![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Featured articles are great, and so are featured lists. However, I think we need to highlight those groups of articles that are very good as well. This would, I hope, encourage people to write good collections of articles rather than just one article.
I am suggesting this idea after realising that my product advertising articles ( tobacco advertising, alcohol advertising, etc.) are not (yet) of featured quality but are actually of some merit. While I don't think it would be ready to be a "featured topic" yet, I know there are other collections of articles that are basically as complete as can be when viewed as a whole but are not individually of featured quality.
I don't want to make featured topics of articles that aren't that good, and obviously the requirements would be quite high. Each article should be of a decent quality, with FA status being ideal but a comment-less PR or general good quality being acceptable.
One hopeful aim would be for all the items in a category to be of a good quality so perhaps the category itself could be a featured topic.
Clearly this needs discussion before commencing, and comments are more than welcome. violet/riga (t) 14:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that we'd have to be clear about which articles within a topic were featured. For example, if (to use the example above) advertising became a featured topic, we wouldn't want to make the entire category:advertising featured because clearly not all of the articles will be "our best work" (e.g. Shock advertising, which is two sentences long). I'm not convinced this is workable, though I do like the concept. Dave (talk) 18:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea. Not sure about any of the details yet. Maurreen (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Nice idea. I have been working on something like this recently, having got core-India topics: India, Geography of India, Economy of India and Flag of India up to featured quality. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:30, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking that the theory behind featured topics could be merged into featured portals. Both are ways of grouping like topics. -- Arctic Gnome 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The "2012 Summer Olympics bids" topic has the following qualities:
It also has a few points that might stop it being featured:
With some work I think this could be a good example of how well a topic can be explored in Wikipedia. violet/riga (t) 21:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Some of these topics are great examples of how well we can cover whole topics. Solar system is in excellent shape, and diamond is pretty much complete. violet/riga (t) 10:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
The requirement that each article in a series has been peer reviewed isn't a good one. When it is complete, 2005 English cricket season would be an excellent set of articles to have as a featured topic, but adding 40 or so articles at once onto Peer Review would be a nonsense. Do we really need this requirement in there? jguk 11:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
One suggestion for how we could get this going is for it to be an informal page of great topics. We can then go about making a more formal process. That, I hope, would get some more interest in the idea. violet/riga (t) 07:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Where is the discussion on whether the 2012 Summer Olympics bids should be a featured topic or not?
I certainly tacitly agreed that it was a possible featured topic, but that's a wee bit different from it actually being a featured topic. Should we not have a formal discussion on the project page on its merits, and see if it passes muster? I'd also like to see 2005 English cricket season get promoted - and getting the ball rolling with a proper full nomination would show the way. Kind regards, jguk 12:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I certainly think that we should just go ahead and start nominating and let the detailed criteria evolve as more topics get listed. Whether that happens to be ten to start off with, or fewer, I don't know. As long as each set of articles being nominated has a "sponsor" who will try to deal with objections, I don't mind.
We will have to confirm promotion criteria. I suggest for starters that nominations get listed for 14 days (to be extended in the case of doubt) and must receive at least 4 "supports" to get promoted, along with there being consensus and no objections so fundamental as to warrant non-promotion regardless (such as no references or copyrighted pictures). This is broadly the same as the criteria used on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, but with the exception that we use 10 days (plus 4 if there is doubt) - but as this is new, I think we should allow more time for comments, jguk 12:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I love the basic idea, but I think the terminology is a bit muddled. Either that or I haven't been editing that long (I haven't). What's the difference between a "topic" and a seires like Postmodernism? I'm No Parking and I approved this message 19:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
These articles are declared the main article of a featured topic in their talk pages Talk:Diamond and Talk:2012 Summer Olympics bids, but no topic appears to be featured yet (according to this page). Which page is right? - Liberatore( T) 12:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to provide a template on the pages which are the parts of WP:FT so that people can aware of this project. We need to work on the criteria page also. We have only one featured topic so far. I am not sure, which type of template, we should make. Do we need to make seperate template for each topic which mentions about featured topic or for all featured topics, we should have same type of template. Shyam ( T/ C) 06:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to have featured topics in category namespace. I have left a short note at the end of featured content's talk page. If you have any ideas, please comment there. Shyam ( T/ C) 19:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Like the other types of Featured Content, this too required a star to be added to the target topic (in addition to the existing talk page template {{ Featuredtopic}}). I have created the {{ Featured topic}} template that can be used for this purpose. However before applying it, I think we should first have a consensus as to how it should be used. What I feel is that it should go with the template box that summarizes the featured topic. The template box for Saffron series is {{ Topics related to saffron}}. Please share your opinions. - Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 09:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
In a failed nomination this month, some editors wonders whether or not we allow groups of lists to form a topic, so I figured we ought to have a talk about it. I for one have no problem with the idea, and can think of several groups of related lists that could make a good topic together. -- Arctic Gnome 23:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I can see absolutely no rationale for having featured topics. There's insufficient control over quality, and I see that a significant range of quality is permitted among clustered articles. Why is this structure necessary when linking is such a well-oiled functionality on the project?
It leaves wide open the potential for embarrassment, and I wholeheartedly support the deletion of the page. What is wrong with the FA/FAR system? Tony 13:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
As stated on the MfD page, as having all articles in a topic be FAs is not a requirement, some editors disagree with the term "featured" in the name. This is the section for proposing a better name, if one can be found. -- PresN 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
People need to understand what the word "featured" means in terms of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's "featured" content means the best items of said area (articles, topics, etc). Therefore, featured topics are to display the best Wikipedian topics on the whole. If our best topics are not 100 percent featured or good articles, then so be it. In the future, I'm sure that will be the case. — Deckill e r 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Some things to consider for this project as it grows and integrates with the other featured content:
Probably other issues to as well, but these are some things which should be worked out soon. -- CBD 13:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
We need our own colour scheme. Other featured content projects have taken green, purple, pink, and red. The bar at the top of all featured project pages uses orange. The main page uses blue for "item of the day" and "in the news", and we probably shouldn't step on their toes. That leaves us with either yellow or some kind of brown. Or maybe we can sneek in between the colours and use blue-green. I'm not good with web colours, but is this for a colour scheme? It's blue-ish green and a bit darker than the other blues and greens used on projects. -- Arctic Gnome 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Featured topics |
|
Featured topics |
|
Great to see new interest in my little project here - I didn't get time to continue with it as I wished, and I'm happy that some others have come here and been able to get it noticed. I truly think that this is a great concept and we should highlight groups of articles that are of a good standard but not all yet featured. I like the idea of requiring all constituent articles to be GAs, but I don't really like the informal GA process and don't think it will quite work. However, it might help us to discover some nice topics.
I hope that I'll be around more in the new year to help out and get more FTs. Nice work so far! violet/riga (t) 10:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for this topic being included here, but shouldn't the Halloween film series topic include all Halloween films, not just the first three in the series?-- Dark Kubrick 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
yep. just cherrypicking 3? dumb. some muppet reverted me before.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Calabrese ( talk • contribs)
Which is why I'm posting this here. How can Halloween film series be a featured topic if only three of its films are up to par? Shouldn't the topic be delisted until the other film articles are improved?-- Dark Kubrick 15:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Renaming this page was suggested during the MFD, but is best discussed here. I have no opinion either way on that issue. >Radiant< 10:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Topic Completeness sounds good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calabrese ( talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 December 2006
I would argue for Sandy's second option, conditionally. The main article for the topic itself must be featured, and the rest of the pages in the topic must be held to the current standard. Beyond that, people who don't like "featured" because it implies featuredness for all the pages are nitpicking. It's the topic that is featured, not necesarrily the individual content of pages standing alone. Thanatosimii 06:17, 28 December 2006 (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 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Featured articles are great, and so are featured lists. However, I think we need to highlight those groups of articles that are very good as well. This would, I hope, encourage people to write good collections of articles rather than just one article.
I am suggesting this idea after realising that my product advertising articles ( tobacco advertising, alcohol advertising, etc.) are not (yet) of featured quality but are actually of some merit. While I don't think it would be ready to be a "featured topic" yet, I know there are other collections of articles that are basically as complete as can be when viewed as a whole but are not individually of featured quality.
I don't want to make featured topics of articles that aren't that good, and obviously the requirements would be quite high. Each article should be of a decent quality, with FA status being ideal but a comment-less PR or general good quality being acceptable.
One hopeful aim would be for all the items in a category to be of a good quality so perhaps the category itself could be a featured topic.
Clearly this needs discussion before commencing, and comments are more than welcome. violet/riga (t) 14:37, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I think that we'd have to be clear about which articles within a topic were featured. For example, if (to use the example above) advertising became a featured topic, we wouldn't want to make the entire category:advertising featured because clearly not all of the articles will be "our best work" (e.g. Shock advertising, which is two sentences long). I'm not convinced this is workable, though I do like the concept. Dave (talk) 18:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I like the idea. Not sure about any of the details yet. Maurreen (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Nice idea. I have been working on something like this recently, having got core-India topics: India, Geography of India, Economy of India and Flag of India up to featured quality. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:30, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking that the theory behind featured topics could be merged into featured portals. Both are ways of grouping like topics. -- Arctic Gnome 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
The "2012 Summer Olympics bids" topic has the following qualities:
It also has a few points that might stop it being featured:
With some work I think this could be a good example of how well a topic can be explored in Wikipedia. violet/riga (t) 21:27, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
Some of these topics are great examples of how well we can cover whole topics. Solar system is in excellent shape, and diamond is pretty much complete. violet/riga (t) 10:18, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
The requirement that each article in a series has been peer reviewed isn't a good one. When it is complete, 2005 English cricket season would be an excellent set of articles to have as a featured topic, but adding 40 or so articles at once onto Peer Review would be a nonsense. Do we really need this requirement in there? jguk 11:56, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
One suggestion for how we could get this going is for it to be an informal page of great topics. We can then go about making a more formal process. That, I hope, would get some more interest in the idea. violet/riga (t) 07:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Where is the discussion on whether the 2012 Summer Olympics bids should be a featured topic or not?
I certainly tacitly agreed that it was a possible featured topic, but that's a wee bit different from it actually being a featured topic. Should we not have a formal discussion on the project page on its merits, and see if it passes muster? I'd also like to see 2005 English cricket season get promoted - and getting the ball rolling with a proper full nomination would show the way. Kind regards, jguk 12:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I certainly think that we should just go ahead and start nominating and let the detailed criteria evolve as more topics get listed. Whether that happens to be ten to start off with, or fewer, I don't know. As long as each set of articles being nominated has a "sponsor" who will try to deal with objections, I don't mind.
We will have to confirm promotion criteria. I suggest for starters that nominations get listed for 14 days (to be extended in the case of doubt) and must receive at least 4 "supports" to get promoted, along with there being consensus and no objections so fundamental as to warrant non-promotion regardless (such as no references or copyrighted pictures). This is broadly the same as the criteria used on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, but with the exception that we use 10 days (plus 4 if there is doubt) - but as this is new, I think we should allow more time for comments, jguk 12:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I love the basic idea, but I think the terminology is a bit muddled. Either that or I haven't been editing that long (I haven't). What's the difference between a "topic" and a seires like Postmodernism? I'm No Parking and I approved this message 19:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
These articles are declared the main article of a featured topic in their talk pages Talk:Diamond and Talk:2012 Summer Olympics bids, but no topic appears to be featured yet (according to this page). Which page is right? - Liberatore( T) 12:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to provide a template on the pages which are the parts of WP:FT so that people can aware of this project. We need to work on the criteria page also. We have only one featured topic so far. I am not sure, which type of template, we should make. Do we need to make seperate template for each topic which mentions about featured topic or for all featured topics, we should have same type of template. Shyam ( T/ C) 06:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I think we need to have featured topics in category namespace. I have left a short note at the end of featured content's talk page. If you have any ideas, please comment there. Shyam ( T/ C) 19:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Like the other types of Featured Content, this too required a star to be added to the target topic (in addition to the existing talk page template {{ Featuredtopic}}). I have created the {{ Featured topic}} template that can be used for this purpose. However before applying it, I think we should first have a consensus as to how it should be used. What I feel is that it should go with the template box that summarizes the featured topic. The template box for Saffron series is {{ Topics related to saffron}}. Please share your opinions. - Ambuj Saxena ( talk) 09:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
In a failed nomination this month, some editors wonders whether or not we allow groups of lists to form a topic, so I figured we ought to have a talk about it. I for one have no problem with the idea, and can think of several groups of related lists that could make a good topic together. -- Arctic Gnome 23:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I can see absolutely no rationale for having featured topics. There's insufficient control over quality, and I see that a significant range of quality is permitted among clustered articles. Why is this structure necessary when linking is such a well-oiled functionality on the project?
It leaves wide open the potential for embarrassment, and I wholeheartedly support the deletion of the page. What is wrong with the FA/FAR system? Tony 13:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
As stated on the MfD page, as having all articles in a topic be FAs is not a requirement, some editors disagree with the term "featured" in the name. This is the section for proposing a better name, if one can be found. -- PresN 15:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
People need to understand what the word "featured" means in terms of Wikipedia. Wikipedia's "featured" content means the best items of said area (articles, topics, etc). Therefore, featured topics are to display the best Wikipedian topics on the whole. If our best topics are not 100 percent featured or good articles, then so be it. In the future, I'm sure that will be the case. — Deckill e r 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Some things to consider for this project as it grows and integrates with the other featured content:
Probably other issues to as well, but these are some things which should be worked out soon. -- CBD 13:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
We need our own colour scheme. Other featured content projects have taken green, purple, pink, and red. The bar at the top of all featured project pages uses orange. The main page uses blue for "item of the day" and "in the news", and we probably shouldn't step on their toes. That leaves us with either yellow or some kind of brown. Or maybe we can sneek in between the colours and use blue-green. I'm not good with web colours, but is this for a colour scheme? It's blue-ish green and a bit darker than the other blues and greens used on projects. -- Arctic Gnome 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Featured topics |
|
Featured topics |
|
Great to see new interest in my little project here - I didn't get time to continue with it as I wished, and I'm happy that some others have come here and been able to get it noticed. I truly think that this is a great concept and we should highlight groups of articles that are of a good standard but not all yet featured. I like the idea of requiring all constituent articles to be GAs, but I don't really like the informal GA process and don't think it will quite work. However, it might help us to discover some nice topics.
I hope that I'll be around more in the new year to help out and get more FTs. Nice work so far! violet/riga (t) 10:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for this topic being included here, but shouldn't the Halloween film series topic include all Halloween films, not just the first three in the series?-- Dark Kubrick 03:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
yep. just cherrypicking 3? dumb. some muppet reverted me before.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Calabrese ( talk • contribs)
Which is why I'm posting this here. How can Halloween film series be a featured topic if only three of its films are up to par? Shouldn't the topic be delisted until the other film articles are improved?-- Dark Kubrick 15:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Renaming this page was suggested during the MFD, but is best discussed here. I have no opinion either way on that issue. >Radiant< 10:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Topic Completeness sounds good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calabrese ( talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 December 2006
I would argue for Sandy's second option, conditionally. The main article for the topic itself must be featured, and the rest of the pages in the topic must be held to the current standard. Beyond that, people who don't like "featured" because it implies featuredness for all the pages are nitpicking. It's the topic that is featured, not necesarrily the individual content of pages standing alone. Thanatosimii 06:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)