Archives: | |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MaranoFan, Gog the Mild and I would like to present a series proposals to reinvigorate the Featured and Good topics process. After careful discussion, we identified numerous areas in need of improvement. Below are a handful of initial proposals, [a] with further explanation in attached footnotes.
Thank you, and please leave your thoughts below. – Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Footnotes
|
---|
|
I assume with the third point, GTCs would also get Category:Good topic nominations and Category:Good topic nominations/YearHere instead of the featured equivalents?Great question. What are people's thoughts on this? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 18:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed there was previous discussion of the length of time it takes to close nominations, and wanted to point out that there are several nominations with clear consensus for promotion and have been sitting for quite a while. If no one has objections and they aren't promoted soon, as an uninvolved third party I am going to be bold and promote any unanimously supported nominations that have been open for longer than the ten day voting period. These would include:
There are more that should probably also be closed, but these are the most clear-cut. I believe some more discussion may be needed to streamline the process for unanimous promotion; for example, including a caveat in the instructions that allows any editor to close one X amount of unanimous support has been reached. Fritzmann ( message me) 17:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Please note that one of these, any many others are not first time nominations (they're renomination of previous demotions). The bot cannot promote these ones and they have to be done manually, which is a very time consuming process.Idea: If you blank the (Wikipedia:Topic name) and (Wikipedia talk:Topic name) pages, then run the bot, it'll probably work. Then you can manually fix the (Wikipedia talk:Topic page), which will need to have its FGTC history template and wikiprojects fixed manually. Then you can check the contribs/diffs carefully for any other problems or mess-ups. If there's any, note them and fix then. Then, armed with the data from this test run, we can chat about how to code the bot to do these non-first time nominations. Wanna try that? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Eventually, I'm hoping to make a GT/FT for The Dark Pictures Anthology. The series is planned to have at least eight games, with four released so far, along with a spinoff VR game, The Dark Pictures: Switchback VR.
My question is would the VR game have to be included, or could I get away with just the games in the main anthology?
So I was planning out possible topics for WP:DRWHO and had a question regarding this possible topic.
. So these actors have portrayed the numbered incarnations however their are other version who could be included, Jo Martin appears as the Fugitive Doctor, John Hurt appears as the War Doctor, and Michael Jayston appears as The Valeyard. Should these articles be included? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I am in the process of overhauling articles/lists about SB19, with the intent of putting those for candidate at WP:FT. Now, each band member has their own Wikipedia articles ( Josh Cullen (musician), Pablo (Filipino musician), Stell (singer), Felip (musician), Justin (Filipino singer)), and I am not quite sure if those should be included in the topic's scope, especially since I have not seen a band FTs that include each band member's biography. I want to ask for comments on whether the articles of each band member should be in the topic scope or not; this is so I can see the consensus before nominating the topic for candidacy, and I can act accordingly to meet the topic for the criteria. Thanks! – Relayed ( t • c) 17:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Archives: | |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
MaranoFan, Gog the Mild and I would like to present a series proposals to reinvigorate the Featured and Good topics process. After careful discussion, we identified numerous areas in need of improvement. Below are a handful of initial proposals, [a] with further explanation in attached footnotes.
Thank you, and please leave your thoughts below. – Aza24 (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Footnotes
|
---|
|
I assume with the third point, GTCs would also get Category:Good topic nominations and Category:Good topic nominations/YearHere instead of the featured equivalents?Great question. What are people's thoughts on this? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 18:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed there was previous discussion of the length of time it takes to close nominations, and wanted to point out that there are several nominations with clear consensus for promotion and have been sitting for quite a while. If no one has objections and they aren't promoted soon, as an uninvolved third party I am going to be bold and promote any unanimously supported nominations that have been open for longer than the ten day voting period. These would include:
There are more that should probably also be closed, but these are the most clear-cut. I believe some more discussion may be needed to streamline the process for unanimous promotion; for example, including a caveat in the instructions that allows any editor to close one X amount of unanimous support has been reached. Fritzmann ( message me) 17:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Please note that one of these, any many others are not first time nominations (they're renomination of previous demotions). The bot cannot promote these ones and they have to be done manually, which is a very time consuming process.Idea: If you blank the (Wikipedia:Topic name) and (Wikipedia talk:Topic name) pages, then run the bot, it'll probably work. Then you can manually fix the (Wikipedia talk:Topic page), which will need to have its FGTC history template and wikiprojects fixed manually. Then you can check the contribs/diffs carefully for any other problems or mess-ups. If there's any, note them and fix then. Then, armed with the data from this test run, we can chat about how to code the bot to do these non-first time nominations. Wanna try that? – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:13, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Eventually, I'm hoping to make a GT/FT for The Dark Pictures Anthology. The series is planned to have at least eight games, with four released so far, along with a spinoff VR game, The Dark Pictures: Switchback VR.
My question is would the VR game have to be included, or could I get away with just the games in the main anthology?
So I was planning out possible topics for WP:DRWHO and had a question regarding this possible topic.
. So these actors have portrayed the numbered incarnations however their are other version who could be included, Jo Martin appears as the Fugitive Doctor, John Hurt appears as the War Doctor, and Michael Jayston appears as The Valeyard. Should these articles be included? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:34, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi! I am in the process of overhauling articles/lists about SB19, with the intent of putting those for candidate at WP:FT. Now, each band member has their own Wikipedia articles ( Josh Cullen (musician), Pablo (Filipino musician), Stell (singer), Felip (musician), Justin (Filipino singer)), and I am not quite sure if those should be included in the topic's scope, especially since I have not seen a band FTs that include each band member's biography. I want to ask for comments on whether the articles of each band member should be in the topic scope or not; this is so I can see the consensus before nominating the topic for candidacy, and I can act accordingly to meet the topic for the criteria. Thanks! – Relayed ( t • c) 17:18, 24 April 2024 (UTC)