sincerity, but I think this proposal should be put on hold. Three editors have commented above and all three are not fully grapsing the proposal—make that four, I've reread it a couple times and am still not entirely sure. This proposal has merit and is addressing a weakness in the current system, but given the other discussions going on in several other threads across two talk pages, I don't think this topic will get the attention it desired or deserves. (Guyinblack25 talk 13:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC))
  • Proposal on hold - Cirt is currently taking a step back from the whole thing, and I never felt strongly enough to bring this up myself before, so given this change, I will happily put this on hold - rst20xx (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
    • No worries, some people above have acknowledged that some version of the above proposals will most likely improve WP:FT - if it is more of something to be adopted in the not-too-distant-future and not right now, that's okay too. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Probably no need to put this debate "on hold", as the central change, making the article go through a GA or FL nomination has already been shown to be a waste of time, and in any case a change like this would have to be brought up at the Good article and featured list criteria pages, as it is their requirements that stand in the way of this idea. I do think though, that a mention of the fact that check marked articles should have strong growth potential, meaning we pretty much know they will become big enough to be GA's and FL's in the future, and if they can't, they should probably be merged somewhere, and I don't think the current criteria quite spells this out. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 09:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Current Consensus, or, the state of the world as we know it

It's becoming impossible to keep track of the status of 5 different proposals across 2 talk pages, so I'm going to attempt to outline what currently has consensus, and where everything is.

  1. Final consensus is: That WIAFT criteria 3.a.i should be changed from 20% to 25% on September 1st, 2008, with a 6 month grace period.
  2. Final consensus is: That some form of a "tier" system should be implemented at FTopics.
  3. Final consensus is: The tiers should share the same nomination and criteria pages.
  4. Currently proposed is: A method to organize the tiers- see here.
  5. Currently proposed is: That nominated topics that do have outstanding GAN/FLC/FAC/FARs should have the option of being "quick-failed", in order to save time and effort.
    Preliminary consensus is to pass the proposal with wording giving the "option" of quick-failing, but not requiring it.
  6. Currently on hold: A proposal to change criteria 3.c.

I'll try to keep this updated as developments ensue. --PresN (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bloody hell, I didn't realise it was that many. I feel very guilty, for having my hand in the creation of all but the first of those pies. But yes, I'd say that's fairly accurate - rst20xx (talk) 21:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree with this summary above by PresN (talk · contribs), thanks for putting this together. Regarding WP:GTOP I think it's best to wait until the end of the Straw Polls on the talk page (Approximately 23:00 on 24 August) before assessing final consensus on that. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

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

OK, I've now done this at my userspace, and would like to bring it forward. Should I wait until the good topics nomination is over, or not? rst20xx (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead. The problem that I'm seeing with this whole mess is that a very large part of the !voters for WP:GT (both opposing and supporting) are seeing it as an offshoot WP:GA, not of WP:FT. I really feel that creating the page and asking the WP:GA people to comment was a mistake; the discussion should have been left here if they were going to be specifically asked for their (completely valid) opinions. This is resulting in a lot of confusion, with people supporting it as boosting the visibility/influence of WP:GA, suggesting adding B-class articles (which was eliminated here a long time ago), opposing it due to dislikes of the GA process, etc. --PresN (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was just thinking about saying exactly the same thing, word for word! Well okay, here's what I suggest we do: if GT passes, I'll bring my plan, but if it fails then I suggest we do what the conclusion of the original proposal above was, i.e. we wait until someone proposes the FT criteria goes up again, and then re-bring GT, but only here and only in the capacity of that original proposal, i.e. to take the place of the existing FT criteria, as opposed to being weaker than the existing FT criteria - rst20xx (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you're right about #3; there do seem to be some people from GA that want to see GT with its own nom page. As it stands now, GT will probably pass; and as they were bold enough to start it, it might only go away if we got consensus to delete it. Rst20xx's proposal has been largely ignored, but that means that there have been few objections to it. After the votes close (assuming it passes), we'll probably have to start up a deeper discussion about whether the noms should be merged; someone will get mad if we just delete the GT nom page and start up Rst20xx's category system. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Just a note that I created the nom page but have given this some thought and I agree with the proposed system by Rst20xx (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 23:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I disagree (with Arctic Gnome)- as it stands the support percentage on prop 2 is 58% and falling (25 out of 43 total), and the majority of people that are supporting aren't sticking around to voice opinions on how it should be run. Prop 3 has less votes, but is at (8/1/2), a clear consensus after 4 days. Unless a major shift happens in the next 3 days, it looks like it will be a weak yes to a tier system, with a strong yes to keeping it here at FT instead of breaking off. I think we need to start having a discussion on how to organize the good topics- interlaced with the FTs on WP:FT with different icons? In a seperate section of that page? On their own page? I'm eager to see what rst's plan is; I mean, I'm opposed to this whole mess, but I feel like if consensus is that it should exist, we need to decide on how it is handled, rather than let the first/loudest person decide. --PresN (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Just for clarity you mean prop 1 and prop 2 at Wikipedia talk:Good topics, which are prop 2 and prop 3 on your system :P And 26/41 = 63% :P And on top of that, there are quite a few people (such as Arctic Gnome) that have opposed the first and supported the second, or some who have even just opposed the first but said in their opposition that they'd support the second.
Well as I said, I'll bring my plan once the good topics nom finishes, just to make sure it passes, and so we only have one thing going on at a time (well, one thing less, anyway!) - rst20xx (talk) 14:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I can probably be considered a conditional supporter of GT, like yourself. There are some merits to the idea, I just don't want to see it turn into a farce. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it appears the poll has finished, so see the "Good topics implementation plan" below - rst20xx (talk) 22:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Subtopics

The nomination of Galilean moons as a topic raises an intereseting question about the crietria for me.... if "Moons of Jupiter" becamse a topic, then "Galilean moons" would be completely contained within it ... so, should the criteria allow one featured topic to be completely contained in another? Tompw (talk) (review) 16:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it should, no. As I've said on the candidacy pages I think it's a bit cheeky to nominate these topics before removing the major overlap with the existing topic. However, if say there is a "Jupiter" topic and a "Moons of the Solar System" topic, then I would think this would be fine, as the overlap, whilst being a large number of articles, would not be a large percentage of articles for either topic, and they would both seem like very natural topics to me - rst20xx (talk) 22:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Good topics implementation plan

I've written a fully detailed, unambiguous plan as to how I would implement good topics. However, as this is a fairly complex issue, the plan is long, so instead of posting it here, I've put it at a subpage here - rst20xx (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Where in your implentation plan can someone actually express how poor the idea of a good topics process altogether actually is? There doesn't seem to be any opportunity to, and you seem intent on steamrolling ahead regardless. Everytime I revisit this page someone is trying to mess around with things, when in fact their time would be better spent elsewhere. LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
There were already 2 different Straw Polls on this to assess community consensus, with notices posted in multiple community centered locations. They were open for over 7 days, and the results are at Wikipedia talk:Good topics. Cirt (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously you don't revisit this page often enough, or else you would have been able to voice your oppose at Wikipedia talk:Good topics. However, that motion passed, so now we are onto the hows, not the ifs - rst20xx (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

A new criteria

  1. (e) Does not overly overlap a current featured topic.
How about "does not overlap a current featured topic by 50% or more". That way, we still encourage the growth of sub topics and overarching topics without total duplication? And also, each topic will then have to be at least 51% articles unique to that topic, and not half or more copied from any one other topic. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Some times 10% is too much, it must be decided on a case by case bases. This is why I used "overly". Zginder 2008-08-25T23:38Z (UTC)
I was going to say much the same as Zginder. I think that editors should be allowed to oppose due to any overlap if they're not happy with it, but that as to whether an overlap is appropriate should be decided on a case by case basis. For example, if say there is a "Jupiter" topic and a "Moons of the Solar System" topic, then having Jupiter's moons in both would seem natural to me and would be fine.
With the current nominations however, I feel that while the two proposed topics also seem natural themselves, they don't fit in naturally with the existing topic, as this topic can easily have the articles that will overlap with the proposed topics removed. In this case the proposer is giving assurances that they intend to try to remove these overlapping articles from the existing topic, but generally speaking I think that the removal should happen first/at the same time, as if it does not, then there is no reason that the proposer has to fulfil their promise, and the overlap removal could end up not happening at all - rst20xx (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I think you guys need to realize that without specific guidance, and with this really really vague guidance of "overly", this simply punts the issue back to the nominations page and will cause a lot more fighting and arguing about an issue that should be decided here. We should try to do something specific, like each topic cannot copy another single topics articles by 50% or more, that way we can actually test how something specific that might actually fix the problem would work. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(reset) My comments to that are that while I agree that it's unlikely to the point of near-impossibility that there will be two valid topics with more than 50% overlap, I definitely think that there could be two topics with less than 50% overlap that have too much overlap, so this black and white approach won't cater for all cases that it needs to. Conversely, I see your point that having the system I suggested above where users are allowed to oppose somewhat arbitrarily will probably lead to arguments on the nomination pages, and possibly topics failing needlessly. So maybe we need a subtler system, saying something along the lines that overlap is only acceptable if it seems natural, or is unavoidable, but phrased better than that, possibly to be more technical. And I certainly think we could agree on a hard and fast rule now that an overlap of one article is always acceptable - rst20xx (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps we could phrase it like this; "While subtopic and overarching topics are encouraged, and some overlap will occur, no topic should overlap another topic by 50% or more; otherwise a strong justification must be offered for this overlap". How's that? Lot's of leeway, but still specific steps for each party, and a numeric standard to try out which seems reasonable. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
That still implies to me that opposing for less than 50% overlap is not valid - rst20xx (talk) 02:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you give me an example of when a 25% topic similarity would be a problem? I just can't envision it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Well I dunno about 25%, but for example if you add two extra articles to the existing Dwarf Planets nom that would be less than 50%. Well OK, topics have to have at least 3 articles, so maybe we could say 33% as the deal? rst20xx (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
To avoid instruction creep we should not use a percentage. On the other hand, this project has always been about easy assessing by having quantitative criteria. Zginder 2008-08-26T14:01Z (UTC)
I think the wording "overly" is actually appropriate here. While having concrete criteria that can establish easily visible boundaries is a very good thing, some things on Wikipedia—and life in general—are not so clear cut. Wikipedia has always prided itself on its editors being its strongest resource. I'm sure the editors here and future editors can exercise good judgment and common sense to appropriately apply "overly" to overlapping topics. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC))
And that's fine, but a reasonable parameter wouldn't be a bad thing, because would we really want people challenging overlap at under 1/3 overlap? Or 5% overlap? The 33% seems like a reasonable benchmark, along with the assertion that we encourage the creation of subtopics and overarching ones too. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
With the proviso that if topics can be merged, and the result wouldn't be unwieldy, they should be merged, as otherwise this would constitute oversplitting - rst20xx (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Just pointing this out, the Period 1 elements topic has a 33% overlap with the Noble gases topic. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If we have all the periods and groups as topics then there will be over 67% overlap, but I do not think that is a bad thing. Zginder 2008-08-27T14:45Z (UTC)
I agree. Over 67% overlap in that case would be appropriate. Rreagan007 (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Out of interest, how did you arrive at this figure? As far as I can tell, certainly it is the case that the most overlap one topic will have with another one topic will be 33% (Group one with something), but using Image:Periodic Table by Quality.PNG the most overlap one topic could have with a collection of other topics is 96%. 81% of the articles are element articles, so the percentage of articles amongst all 27 topics which will be repeated is 81% - rst20xx (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

In the elements topics, the groups and periods are each distinct fields of study. In the solar system, however, the dwarf planets are a subset of the Solar System. In the former there can be complete overlap, whereas in the later the only overlap you need is the Dwarf planet article with all of the dwarf planets themselves in the subtopic. I'm not sure how we can codify this as a rule. It would have to be something along the lines of "articles need not be in both a subtopic and a supertopic except for the lead article of the subtopic". --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 16:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

What about Noble gases and Period 1 elements? They both have Helium as a non-lead article. But then again, I can't really think of a better alternative wording.
I think the "overly overlap" may be as precise as we can get without creating a list of exceptions.(Guyinblack25 talk 17:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC))
Precedent of the first few cases would establish fairly well what "overly overlap" means. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
You've got to give some sort of definition or at least guidance in the criteria of what "overly overlap" means. It's just too vague otherwise. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
If we read the other featured criteria, the are vague. The criteria for FAs has changed little, but the standards have changed a great deal. It is like the U.S. constitution, it changes little, but is interpreted differently over time. We can do the same thing here. Zginder 2008-08-27T20:57Z (UTC)
First of all this is not the U.S. Constitution we're talking about here. Second, the other FL criteria are very concrete, and I see very little reason to start mucking it up with a criterion that is so vague. Third, I'm actually an originalist when it comes to constitutional interpretation. I do think there should be some sort of recognition in the criteria that makes room for separating off sub-topics if there is a lot of overlap or if a topic gets too large (as is going on currently in the solar system topic). My suggestion is that we may be going about this backwards. Instead of trying to hammer out the new criteria now, why don't we wait and see how the solar system problem gets resolved and then we can better assess what the new criteria should look like. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Waiting is not a good idea, as when the solar system topics were nominated, people weren't allowed to oppose due to overlap, when general agreement seems to be they should have been. If we wait, this might happen again, and I don't really see any harm in discussing this now anyway - rst20xx (talk) 16:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that while a good criteria, any explicit value of overlap is going to be a problem; this is really a case of "I'll know it when I see it". Obviously a topic shouldn't be completely a subset of another FT. I wouldn't make it a criteria, but a definite point to consider when reviewers review it. Or even moreso, consider it from any topic, even if it doesn't overlap an existing FT, would there ever likely be an overlap which may mean articles that should be included in the FT are missing; thus, this overlap issue is more something already part of the completeness issue of the criteria. --MASEM 21:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Masem, this is something that should be addressed on a case by case basis and involve some experts in the topic. Such discussions already have taken place on nomination pages and will probably continue to do so whether we set an explicit standard or not. Maybe after dealing with some future cases, some recurring themes will emerge that will allow us to tack down "overly overlap" more. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC))

Okay, so does this mean consensus is generally to add the proposed 1.(e) at the top of this section? rst20xx (talk) 14:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like consensus to me, but I might not be totally impartial since I am still against adding it as a criterion. Maybe instead of making it a requirement we could put something similar in the recommendations section for the time being and see if this problem keeps coming up in the future. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I would rather it be in the recommended section for now. There are probably many cases where overlap would be reasonable, so we don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot. If we were to add this kind of rule, it would have to be vague enough to allow for exceptions. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:24, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I think "overly overlap" is meant to mean "use common sense", but you're both right in that some people will probably still take it too literally if it's not in the recommendations section. The main objective of this proposal is to stop people from arguing that opposing due to overlap is completely invalid, and I think this will be still achieved there. So I'll add it there now - rst20xx (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Obsession

Perhaps everyone here would like to explain the pointless obsession of continually changing the FT criteria? Whenever I revisit this page, it seems the FT criteria is changing. Frankly, it's becoming a pathetic joke, and is making a potentially great process become gradually worthless. Above people have agreed that a topic needs 25% of its material featured, and with a proposal to change it to 33.3% in a few months. What next? 50%? 75%? A 100%? Really, get a grip. Raising that bar only affects topics where certain articles have a limit to the heights they can reach - not all articles can reach FA, or GA, so what happens to them? And there was me thinking the FT process was working wonderfully - how wrong I was. While I'm on the topic, are there any more pointless proposals editors wish to waste people's time with? LuciferMorgan (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 9) - extension please?

Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria#Retention says:

The Simpsons (season 8) and The Simpsons (season 9) will have until 2008-08-28 to meet criterion 3.a.i (they need 2 and 1 more FA, respectively).

Can The Simpsons WikiProject please get an extension on getting Wikipedia:Featured topics/The Simpsons (season 9) up to the required 20%? Wikipedia:Featured topics/The Simpsons (season 8) is most likely not doable without some sort of superhuman effort in the next few hours, but I think we will be able to get Season 9 up to par in a relatively short amount of time, perhaps another 2 months? Thank you for your consideration.

For The Simpsons WikiProject,

Cirt (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I say that the WikiProject should be given an extension. Unfortunately though, it seems that editors in a prior discussion intend to raise the requirement to 25% - this only serves to add more pressure upon the Simpsons project. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Usually there is a subsequent "Retention period" for projects/topics at risk of losing featured topic status due to newly changed criteria. Cirt (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I'm sure that the Simpsons project will get an extention regardless as the criteria will be jumping to 25% criteria (I'm assuming then that if it doesn't hit the grace period then, It'll be dropped to Good Topics, but that's being hammered out now, isn't it.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, hopefully the extension regarding the jump to 25% will be a separate second, and longer, extension. :P - Cirt (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the only article that is being raised to FA status has failed twice, once a few day ago. Why do you believe that you can make it in two months? I am not trying to be difficult, I would just like an explanation before handing out an extension. Zginder 2008-08-27T20:52Z (UTC)

Indeed, that may not be enough time, but I feel we are quite close with that one article which I believe is of a very high quality. Any additional time you could give would be most appreciated. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 21:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

An FTRC isn't really needed, as we are only days away from opening the Good Topics page, at which time the Simpsons topics can move there until they are ready to come back. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If that is the case, then I would not have any objection to that in the interim until we get Season 9 up to the requisite 20%. Cirt (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, from September 1, 25% :/ rst20xx (talk) 16:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Good topic citeria clarification

Just to clarify for myself and I'm sure some others, the only difference between Featured and Good topics are the FA requirements, correct? Meaning a topic full of just GAs meets the GT requirements. The past month has been a bit blurry and I want to make sure before commenting at nominations. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Yes, the only difference is that FT's need 25%MIN2 FA/Ls (criteria 3.a); the rules governing what makes a "topic" are the same for both. --PresN (talk) 20:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Much appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 21:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC))

Perhaps for the sake of clarity, we can put something on the criteria page something like Note: the only difference between a good topic and a featured topic is that criterion 3(a) only applies to featured topics. Rreagan007 (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Just changed it again. I hope this is now sufficiently clear to everyone - rst20xx (talk) 00:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Questions about the Good Topics Implementation

Please address any questions you have about how exactly good topics are implemented here - rst20xx (talk) 02:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good topic process idea

Resolved

I had a thought; if an approved existing Good Topic at some point gets enough FA's to justify being a Featured Topic, I think instead of having a re-nomination, we should just note it in the history of the topic and upgrade it without a comment period or a vote. It will have already gone through that to be a Good Topic, so it won't need re-discussion. Also, if a Featured Topic is removed for failing the Featured Topic criteria, but still meets the Good Topic criteria, it should also be seemlessly added to the Good Topics page and noted in the history. It will save a lot of pointless procedure that would otherwise take place. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Err, that's what already happens - I set it up that way. In fact I did one better, a topic can move between the two completely automatically without any human intervention required :) rst20xx (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh you're good rst20xx. Keep up the good work! Rreagan007 (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I second that, great foresight and stupendous work spearheading this whole thing :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"The topic does not overly overlap with a current good or featured topic."

Um, we have a problem, especially with my 3 next Featured Topics. New York State Route 28N would end up being part of those 3 plus the current "State touring routes in Warren County, New York" topic. Is there a real problem with overlapping, because this is a big reason to oppose and is awfully ridiculous when there are highways that go into different counties. Is there a way to make an exception to this rule, because its awfully ridiculous to oppose solely on that.Mitch32(UP) 14:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not a rule, it's a recommendation. As such, if it makes sense for there to exist multiple topics with a significant amount of overlap then it should still pass. Whether or not the overlap makes sense is a judgment call that is made on a case by case basis. You'll just have to nominate the topics, explain why the overlap makes sense to allow, and see what happens with the nomination. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I would have no problems with the overlap you've described. Though I find it amusing that you're getting New York State Route 28N to FA, any reason you're working on that article in particular?!? :P rst20xx (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

More FA's part 2

Ok, now that all of Featured Topic criteria has been overhauled, and the Good Topics page is setup and running, (I expect it will be a huge success) I think we should talk about, as many have suggested, the idea of re-upping the criteria. You see, we upped it from 20% to 25%, but since the Simpsons topics were both shifted to Good Topics, the remaining featured topics were totally uneffected, so there has been no real qualitation improvement by upping the percentage. I think we should say that on October 1st, the criteria should be upped to 33% rounded up. It sounds large, but isn't. Here is what would happen;

  • Hurricanne Isabel, Lost Season 4, Star Wars Episodes, Wilco, State Touring Roads, and Zelda topics would all need one more FA, and over six months, that is very doable. This change would boost the quality of existing topics in a way to 20% to 25% jump did not. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I think raising the standards now that Good Topics are up and running is an excellent idea. I'd actually like to see it be raised to something like 50%, but I know that probably won't happen since there was opposition just getting it raised to 25%. Raising it to 33% at this time seems perfectly reasonable to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with raising. The only reason we did a 5% shift was because we were worried about the lost of topics; now that this issue has been rectified, that sounds fine. 33% doesn't seem to affect our Halo topics, so that's fine with me :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with raising in the long term, oppose for now. I think we should hold off until at least 2009 before raising yet again - rst20xx (talk) 00:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I'd wait at least a few months; I know we're all on a kick now that GT is up, but lets not creep the scope up that fast. --PresN (talk) 04:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
  • It makes sense because the 20% → 25% change didn't really affect the current topics, but it does seem a bit rushed. The criteria is also for future topics, so I think we should let the community adjust to it first before ramping it up a month later. (Guyinblack25 talk 04:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC))
If that's how you feel, ok, but I don't see any "adjustment" caused by 25%, not one topic has had to alter a single article to meet this new requirement, and 33% rounded up is a light increase in terms of effect. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Think about future topics though- when the criteria went up, everyone trying to make a new FT had to suddenly (from their perspective) get more FAs. They need that grace period too to make it up to the new level, otherwise the bar just keeps running away from them. --PresN (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
That's the adjustment I meant: future topics that are either at FTC or will be in the coming months.
Maybe bring this up for the start of 2009. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC))
  • Strong oppose. I've been working on a 22-item (soon to be 23-item due to circumstances) potential FT, and it's kind of irksome to see the goal line repeatedly moved away. It's nice to see that articles are getting more and more featured items, but if you raise the barrier to entry too high, it's going to be a real discouragement to editors who don't have as much assistance in building their FTs. If anything, I'd suggest making requirements more stringent by increasing the minimum number of articles needed for a FT, not the minimum percentage of featured content. But that's a bridge I'll burn when we come to it. :) JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

25 percent (rounded up)

I'm not sure what does this mean. 24.01% or more? Admiral Norton (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I believe the "rounded up" portion of that refers to the number of Featured articles in the topic. Basically, you multiply the number of articles in the topic by .25 and the round up to the next whole number. For instance, a topic with 10 articles would require 3 FAs (10 × .25 = 2.5 rounded up to 3), and a topic with 15 would need 4 FAs (15 × .25 = 3.75 rounded up to 4). (Guyinblack25 talk 21:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC))
The rounded up part should not be there. I originally opposed the use of the words "rounded up" when that criterion was determined, for the very reason that is not clear what is being rounded. I used the phrase "at least" to describe it (the phrase is still there), but as soon as the criterion was finalized someone did not know what "at least" means, and spammed our pages with requested explanations, so it was then determined that (rounded up) be added. If you can reword it so that it means what is says to 99% of people out there, please do so. Zginder 2008-09-18T03:33Z (UTC)
I agree that the rounded up part is confusing. If you've got a topic of five articles, 1/5 is 20%, which is not sufficient. 2/5 is 40%, which is. If you have 974 articles and 245 are featured, you have 25.15% featured, which is more than 25%. You should never have to worry about rounding. I don't mean to sound rude, but if someone can't solve the inequality x/(#InTopic) ≥ 25% for x, that's not our problem. Pagrashtak 05:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pagrashtak. But if we wanted to, we could say (remainder rounded up) to give people more information... of course, if you don't know what it means now, I doubt that little bit more would help. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The rounded up part is unnecessary and doesn't really clear anything up. It should just say "25% of articles are of featured quality" and leave it at that. If someone can't understand that then they won't understand what "rounded up" means anyway. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think "a minimum" or "at least" should be added to that for clarification. I don't think that will confuse things too much. And if anyone is unsure they can always just ask here again—no harm in asking. There's no way we're going to make it clear to everybody unless we add a chart of some kind, and that's going too far. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC))
I went ahead and changed the wording since everyone seems to agree. If someone has a problem with it just revert. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the language should stay the same, and don't think there is currently consensus to change it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Except for the "rounded up" bit which is under discussion here, I actually preferred Rreagan007's shortened version. What we have now is not much different than saying "Someone is in the room. This someone is Peter." (Should just say "Peter is in the room.") Sorry for the crappy example. – sgeureka t•c 16:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's an idea - we could turn it on its head. 25% (rounded up) is equivalent to saying that if you multiply the number of featured articles by four, the result needs to be at least the total number of articles. So we could change the phrasing to "This must be at least one in four articles in the topic, or a minimum of two." - rst20xx (talk) 16:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that just makes it even more complicated. You're basically saying the same thing twice or defining what percentages mean. Plus if the percentage were raised to something like 35 percent you'd have to say "3.5 out of 10 articles." I just find it hard to believe that the average person trying to get a topic featured wouldn't understand what "at least 25 percent" means. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Most people understand the criteria as is, and to change it would lower the percentage of featured article required in some cases. That is a bad idea, and I think a wider discussion of this point would agree that we shouldn't do that. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, wouldn't "at least 25%" suffice? It's much less obscure than the "rounded up" part. It's accurate in situations like 3 out of 10 (30%) or 4 out of 15 (about 27%) Admiral Norton (talk) 17:44, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes it would suffice and would not lower the number of featured articles that are required. Plus the original question that sparked this whole discussion was what the "rounded up" language actually meant. And it is vague because you can read it as meaning if 24.00001 percent of your articles are featured you round up to 25 percent and thus qualify under the criterion. Just saying "at least 25 percent" is much clearer than what we have now. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that should be fine, and it would be clearer. Gary King (talk) 18:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
This is great. It's clear, simple, and to the point. Pagrashtak 18:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
That looks good to me. Gary King (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, OK, I would endorse that too - rst20xx (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC))

Ok well it looks to me like consensus is for making the change, so I am going to go ahead and change it (sorry I wasn't logged in when I made the change). But while we're all thinking about this I want to make another suggestion. Criterion 3.c addresses "items that are ineligible for featured or good article status" and says that "such items do not count towards criterion 1.a." I propose adding to that sentence so it will read, "Such items do not count towards criteria 1.a, 3.a, or 3.b." It is obviously current practice that audited articles do not count against 3.a.ii or 3.b, because if they did then any topic with an audited item would fail as a featured or good topic automatically, but this should still be codified in the criteria. And while I'm all for increasing the percentage of featured articles required, I think it would be unfair to have audited articles count against the required percentage of featured articles. This change would fix both problems. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, the addition of the good topic part has muddled this, you're right. Audited articles should still be included in the denominator for 25%, though. Pagrashtak 17:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm afraid I disagree too - I think audited articles should count against the percentage requirement. I think it is unlikely that a situation would arise such that this would prevent a topic from getting to FT. However, I do support adding "3.a.ii or 3.b" to the "do not count" bit - rst20xx (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok well I've made the change with only the "3.a.ii or 3.b" language since that seems uncontroversial. I still think 3.a.i should be included though, because what will happen if a featured topic has above 25 percent of its articles featured but then it adds a new audited article and drops below the 25 percent, it will automatically be kicked down to a good topic. I just don't think that is a good policy as it may discourage the creation and inclusion of audited articles into existing topics. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Audited stuff

Does the A-class review done by individual WikiProjects (say the film review one) fulfill the requirements for a peer review in order for a page to be "audited"? The specific case I am referring to is lists that are not long enough to pass at FLC (which has a relative minimum of 10 items, subject to exceptions) and yet are long enough to exist as a stand-alone list; ergo, passing them at A-class review is the alternative to a run at FLC. sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd say it depends very much on the wikiproject and the time of review (I have redirected fiction articles - because there was nothing to merge - that were reviewed as A-class two years ago). A new PR audit is safer. – sgeureka t•c 09:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree that it depends. If it is a recent, exhaustive review that is the equivalent of a peer review, then I see no problem with it. But some A-class reviews aren't on par with a full peer review; I know the VG project A-class process isn't. Either way, the review and article will get inspected at the topic nomination.
As a side note- I know you're asking about lists, but if it was an article that passed A-Class, then I'd wonder why it couldn't also pass a GAN. (Guyinblack25 talk 12:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC))
Fair enough. I guess it's a case-to-case basis. And yeah, this is solely for lists. You're correct in that any article that could go to A-class should pass GA without major hurdles. sephiroth bcr (converse) 18:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I would oppose any audited articles of limited subject matter that haven't tried for GAN/FLC, and failed solely due to inherent shortness, in other words, I want a very literal demonstration that the article cannot be GA/FL - rst20xx (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
This has already been discussed, and your attempt to get this passed was rejected. We will not waste the time of the GAN/FLC reviewers on an article or list that we know will not pass these processes. I strongly oppose any attempt to do so. We already have a limited amount of reviewers, who should spend their time reviewing articles and lists that are seriously attempting to acquire GA or FL status respectively. sephiroth bcr (converse) 18:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't rejected, it was put on hold and then forgotten about (and I'll further note that when it was put on hold, votes were 3 in favour and 1 against, the 1 against being yourself).
And I'll point out to you that as of right now there is not a single audited article. Of the 5 audited lists, only one was rejected at FLC for inherent shortness, none of the others tried. One of the others, Gillingham F.C. records, is now ironically working its way to FL status. There is currently a GTC, Millenium Park, which attempted to include two audited articles. Since the nominator agreed to try them for GAC, one of them passed and the other is now on hold.
So no, mandatory attempts at GAC/FLC aren't a rule, yet, but from where I'm sitting, a lack of an attempt at GAC/FLC seems like a very, very good reason to oppose - rst20xx (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and now both the Millennium Park GACs have passed - rst20xx (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Criteria 1D

I think some further clarification may be needed on the page. My interpretation, based on the way it is written, is that the idea of "gaps" is based on the fact that there are articles in existence that are connected to the topic, but are absent from the feature topic candidancy. The problem comes where I have seen people arguing that what 1D really means is that the "gap" is for when there are pages that DO NOT exist, but SHOULD exist. In this specific case, it would be episode articles for a television show topic. The problem with the latter argument is that it is assuming that all TV episodes are notable, when they aren't. If 15 episodes out of a 20 episode season fail WP:NOTE and WP:FICT, and any other relevant policies and guidelines that force them to not have their own articles, then that should not disqualify a topic from being featured if the ones that do meet Wikipedia's criteria for article creation are either Featured or Good Articles.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:13, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I question whether Arctic Gnome isn't more trying to dispute that only two episodes of Smallville pass WP:NOTE and WP:FICT, which seems to be a perfectly valid thing to query to me - rst20xx (talk) 13:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand him questioning it, but it would seem that that would be something you would "question" on a talk page and not simply say "this cannot be true, so lets remove the featured topic status". Hence why I think there needs to be come clarification on this page about that particular criteria. Yes, I think there are cases when there will be missing (non-existent) articles that should be created for the topic to be comprehensive, but not in all cases. I think Gnome gave a good example when he mentioned a topic on the Presidents of a particular country that left out certain individuals. Unfortunately, being president comes with a lot of press. Having a television show does not necessarily have that guaranteed press, especially when you're on a more obscure network like the CW that doesn't have the money to advertise on multiple networks like NBC, CBS and ABC do. I think that leaving it vague just causes problems. In the least, I think a footnote at the bottom of the page with a more detailed explaination, and possible solutions or steps to take beforehand would be most appropriate.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that it is definitely acceptable to question it here, nowhere does it say you can't and it's certainly a question that can be raised during FTC (and FTRC is essentially just a second FTC). I guess therein lies the difference in our views - rst20xx (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to propose a small change to how FTs are presented based on the Smallville FTR, specifically that when there is an obvious set of article topics that fall as immediate and obvious children of the topic (in this case, all episodes of S1 of Smallville), but these topics themselves cannot support an article due to other policies (notability the most likely one), then the FTC should include a listing of redirects and/or disambig entries that "fill out" the topic (eg episodes that cannot have their own article) with the redirects or disamb pointing to one of the other articles (ideally the main one, but not necessary) in the FTC. These redirects/disamb do not count towards or against the % of articles for other FT requirements, but do show that the topic is as comprehensive as possible, with the ability for use to actually search for each "obvious" entry in the topic.

I note when I say "immediate and obvious" there is some subjectivity to this. But, say, take the Kingdom Hearts FT, which has its "Characters" article. The immediate children of the KH topic is the games and the setting/character articles, however, I would argue that specific characters unique to the series, such as Sora, are not immediate children, and thus redirects/disambigs for all of these aren't necessary to include for the series topic; they would be if the Characters of KH were expanded to its own FT. Basically, this should be a requirement that is easy to fulfill if someone notes that there are gaps that cannot be filled but can be redirected, but it does help to show what the full intent of the topic is that the nominator had. --MASEM 20:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me, though I think it would be hard to phrase concisely, and harder still to phrase without misleadingly encouraging potential nominators into not creating articles when they should - instead they may end up just creating the redirects. What I would probably see therefore is no rule change, but this is certainly something that you could request be done during an FTC instead - rst20xx (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Criteria 3C

I am not sure if I understand this criteria. Does it mean that if an article went through a peer review, then it would automatically pass the individual quality audit? Or is there more to it?—Chris! ct 19:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it means that the individual audit is the entire process, and the peer review is just one aspect of that process.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:35, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Then is it a process within the featured topic nomination? Or is it a separate process?—Chris! ct 19:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, Peer reviews are a distinct process. I would assume that it probably all happens on the same page, just for organizational purposes, but they could require the peer review to go through the normal channels first. It probably could be a bit more clear on how to actually do that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
It is a really amorous process, the first part is the pear review with all major problems being fixed. After that there is no general agreement, if it can not reach GA or FL because of limited subject matter some FT reviews will want to see a failed GAC or FLC in which the reason for failure was limited subject matter. After this if there is a suitable WikiProject A-class review system that should also be done. After these things have been done, at the FTC the reviews will check for the above things and may make a few suggestions for improvement, but this is limited. Zginder 2008-09-27T20:04Z (UTC)

Yeah, just to make clear, the audited clause is no way an alternative to getting an article to GA/FA/FL, it is solely intended for articles that can't get there due to either inherent shortness or inherent instability - rst20xx (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be clear that the audit has no way of undermining the notability guideline, as I can see people arguing to "create all of the articles and just have them go through an audit", when the subtopics themselves wouldn't just be "limited subject matter" but not have established notability.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, there have been disputes as to whether an article is notable enough to exist before (such as the Smallville topic), but never has a non-notable article been created as a result of a nom, and I really don't see this happening. Voters here do of course know about notability criteria... rst20xx (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Updating topic due to change in article status

For the Guitar Hero series, one of the articles that needed to be improved (List of songs in Guitar Hero World Tour) has now achieved FLC status, per the timing requirements. Should I be BOLD to update the topic and well as remove the indicators on this page for that, or does this need to go through a formal process? Again, this is not adding article, just moving the status of an article from previously being peer reviewed to FLC. --MASEM 17:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

When the status of something has been changed, the indicator on the topic box can be changed right away, as there is no reason why that could be controversial. If the change is ever enough to make it go from GT to FT, most of the other changes should be done automatically. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Aaannd I just realized that the List of GHWT Songs was never added directly, so I'll go through the nom procedure to make sure it is done all proper. I did take out the retention times for this list specifically since I think it is non-controversial, restore if this is a problem, please. --MASEM 18:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts topic

In a bit of unexpected news, Kingdom Hearts coded looks to have been given a limited release as a preinstalled game in a new model of phone in Japan. However, I have no reliable source to verify a release date. The only sourcing I've found are the phone's product page and the game's official website stating the model it's installed on. As far as release dates, all I've found are the company's product listing which state the phone is "on sale now", and the official website which states the phone is available in November 2008.

I'm assuming this all counts as an official release, however, I can't really find an official release date, which is needed to determine the retention period. The fansites started buzzing about all this last week and have been adding November 19th to the article. Should this be start of the retention period? (Guyinblack25 talk 16:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC))

Technically yes, but I think I would support giving you a waiver on this one until it's out in the west, because otherwise it makes your life a LOT harder. What does everyone else think? rst20xx (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot has posted the release date (November 18, 2008). I've got no problem with the three month time frame starting from then. Plus I don't think a special exception should be made. If it gets delisted, then it's delisted. It became an FT once and it can do it again if need be. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

OK, under retention it goes then - rst20xx (talk) 15:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured / Good

I noticed in the descriptions of the difference between FT and GT, that 25% of the articles in them should be featured to gain FT. Does anyone think this is a bit too easy? What are peoples opinions on making it 33% or 50% instead? I've just got to planning a topic, and even if it all worked completely according to plan, it would have 3 GAs and 2 FL, and i wouldn't consider that to be inline with that "featured" should mean (ie. best of wikipedia). Even making it 50% would instead make this a GT until only one of the articles makes FA. Nb. A 33% threshold would affect 5 current FTs, with each needing one more FA.

The list of GTs is short compared to FTs. Increasing the criteria would balance the numbers more, and more accurately reflect the quality of the articles contained in the topics. Yes, no? I see that the discussions in the archives were beofre Good topics got established, and most of the arguemnts against were the unfiairness of delisting topics - these would now go to GT (which is still pretty darn good!).Yobmod (talk) 10:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

This has actually been discussed since - the discussion can be found here. I still agree with the consensus established then (i.e. don't raise the criteria until 2009 at earliest), and would point out that part of the reason there are less GTs than FTs is that GTs are still very young - since GTs were first established, there have been significantly more GTs promoted than FTs, so GTs are catching up - rst20xx (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Move retention to other page and transclude here

I suggest that this page not be constantly edited for retentions so that we can better monitor the changes to the criteria. Zginder 2008-12-06T19:15Z (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Were you thinking a subpage titled "Retention"? (Guyinblack25 talk 22:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC))
I think a separate "Topic Retention" page is a very good idea, especially since the number of retention periods seems to be getting larger over time. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was bold, and went ahead and made the change. Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria/Retention - rst20xx (talk) 22:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks good. I think that should work fine. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Are topic nominators notified when their topic goes into retention? I have a few on that page but would rather not have to constantly watch that page for any updates as most of them don't pertain to me anyways. Gary King (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Erm I try to do this, yes. If you look at the ones there at the moment, all the nominators for current retention topics have been aware of their retention since the beginning of the retention (in fact all bar one currently have a PR/GAN that will deal with their retentions). And generally, future retentions will come up in the original nom/supplementary nom - rst20xx (talk) 21:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Also it's a bit of a two-way street though. You have StarCraft II and Half-Life 2: Episode Three, right? Well, the day those games come out is the day those articles go into retention, and you're more likely to be aware of when release dates are announced than I am, so to save me having to continually check the articles for release dates, you can always go ahead and update the retention schedule yourself when release dates are announced ;) rst20xx (talk) 21:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

NHL Foundation Player Award (Again)

I know this article was just peer reviewed, in order to stay out of retention, but couldn't this actually make FLC? It has 11 entries, after all (when it was promoted, it had 9) - rst20xx (talk) 15:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer not. While the table is just a bit over the unofficial line, there really isn't much content to it, nor is there likely a lot to add, so it's not FL-worthy. -- Scorpion0422 15:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You sure? I think with a bit of digging there could probably be more information uncovered; prose could probably be way larger than the table there, considering it's small size. Gary King (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Criteria Raise to 33%?

There's a discussion about this going on over here about this - rst20xx (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_and_good_topic_criteria/Archive_2&oldid=1148848725"