![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
So I've been thinking of working on developing a topic of fatal Boeing 707 accidents in the United States, which is a total of 9 accidents if limited to commercial passenger flights. (Have to limit it to both US and commercial passenger flights because the 707 has been involved in about 250 accidents in total, and the other three or four fatal crashes in the US were training flights or cargo flights that are not notable enough for Wikipedia per the guidelines of WP:AVIATION.) Anyway, there is no Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 707 artcle (there is a category though, so would it be OK to pipe the Category to the title or maybe the Boeing 707 article or List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United States?
Also, does the title article or whatever is piped to it have to be at least a GA (if working for a GT) or can it be a B-class? If it's a list, will it have to get worked up to FL? (I'm a little confused.)
Thanks -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi all. The Seattle Sounders FC task force recently achieved its primary goal of improving the Seattle Sounders FC article to FA status. We began looking at other football club/soccer team related good and featured topics, and had some questions.
Currently, the team article is FA quality, and the stadium is GA quality (having failed its first FAC review, but likely to pass the next one). We've just began working on improving the List of Seattle Sounders FC players, in hopes of getting it to FL status. However, the team is only a little over a year old. That means that the lists that most featured topic teams use for topic coverage - such as the Aston Villa F.C. featured topic list of seasons and list of managers - aren't really an option for us, because we only have one manager and one season under our belt.
Under featured article criteria 3.c, it sounds like we can include the list of two seasons and list of one manager as "audited article of limited subject matter or inherent instability" to ensure topic coverage, provided they pass individual quality audits that include peer reviews. Is that correct, and is that the best approach for us to take? ← George talk 23:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Do Red Tail Project, Red Tail Reborn and Flight of the Red Tail count as a complete topic if all articles are promoted?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
a topic on Poliomyelitis would have to include anything else besides Poliovirus, Polio vaccine, Poliomyelitis eradication, History of poliomyelitis and List of poliomyelitis survivors? Nergaal ( talk) 05:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Side question for you all, do you think this mini-topic would work? (none are featured now, talking about the future). Staxringold talk contribs 05:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Now that Millennium Park has five FAs among the 15 articles, is a bot going to promote it?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Is a bot going to update all the T:AHs?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A question about a forthcoming Final Fantasy titles topic- currently every game from 1 to 12 is GA+, but while Final Fantasy XIII was released in Japan on December 17, 2009 it will not be released in NA/Europe until March 9, 2010. Presumably it needs to be PR'd before the topic can be nominated, but when does the 3-month GA timer end? 3 months after December 17 or 3 months after March 9? -- Pres N 21:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:MLB here with another thing to bother you fine WP:FT folks with. :) User:Killervogel5 and I have discussed the potential of creating a topic centered around Triple Crown (baseball). It would look something like this (when everything is featured):
? The closest comparable topic at hand is likely Wikipedia:Featured topics/Triple Gold Club. However the big difference is unlike the Triple Gold Club where the individual pieces are the Stanley Cup, Olympic Gold, and IHHC, this Triple Crown is comprised of these individual seasonal titles. As such these lists cover both the award (the seasonal AVG/HR/RBI/ERA/K/W titles) and the winners. I say this to defend why this topic would not need to undergo the far larger task of including articles such as Run batted in. Do you agree? Staxringold talk contribs 21:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Is already listed as a Good Topic. The main article appears well on its way to achieving featured status, which would to my knowledge satisfy the Featured Topic criteria. Do I need to renominate it, or change any of the banners on the talk pages of the involved articles by hand? Nosleep ( Talk · Contribs) 01:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I am gradually working on a massive project to create numerous GTs and FTs for lemurs. Once I finish a mass re-write of the Lemur article (very soon) I plan to devote some attention to specific topics so that I can start promoting them one by one. (I'm doing the hardest ones first. That's why it's taking so long.) The topics I have organized can be found in my user space: User:Visionholder/Topics
I was wondering if someone would mind looking over the topics and let me know if I'm organizing them correctly by discussing it on my talk page. Once the topics are properly organized (and the lemur article is finished), I can start focusing on individual topics and subtopics. I'll probably also create books for each of the topics while I'm at it and develop them as I go along. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Would Fermín Zanón Cervera, Zapata Rail, Zapata Wren and Zapata Sparrow be a credible FT "Birds discovered by Fermín Zanón Cervera" if the articles were worked up to GA/FA? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there anything else that needs to be added to the Devils topic to make it FT worthy? There is a Template:New Jersey Devils that includes all the Devils articles, so if there's anything needed, you can find it there. I appreciate the assistance. Anthony (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Given the resolution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park Grill, what are the implications of Park Grill for the Millennium Park WP:FT? Am I required to nominate the topic for expansion and accept a deadline for promotion?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Park Grill finally passed at GA today. I would like to expand the Millennium Park topic with it and Grant Park Music Festival. I need to know if it is actually going to lapse on 6/13 until an expansion decision becomes final or if it will stay listed until an expansion gets resolved. If it is going to lapse any way, I would actually prefer to wait until a nomination would close on June 29th or later to qualify me for points for the next round of the WP:CUP. However, if it is not going to be demoted and repromoted, there are no points to be accrued and I might as well do the nomination immediately. I am trying to figure out what to do. How long does an expansion nom take?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I am working towards a featured topic on the rodent genus Oryzomys (currently two FAs; three GAs; four articles remain to be done), including the genus article and eight species articles ( User:Ucucha#Planned featured topics, second box). I created a separate page on parasites of the marsh rice rat to avoid overloading the main marsh rice rat article; would that page need to be included in the featured topic? Ucucha 16:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thoughts on this? Other related articles can be found in the category, but none of those I think belong in here, except for perhaps Seventy-two resolutions. I might split off information from Canadian Confederation into new articles, too, that would probably also go into this topic, such as Fathers of Confederation. Gary King ( talk) 20:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Do we expect the percentage of FAs required to keep going up until it gets to 100%. I ask because some topics have a limit on how many of it article's could feasibly reach featured status.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 23:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm working very slowly on an Olympic Games Featured Topic. If I finish what I propose it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 54 articles. I'm tracking my progress here. The lead article would be the Olympic Games with Winter, Summer, Ancient Olympics, Paralympics and Youth Olympic Games. Added to this, and making up the bulk of the articles, would be every YEAR at Summer/Winter Olympic Games from 1896 to 2010. My question is would adding all of these YEAR at Summer/Winter Olympic Games articles be too specific for this topic? I don't want to spend the next several years getting this topic all dressed up and then have it crash and burn here. I'm not going to hold anyone to what they say I'm just trying to get a sense for what are generally the guidelines regarding specificity of a featured topic. I appreciate any input on this. H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 22:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, sorry about the delay. When I build a topic I tend to think in terms of levels of scope. As I said before I would be more inclined to build separate subtopics around the Summer and Winter Olympics, and then a general topic about the Olympics would feature the Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics articles, but beyond that all the articles in it would be the ones about the Olympics in general, and not articles about one subject or the other. WP:Overview topics states that "every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic is also within the scope of a non-lead article that is included within the topic. If it seems natural, you may consider creating summary style articles to reduce the number of articles needed to be included in your overview topic." I would say the Olympics topic should look like this then:
So 34 articles but you should create a couple of summary style articles, and maybe merge two, which would cut it down to 26 I reckon. Having said that I'm probably missing some. Lots to be done!
This is very different from your plans, I think you more want to do a topic that contains the games themselves. And this is where the topics on the Summer and Winter Olympics come in: the Summer one, for example, would contain Summer Olympic Games, List of participating nations at the Summer Olympic Games, and the individual games articles ( 1896 Summer Olympics, ... etc.). The only other thing I'm not sure about whether you should include is the individual sports, but if you did the topic would be way too big, so I'd say you could make two topics with Summer Olympic Games as the lead article - one on the games, and one on the sports. Winter is similar - rst20xx ( talk) 23:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Would any new articles need to be created for this to become a GT. I am aware of the fact not all of these articles are not yet GA's? Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
Any response? Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
I am prepping my first FT nomination soon so I decided I was close enough to begin investigating the criteria for an FT. #2 caught me off guard. I have no idea how I could make a summary article for my nomination. I have created a list for each university in the Big 12 Conference that lists that university's head football coaches (details here). What can I do to meet criterion 2? I don't think a list for Big 12 Conference head football coaches would be the right answer. Any help would be appreciated.— NMajdan• talk 15:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The Millennium Park topic seems to just be spreading in all directions now. The original project included the main overview article and all the park's permanent features. It was expanded for a temporary exhibit last year ( Pavilion projects). The thinking above is that adding a restaurant ( Park Grill) is a given. Although this has been on the template for a long time. When this topic was approved as a complete topic, the recurring event Grant Park Music Festival looked like this and was not required to be added to the topic. Now it is a WP:GA and I want to double check on whether it is suppose to be part of the topic.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Say I want to shoot for a Chicago Bulls GT or FT. What articles should be in this topic? Several obvious ones are Chicago Bulls, List of Chicago Bulls head coaches and List of Chicago Bulls seasons, the last two are WP:FL already.— Chris! c/ t 21:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
As you might remember from above, KV5 and I are working on this topic. 4 of the champ lists are featured, strikeouts are up at FLC right now, and I plan on finishing batting champs today. However during the strikeout FLC The Rambling Man (TRM) brought up the idea of splitting Major League Baseball Triple Crown into List of Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners (batting) and List of Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners (pitching). If we did this would you prefer two small 4 article topics or, could we do something like: Staxringold talk contribs 15:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
River Parrett, which is one part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Physical geography of Somerset, has just been promoted from GA to FA. Do I need to take any action to update the FT table & can someone confirm that this FT is not longer at risk of "demotion" as a result of the changes to the FT criteria.— Rod talk 06:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, so I had the grand idea to turn Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster into a featured list. After about a month of work, I've realized that there is no way it is going to fit in one list, so I've shifted gears to a featured topic. The articles themselves are still in progress. My question is: would the lead article be better served as an audited article of limited subject matter, looking somewhat like List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients, or would it be better if I did a summary-style list, like List of Major League Baseball awards? All comments appreciated. — KV5 • Talk • 17:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Small question, and not hugely pressing as I've only gotten through about half of the games (and those were the easier, more recent, all single-game tie-breakers). Would this be an appropriate and full topic:
Or would I need to include Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball) as well? Staxringold talk contribs 21:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Most of this possible future good topic is currently at GAN and will hopefully pass there soon. Before bringing it to GTC, I would like to know in advance whether there are any problems with the topic with regards to the GT criteria. Ucucha 19:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
One article in this topic, Norton Priory, has recently been promoted from GA to FA, which I think also satisfies the criteria for promotion from GT to FT. Indeed the templates on the talk pages of the articles state it is a FT. But it still sits on WP:GT. Will it be moved automatically to WP:FT, or do I have to take some action?
On a different but related subject, I think it should be placed in the "Art, architecture and archaeology" section, rather than the "Geography and places" section. Buildings are listed for their architectural merit and historical importance, rather than for their being "places". This would also apply IMO to the FT "Grade I listed buildings in Somerset".-- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 09:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
South America is one of the most important centers of world soccer or football and it definetly merits being a feauture topic. I have been a one-man army building this thing. I am well aware that I still need some more things but I would like to ask any and every editor here whether this can potentiallly cut it and, if not, what can I do to improve it.
Thanks. Jamen Somasu ( talk) 02:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Robert Catesby will shortly be at FAC (I have another article waiting to be archived). Everard Digby, another plotter, is currently at GAC, but will also be going to FAC I think. Thomas Bates is being worked on now for GAC. Its my intention to get all 13 plotters to a minimum of GA. Parrot of Doom 23:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The " Big Four" of English football are three FAs and one GA. "Big Four" itself is not a separate article, but a subsection of Premier League, which is an FA. Could this qualify? Lampman ( talk) 15:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thoughts? The album article itself is featured, and seven of the song articles are of Good status and similar in composition. While there is not a "Thriller (album)" category or template, the songs are connected by the template Template:Michael Jackson singles. I am NOT a contributor to any other aforementioned articles, but I was simply browsing the lists of good and featured topics and thought this one might qualify as well. I would be happy to notify major contributors as well as WikiProject Michael Jackson of my intention to nominate the topic, but I thought I would come here first to see if there are any issues seen at first glance. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm making this little project. At the FLC of the Honours it was suggested I ask here. The editor thought that the honours article wasn't needed for the FT. So the question is, is it? Sandman888 ( talk) 13:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently working on Metroid Prime: Trilogy in order to turn it into a good article, and fill a gap in the series topic (then only Metroid: Other M, which comes out this month, will remain):
Main page | Articles |
(4) ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I just need to ask: can both the series and the list of media be in the topic? What should be the main article? Samus Aran is a GA, if the other character articles get Good status can a supplementary nom develop the topic from just the games to the overall series? ( it's been done before) igordebraga ≠ 13:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I am kicking around the idea of a FT on the family of Roger of Salisbury. The members would be Roger of Salisbury (currently C classish), Alexander of Lincoln (GA, soon to be at FAC), Nigel (Bishop of Ely) (FA), William of Ely (stub), Richard FitzNeal (start), Adelelm (Lord High Treasurer) (stub), and Roger le Poer (stub). I can easily get everyone to FA except William of Ely and Adelelm, who can make GA easily enough. My question is, do I need a separate article on the family or will Roger's article be enough of a "unifying" article? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this is a plausible topic. The lead article is Randy Pausch, about the famed professor. Under it would be the two works he is most widely recognised for, Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams and The Last Lecture. One is an eminent lecture, one is a bestselling book. I'm not sure however if this topic is feasible or proper. Maybe a rephrasing of the topic title will do? Thanks, AngChenrui Talk 06:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Thoughts? The season article is currently nominated for featured list status, and each of the episodes are considered Good status. One concern I have is that if "episodes" cannot be part of the topic title, requiring that all articles relating to season 1 be of Good or Featured status, Glee: The Music, Volume 1, Glee: The Music, Volume 2, and Glee: The Music, Volume 3 Showstoppers would be problematic since they are not of either status. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
UPDATE - Glee (season 1), referenced above, is now a Featured list. Not sure whether that helps the discussion, but I personally believe that the topic should be a good topic, too. The articles are all well-written and provide a good synopsis of everything that can be legitimately sourced related to each episode. Also, the topic is "season 1 episodes", so the album discographies have nothing to do with the topic. CycloneGU ( talk) 02:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really aiming for FT before but rather GT, because Hawaii hotspot really hit a hard wall. I've been coordinating it here. Things of note:
This is one of the projects affected by the new FA percentage. We just got one promotion earlier this week and are now one short. When are demotions actually going to happen?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I just fixed Template:FeaturedTopicSum; Millennium Park is now a good topic according to its talk page. Ucucha 16:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was any way to request for withdrawal of my own nomination. Gage ( talk) 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm ready to submit a GTC for the Courageous-class battlecruisers that were converted into aircraft carriers during the 1920s, but I'm not sure which article to use as the lead. They were built and saw service during WWI as battlecruiser, but spent the bulk of their careers as aircraft carriers. Any thoughts on which article to use?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Millennium Park is now back up to standard. Who do I need to notify to get all the various actions completed.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 05:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Ununoctium is currently part of the "Noble gases" featured topic. However, quoting its own lede:
For example, although ununoctium is a member of Group 18, it is probably not a noble gas, unlike all the other Group 18 elements.[1] It was formerly thought to be a gas but is now predicted to be a solid under normal conditions.[1]
So, if it's not a noble gas, what's it doing in said Featured Topic? -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you think this works out? Currently one (venues) is an FL; one (mascot) is undergoing GAN; one (medal table) might be going up on FLC soon. Bids can be a subtopic here, even though that's not my primary concern. Thanks in advance, ANG CHENRUI WP:MSE ♨ 12:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it looks fine if you find a pic. Nergaal ( talk) 15:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thinking of doing a FT on the snapping turtle family and the two snapping turtle genuses (common and alligator). Both common and alligator snappers get a lot of hits for Wiki). 1000 per day or so. The genus less so. Part of the benefit of the work would be to better understand the differences at species and genus level (a lot of sources refer to the turtles with imprecision, can't tell if they mean both or just the common one). 2 topics would need to come up to FA and one to GA.
1. Is it worthwhile for Wiki? If I get it done, will people give me the FT for just 3 things?
2. There are stubs for 7 extinct members of the family. I would not feel obligated to bring the exctint articles up to GA or include them in the topic. Is that cool?
3. There are subpages for the 3 types of common snapping turtles. IOW a finer division. (either species or subspecies depenging on where you stand, but the differentiation is immaterial, pages still exist and they are more granular than "common snapping turtle"). They are stubs also. I would not feel obligated to bring them up to GA either (would just buff up the overall common snapper article).
TCO ( talk) 23:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems like 2 and 3 are different. Not sure, I get you. I would definitely cover the extinct genera in the family-level article. Heck, that actually HELPS it be more of an interesting article (rather than a span-breaker for two things, which ends up with lots of duplication or just being short). But I would not try to bring up the extinct stubs (as separate arrticles). Also, would not go lower than snapper genera, which has the key content (although here there also are stubs). the whol family would be covered. 3 articles would be done. Fair? Irrespective of gettign an FT, this is sort of where it is most efficient to develop the content anyhow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO ( talk • contribs)
Hmm...I'm not crazy about making a new article on living snapping turtles, that just covers two members, especially when there is already the Family level article in existence. I may just develop articles and concentrate on that versus FT. There's always this judgement of where best to put information, for instance with subspecies. I'll think on it a little more though. I guess when getting into the topic, one might learn more and make other decisions as one progressed also. And just take the joy in the stars irrelevant of no FT. Probably would start with alligator snapper as it seems the simplest taxonomically (said hopefully). TCO ( talk) 10:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Ahhh...cripes, I'm tired. PERFECT. Want to work on it with me? TCO ( talk) 10:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this a viable topic? I just want to make sure I include everything before I finish it.— Chris! c/ t 20:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Should we add the " Gwen Stefani" article to the "Gwen Stefani albums" featured topic? It makes sense to do so, since she's the author of those albums and therefore related to the topic. Leptictidium ( mt) 07:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
So I've been thinking of working on developing a topic of fatal Boeing 707 accidents in the United States, which is a total of 9 accidents if limited to commercial passenger flights. (Have to limit it to both US and commercial passenger flights because the 707 has been involved in about 250 accidents in total, and the other three or four fatal crashes in the US were training flights or cargo flights that are not notable enough for Wikipedia per the guidelines of WP:AVIATION.) Anyway, there is no Accidents and incidents involving the Boeing 707 artcle (there is a category though, so would it be OK to pipe the Category to the title or maybe the Boeing 707 article or List of accidents and incidents involving airliners in the United States?
Also, does the title article or whatever is piped to it have to be at least a GA (if working for a GT) or can it be a B-class? If it's a list, will it have to get worked up to FL? (I'm a little confused.)
Thanks -- Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi all. The Seattle Sounders FC task force recently achieved its primary goal of improving the Seattle Sounders FC article to FA status. We began looking at other football club/soccer team related good and featured topics, and had some questions.
Currently, the team article is FA quality, and the stadium is GA quality (having failed its first FAC review, but likely to pass the next one). We've just began working on improving the List of Seattle Sounders FC players, in hopes of getting it to FL status. However, the team is only a little over a year old. That means that the lists that most featured topic teams use for topic coverage - such as the Aston Villa F.C. featured topic list of seasons and list of managers - aren't really an option for us, because we only have one manager and one season under our belt.
Under featured article criteria 3.c, it sounds like we can include the list of two seasons and list of one manager as "audited article of limited subject matter or inherent instability" to ensure topic coverage, provided they pass individual quality audits that include peer reviews. Is that correct, and is that the best approach for us to take? ← George talk 23:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Do Red Tail Project, Red Tail Reborn and Flight of the Red Tail count as a complete topic if all articles are promoted?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
a topic on Poliomyelitis would have to include anything else besides Poliovirus, Polio vaccine, Poliomyelitis eradication, History of poliomyelitis and List of poliomyelitis survivors? Nergaal ( talk) 05:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Side question for you all, do you think this mini-topic would work? (none are featured now, talking about the future). Staxringold talk contribs 05:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
Now that Millennium Park has five FAs among the 15 articles, is a bot going to promote it?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 03:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Is a bot going to update all the T:AHs?-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A question about a forthcoming Final Fantasy titles topic- currently every game from 1 to 12 is GA+, but while Final Fantasy XIII was released in Japan on December 17, 2009 it will not be released in NA/Europe until March 9, 2010. Presumably it needs to be PR'd before the topic can be nominated, but when does the 3-month GA timer end? 3 months after December 17 or 3 months after March 9? -- Pres N 21:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
WP:MLB here with another thing to bother you fine WP:FT folks with. :) User:Killervogel5 and I have discussed the potential of creating a topic centered around Triple Crown (baseball). It would look something like this (when everything is featured):
? The closest comparable topic at hand is likely Wikipedia:Featured topics/Triple Gold Club. However the big difference is unlike the Triple Gold Club where the individual pieces are the Stanley Cup, Olympic Gold, and IHHC, this Triple Crown is comprised of these individual seasonal titles. As such these lists cover both the award (the seasonal AVG/HR/RBI/ERA/K/W titles) and the winners. I say this to defend why this topic would not need to undergo the far larger task of including articles such as Run batted in. Do you agree? Staxringold talk contribs 21:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Is already listed as a Good Topic. The main article appears well on its way to achieving featured status, which would to my knowledge satisfy the Featured Topic criteria. Do I need to renominate it, or change any of the banners on the talk pages of the involved articles by hand? Nosleep ( Talk · Contribs) 01:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
I am gradually working on a massive project to create numerous GTs and FTs for lemurs. Once I finish a mass re-write of the Lemur article (very soon) I plan to devote some attention to specific topics so that I can start promoting them one by one. (I'm doing the hardest ones first. That's why it's taking so long.) The topics I have organized can be found in my user space: User:Visionholder/Topics
I was wondering if someone would mind looking over the topics and let me know if I'm organizing them correctly by discussing it on my talk page. Once the topics are properly organized (and the lemur article is finished), I can start focusing on individual topics and subtopics. I'll probably also create books for each of the topics while I'm at it and develop them as I go along. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Would Fermín Zanón Cervera, Zapata Rail, Zapata Wren and Zapata Sparrow be a credible FT "Birds discovered by Fermín Zanón Cervera" if the articles were worked up to GA/FA? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Is there anything else that needs to be added to the Devils topic to make it FT worthy? There is a Template:New Jersey Devils that includes all the Devils articles, so if there's anything needed, you can find it there. I appreciate the assistance. Anthony (talk) 16:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Given the resolution at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Park Grill, what are the implications of Park Grill for the Millennium Park WP:FT? Am I required to nominate the topic for expansion and accept a deadline for promotion?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 17:01, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Park Grill finally passed at GA today. I would like to expand the Millennium Park topic with it and Grant Park Music Festival. I need to know if it is actually going to lapse on 6/13 until an expansion decision becomes final or if it will stay listed until an expansion gets resolved. If it is going to lapse any way, I would actually prefer to wait until a nomination would close on June 29th or later to qualify me for points for the next round of the WP:CUP. However, if it is not going to be demoted and repromoted, there are no points to be accrued and I might as well do the nomination immediately. I am trying to figure out what to do. How long does an expansion nom take?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I am working towards a featured topic on the rodent genus Oryzomys (currently two FAs; three GAs; four articles remain to be done), including the genus article and eight species articles ( User:Ucucha#Planned featured topics, second box). I created a separate page on parasites of the marsh rice rat to avoid overloading the main marsh rice rat article; would that page need to be included in the featured topic? Ucucha 16:11, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Thoughts on this? Other related articles can be found in the category, but none of those I think belong in here, except for perhaps Seventy-two resolutions. I might split off information from Canadian Confederation into new articles, too, that would probably also go into this topic, such as Fathers of Confederation. Gary King ( talk) 20:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Do we expect the percentage of FAs required to keep going up until it gets to 100%. I ask because some topics have a limit on how many of it article's could feasibly reach featured status.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 23:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm working very slowly on an Olympic Games Featured Topic. If I finish what I propose it would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 54 articles. I'm tracking my progress here. The lead article would be the Olympic Games with Winter, Summer, Ancient Olympics, Paralympics and Youth Olympic Games. Added to this, and making up the bulk of the articles, would be every YEAR at Summer/Winter Olympic Games from 1896 to 2010. My question is would adding all of these YEAR at Summer/Winter Olympic Games articles be too specific for this topic? I don't want to spend the next several years getting this topic all dressed up and then have it crash and burn here. I'm not going to hold anyone to what they say I'm just trying to get a sense for what are generally the guidelines regarding specificity of a featured topic. I appreciate any input on this. H1nkles ( talk) citius altius fortius 22:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, sorry about the delay. When I build a topic I tend to think in terms of levels of scope. As I said before I would be more inclined to build separate subtopics around the Summer and Winter Olympics, and then a general topic about the Olympics would feature the Summer Olympics and Winter Olympics articles, but beyond that all the articles in it would be the ones about the Olympics in general, and not articles about one subject or the other. WP:Overview topics states that "every article within the scope of the topic that is not included in the topic is also within the scope of a non-lead article that is included within the topic. If it seems natural, you may consider creating summary style articles to reduce the number of articles needed to be included in your overview topic." I would say the Olympics topic should look like this then:
So 34 articles but you should create a couple of summary style articles, and maybe merge two, which would cut it down to 26 I reckon. Having said that I'm probably missing some. Lots to be done!
This is very different from your plans, I think you more want to do a topic that contains the games themselves. And this is where the topics on the Summer and Winter Olympics come in: the Summer one, for example, would contain Summer Olympic Games, List of participating nations at the Summer Olympic Games, and the individual games articles ( 1896 Summer Olympics, ... etc.). The only other thing I'm not sure about whether you should include is the individual sports, but if you did the topic would be way too big, so I'd say you could make two topics with Summer Olympic Games as the lead article - one on the games, and one on the sports. Winter is similar - rst20xx ( talk) 23:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Would any new articles need to be created for this to become a GT. I am aware of the fact not all of these articles are not yet GA's? Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
Any response? Leave Message, Yellow Evan home
I am prepping my first FT nomination soon so I decided I was close enough to begin investigating the criteria for an FT. #2 caught me off guard. I have no idea how I could make a summary article for my nomination. I have created a list for each university in the Big 12 Conference that lists that university's head football coaches (details here). What can I do to meet criterion 2? I don't think a list for Big 12 Conference head football coaches would be the right answer. Any help would be appreciated.— NMajdan• talk 15:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The Millennium Park topic seems to just be spreading in all directions now. The original project included the main overview article and all the park's permanent features. It was expanded for a temporary exhibit last year ( Pavilion projects). The thinking above is that adding a restaurant ( Park Grill) is a given. Although this has been on the template for a long time. When this topic was approved as a complete topic, the recurring event Grant Park Music Festival looked like this and was not required to be added to the topic. Now it is a WP:GA and I want to double check on whether it is suppose to be part of the topic.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 14:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
Say I want to shoot for a Chicago Bulls GT or FT. What articles should be in this topic? Several obvious ones are Chicago Bulls, List of Chicago Bulls head coaches and List of Chicago Bulls seasons, the last two are WP:FL already.— Chris! c/ t 21:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
As you might remember from above, KV5 and I are working on this topic. 4 of the champ lists are featured, strikeouts are up at FLC right now, and I plan on finishing batting champs today. However during the strikeout FLC The Rambling Man (TRM) brought up the idea of splitting Major League Baseball Triple Crown into List of Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners (batting) and List of Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners (pitching). If we did this would you prefer two small 4 article topics or, could we do something like: Staxringold talk contribs 15:03, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
River Parrett, which is one part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/Physical geography of Somerset, has just been promoted from GA to FA. Do I need to take any action to update the FT table & can someone confirm that this FT is not longer at risk of "demotion" as a result of the changes to the FT criteria.— Rod talk 06:47, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, so I had the grand idea to turn Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster into a featured list. After about a month of work, I've realized that there is no way it is going to fit in one list, so I've shifted gears to a featured topic. The articles themselves are still in progress. My question is: would the lead article be better served as an audited article of limited subject matter, looking somewhat like List of American Civil War Medal of Honor recipients, or would it be better if I did a summary-style list, like List of Major League Baseball awards? All comments appreciated. — KV5 • Talk • 17:10, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Small question, and not hugely pressing as I've only gotten through about half of the games (and those were the easier, more recent, all single-game tie-breakers). Would this be an appropriate and full topic:
Or would I need to include Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball) as well? Staxringold talk contribs 21:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Most of this possible future good topic is currently at GAN and will hopefully pass there soon. Before bringing it to GTC, I would like to know in advance whether there are any problems with the topic with regards to the GT criteria. Ucucha 19:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
One article in this topic, Norton Priory, has recently been promoted from GA to FA, which I think also satisfies the criteria for promotion from GT to FT. Indeed the templates on the talk pages of the articles state it is a FT. But it still sits on WP:GT. Will it be moved automatically to WP:FT, or do I have to take some action?
On a different but related subject, I think it should be placed in the "Art, architecture and archaeology" section, rather than the "Geography and places" section. Buildings are listed for their architectural merit and historical importance, rather than for their being "places". This would also apply IMO to the FT "Grade I listed buildings in Somerset".-- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 09:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
South America is one of the most important centers of world soccer or football and it definetly merits being a feauture topic. I have been a one-man army building this thing. I am well aware that I still need some more things but I would like to ask any and every editor here whether this can potentiallly cut it and, if not, what can I do to improve it.
Thanks. Jamen Somasu ( talk) 02:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Robert Catesby will shortly be at FAC (I have another article waiting to be archived). Everard Digby, another plotter, is currently at GAC, but will also be going to FAC I think. Thomas Bates is being worked on now for GAC. Its my intention to get all 13 plotters to a minimum of GA. Parrot of Doom 23:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The " Big Four" of English football are three FAs and one GA. "Big Four" itself is not a separate article, but a subsection of Premier League, which is an FA. Could this qualify? Lampman ( talk) 15:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Thoughts? The album article itself is featured, and seven of the song articles are of Good status and similar in composition. While there is not a "Thriller (album)" category or template, the songs are connected by the template Template:Michael Jackson singles. I am NOT a contributor to any other aforementioned articles, but I was simply browsing the lists of good and featured topics and thought this one might qualify as well. I would be happy to notify major contributors as well as WikiProject Michael Jackson of my intention to nominate the topic, but I thought I would come here first to see if there are any issues seen at first glance. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 21:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm making this little project. At the FLC of the Honours it was suggested I ask here. The editor thought that the honours article wasn't needed for the FT. So the question is, is it? Sandman888 ( talk) 13:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm currently working on Metroid Prime: Trilogy in order to turn it into a good article, and fill a gap in the series topic (then only Metroid: Other M, which comes out this month, will remain):
Main page | Articles |
(4) ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I just need to ask: can both the series and the list of media be in the topic? What should be the main article? Samus Aran is a GA, if the other character articles get Good status can a supplementary nom develop the topic from just the games to the overall series? ( it's been done before) igordebraga ≠ 13:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I am kicking around the idea of a FT on the family of Roger of Salisbury. The members would be Roger of Salisbury (currently C classish), Alexander of Lincoln (GA, soon to be at FAC), Nigel (Bishop of Ely) (FA), William of Ely (stub), Richard FitzNeal (start), Adelelm (Lord High Treasurer) (stub), and Roger le Poer (stub). I can easily get everyone to FA except William of Ely and Adelelm, who can make GA easily enough. My question is, do I need a separate article on the family or will Roger's article be enough of a "unifying" article? Ealdgyth - Talk 21:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this is a plausible topic. The lead article is Randy Pausch, about the famed professor. Under it would be the two works he is most widely recognised for, Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams and The Last Lecture. One is an eminent lecture, one is a bestselling book. I'm not sure however if this topic is feasible or proper. Maybe a rephrasing of the topic title will do? Thanks, AngChenrui Talk 06:47, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Thoughts? The season article is currently nominated for featured list status, and each of the episodes are considered Good status. One concern I have is that if "episodes" cannot be part of the topic title, requiring that all articles relating to season 1 be of Good or Featured status, Glee: The Music, Volume 1, Glee: The Music, Volume 2, and Glee: The Music, Volume 3 Showstoppers would be problematic since they are not of either status. -- Another Believer ( Talk) 23:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
UPDATE - Glee (season 1), referenced above, is now a Featured list. Not sure whether that helps the discussion, but I personally believe that the topic should be a good topic, too. The articles are all well-written and provide a good synopsis of everything that can be legitimately sourced related to each episode. Also, the topic is "season 1 episodes", so the album discographies have nothing to do with the topic. CycloneGU ( talk) 02:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not really aiming for FT before but rather GT, because Hawaii hotspot really hit a hard wall. I've been coordinating it here. Things of note:
This is one of the projects affected by the new FA percentage. We just got one promotion earlier this week and are now one short. When are demotions actually going to happen?-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
I just fixed Template:FeaturedTopicSum; Millennium Park is now a good topic according to its talk page. Ucucha 16:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if there was any way to request for withdrawal of my own nomination. Gage ( talk) 00:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm ready to submit a GTC for the Courageous-class battlecruisers that were converted into aircraft carriers during the 1920s, but I'm not sure which article to use as the lead. They were built and saw service during WWI as battlecruiser, but spent the bulk of their careers as aircraft carriers. Any thoughts on which article to use?-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Millennium Park is now back up to standard. Who do I need to notify to get all the various actions completed.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 05:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Ununoctium is currently part of the "Noble gases" featured topic. However, quoting its own lede:
For example, although ununoctium is a member of Group 18, it is probably not a noble gas, unlike all the other Group 18 elements.[1] It was formerly thought to be a gas but is now predicted to be a solid under normal conditions.[1]
So, if it's not a noble gas, what's it doing in said Featured Topic? -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Do you think this works out? Currently one (venues) is an FL; one (mascot) is undergoing GAN; one (medal table) might be going up on FLC soon. Bids can be a subtopic here, even though that's not my primary concern. Thanks in advance, ANG CHENRUI WP:MSE ♨ 12:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
I think it looks fine if you find a pic. Nergaal ( talk) 15:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Thinking of doing a FT on the snapping turtle family and the two snapping turtle genuses (common and alligator). Both common and alligator snappers get a lot of hits for Wiki). 1000 per day or so. The genus less so. Part of the benefit of the work would be to better understand the differences at species and genus level (a lot of sources refer to the turtles with imprecision, can't tell if they mean both or just the common one). 2 topics would need to come up to FA and one to GA.
1. Is it worthwhile for Wiki? If I get it done, will people give me the FT for just 3 things?
2. There are stubs for 7 extinct members of the family. I would not feel obligated to bring the exctint articles up to GA or include them in the topic. Is that cool?
3. There are subpages for the 3 types of common snapping turtles. IOW a finer division. (either species or subspecies depenging on where you stand, but the differentiation is immaterial, pages still exist and they are more granular than "common snapping turtle"). They are stubs also. I would not feel obligated to bring them up to GA either (would just buff up the overall common snapper article).
TCO ( talk) 23:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems like 2 and 3 are different. Not sure, I get you. I would definitely cover the extinct genera in the family-level article. Heck, that actually HELPS it be more of an interesting article (rather than a span-breaker for two things, which ends up with lots of duplication or just being short). But I would not try to bring up the extinct stubs (as separate arrticles). Also, would not go lower than snapper genera, which has the key content (although here there also are stubs). the whol family would be covered. 3 articles would be done. Fair? Irrespective of gettign an FT, this is sort of where it is most efficient to develop the content anyhow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO ( talk • contribs)
Hmm...I'm not crazy about making a new article on living snapping turtles, that just covers two members, especially when there is already the Family level article in existence. I may just develop articles and concentrate on that versus FT. There's always this judgement of where best to put information, for instance with subspecies. I'll think on it a little more though. I guess when getting into the topic, one might learn more and make other decisions as one progressed also. And just take the joy in the stars irrelevant of no FT. Probably would start with alligator snapper as it seems the simplest taxonomically (said hopefully). TCO ( talk) 10:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Ahhh...cripes, I'm tired. PERFECT. Want to work on it with me? TCO ( talk) 10:45, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Is this a viable topic? I just want to make sure I include everything before I finish it.— Chris! c/ t 20:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Should we add the " Gwen Stefani" article to the "Gwen Stefani albums" featured topic? It makes sense to do so, since she's the author of those albums and therefore related to the topic. Leptictidium ( mt) 07:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)