Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Featured topics

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by WOSlinker (talk | contribs) at 18:56, 7 July 2023 (fix h2 tag). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Basis of the proposal

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)

Love the idea. 147.114.226.173 15:09, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I like this idea. It occurs to me that a variation with a clearer definition on the criteria for elegibility could be that you nominate a category, saying that all articles within it are of good quality. From my own point of view I speculated on something like this when I was working on articles in Category:Decade Volcanoes. Of the suggested critera, I am not sure about the stipulation that articles should have gone through peer review, as taking the Decade Volcanoes example, there's 18 articles there, which it would take a long time to put through PR, and I would be concerned about a certain level of peer fatigue if I wanted people to look at so many volcano articles in a short time! Worldtraveller 15:28, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, there certainly needs to be more discussion about the criteria - I came up with them just on-the-fly kinda thing. violet/riga (t) 17:34, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Aw, jeez, now I'll have to really put an effort into the ATSF presidents articles I've been working on. B-) Just a few thoughts... I like the idea, but it needs a little more work before it goes live. For example, both Canadian Pacific Railway and BC Rail are featured articles, but the rest of the Canadian railway company articles have a ways to go. Would we require every article in a category to be featured before the topic is featured? How will the topics be sorted on the Featured topics page? slambo 15:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think any of them need to be featured, but obviously that would be great! I think that all the articles need to be "good" at least, though. violet/riga (t) 17:34, 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)

When it's such a broad topic then yes, it would be difficult. I think, however, that smaller, more enclosed topics can be handled quite easily. To continue the example, the {{product advertising}} would be what links the group and the featured topic would be "product advertising". Category:Advertising would not pass the "no stubs" test, but a subsection (product advertising) is of a good enough size for us to handle. That's partly why I went for topics rather than categories - it's less rigidly defined. violet/riga (t) 18:38, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
I like this idea. My only concern is maintenance. If we were to have a featured category, it would be pretty difficult to ensure that there are never any stubs in it. I think the idea of a featured topic with a series box or something that's easily patrollable would work though. I think that there needs to be something, whether it be a series box, another article, or whatever, that ties the topic together. JYolkowski // talk 23:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, a series box could work for my example of ATSF presidents since there's a clear progression from one subject to the next (chronologically based on the subject's years in office). But it wouldn't necessarily work for topics that can't be defined in a strict order, such as the product advertising mentioned above. The more I think about this, the more it sounds like Web rings, which I'm not too keen on here. slambo 03:49, August 13, 2005 (UTC)
I do think there should be a "parent" article where possible, tieing them all together, even if that is a template. Back to the product ads - I've used {{Product advertising}} to link them together. There may be times when a new stub is added to the topic, but that's why I would like to see us look at topics that are basically complete - things that won't really be expanded. Further, it wouldn't be too much trouble to point to those new stubs and use that as a basis for removing FT status or seeing it as a focus for improvement. The way I see it is that featured topics aren't necessarily a grouping of featured articles covering everything, but a topic that is covered well by what we have. violet/riga (t) 09:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I like the idea. Not sure about any of the details yet. Maurreen (talk) 07:28, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an interesting concept - Summary style articles are one way of addressing topics too broad for a single article, and several impressive examples are already featured. However, that doesn't require that the related sub-articles are any good at all; featured article candidates "stand on their own." So FA of summary style articles is too narrow for this concept. On the other hand, featuring a category is too broad; categories would have to be unnaturally narrow (except for those categorizing complete and verifiable lists; eg states of XX or presidents of YY) to prevent new articles form being categorized there. In the product advertising example above, we may want to feature the articles currently included on {{product advertising}} as a nice set of related articles, but the category Product advertising could be expanded by lots of articles, from the notable automobile advertising to the obscure or inane (paper clip advertising). Featuring a category would inhibit new articles being added to the category, which is a bad thing. This leads me to think that we need an intermediate definition of a topic; broader than a summary article but narrower than a category. The best way to do this seems to be with a template such as {{product advertising}}. This allows editors to reasonably define the scope of the topic by identifying the most important articles exploring that topic and excluding from consideration more trivial or obscure aspects. Objections might (and should) be made over what is and is not included in that scope, but we need to be able to come up with a defined set before we judge it. - Bantman 21:12, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
It would appear you favour the idea (as I do) of having one central topic article, be it a summary article or a template (Product advertising would be the latter). I think that should be the route we're looking at. violet/riga (t) 10:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
I guess that I would agree, but lean toward the idea that a summary article is required as a way of showing how the articles within the topic are related, and why the set of topic articles has been selected as it is. That said, a template or other navigational tool might also be required, as a further reinforcement tying the articles together (notably, a sub-article to a summary article doesn't always designate clearly its parent article, and usually doesn't designate its sibling sub-articles). - Bantman 21:13, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Okay, so it looks like we're all coming to the conclusion that a featured topic needs some centralized article or template, rather than a category, that ties it all together. Are there any currently existing summary articles or templates that you'd consider good candidates for featured topic status right now? I'd be tempted to suggest {{EMD cab and cowl}} as one possibility. Only one of the links is still red, and most of the articles linked have details, references and photos. slambo 21:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
That one has potential. One that I reckon could be on its way is 2012 Summer Olympics bids, and I'm looking for others at the moment. violet/riga (t) 21:27, 19 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)

Merge with WP:FP

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)

I've now done a bit of work to distinguish WP:FT from WP:FP, but this one still needs some work. --Arctic Gnome 22:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

2012 Summer Olympics bids example

The "2012 Summer Olympics bids" topic has the following qualities:

  • A central "overview" article (2012 Summer Olympics bids)
  • Great interconnection between the articles
  • A good, informative template ({{2012 Olympic bid}})
  • Good articles
  • Fairly good consistency between the articles

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)

Other possibilities

Here is an example I think would be great

The preceding examples were proposed by User:Tobyk777

Discussion of these examples

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)

Requirement for peer review?

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)

That's why it is only recommended not required, but it could be better worded, I agree. violet/riga (t) 17:08, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Could we go ahead an make a candidates page? A possible featured topic has already popped up. Provinces of Thailand. Granted it does not have references so it may not be the best but it cover the entirety of a difficult topic. Falphin 01:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Informal start

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)

Lets first create a list here, and unless anyone disagress with one of them we will go ahead an place a featured topic template on the talk. Similar to how the featured article system started off. Falphin 01:20, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
I've created {{featuredtopic}} and {{featuredtopicmain}}, along with a new symbol. I've also added them to the 2012 Summer Olympics bids articles. Take a look! violet/riga (t) 16:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Nice! The image captures the essence of the featured topic idea well. slambo 18:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Awesome job. I have a question though. I was going to go ahead and add it to Diamond. It covers the topic very well but I noticed a lot of the sub-articles had even more specific sub-articles covering the topic. They directly relate back to diamond so would they also get the Featured Topic template? I'm guessing so but I'll wait for a reply. Falphin 18:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
Thanks both. That's a potential gray area and something we may have to clarify. If it's not clear that it's part of the Diamond topic then I don't think it should be included. My thinking is that if it doesn't deserve a mention on the template then it doesn't deserve to be part of the featured topic. violet/riga (t) 19:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
What do you think of Swedish language, it lacks a template but I could add one. Falphin 19:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
With a template I think that would make an excellent candidate. violet/riga (t) 19:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Where is the discussion on whether the 2012 Summer Olympics bids should be a featured topic or not?

Above, on this talk page, in "Examples of possible featured topics". The suggestion was made in mid-August, and nobody objected, so a tacit approval was assumed. slambo 11:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

By labelling the articles as FTs I wasn't trying to say that they definately were of Featured Topic status, but was using them as an example. A good example, I thought, but certainly not perfect. The idea for this informal start was to get the project off the ground. Perhaps we should aim for 10 topics to start with - we can decide which would make some good examples and, while they might not be perfect, should hopefully get some interest in the project and help us move forwards. violet/riga (t) 12:16, 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've made a bit of a start by creating wp:ftc. violet/riga (t) 13:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Topic and Seires

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)

Diamond and 2012 Summer Olympics bids

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)

Template

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)

Category Namespace

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)

Star Template

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)

Since nobody replied to this, I went ahead with placing the FT Star Template on the Saffron Related Topics Template. However it doesn't show up. Can anyone help? -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Your entire {{Featured topic}} template is enclosed in < noinclude > tages, so all of its content will apear only on the template's page. I'll see if works with the tags moved. --Arctic Gnome 18:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
There, now it works. You also had the image at full size rather than small enough to fit in the top corner, so I shrunk it. I also moved the star to the left a bit so that it wouldn't be on top of the FA star if a page had both. --Arctic Gnome 18:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
This isn't going to work. Case in point- Final Fantasy Series. The articles in the featured topic are the games 1-12 and mystic quest. The template that you attached the star to is on every single article that uses that template- almost 100 of them, including Kingdom Hearts Series and User:Deckiller/Sandbox. You're going to have to add it to the pages themselves, not the template. --PresN 21:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Good call. It would be nice to have the featured template on the navigation box's template, but I guess to do so we would need a separate box for included and not-included articles, which would mess up the big navigation boxes on articles like the Star Wars movies. --Arctic Gnome 21:29, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Lists

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'd say that 'featured topics' can and should consider all content related to that topic... articles, lists, categories, images, et cetera. If the articles on Saffron didn't have any images of saffron I'd say that wasn't really comprehensive coverage of the sort needed for a topic to be 'featured'. If there were no categories linking articles in a topic that'd be another 'less than comprehensive' issue. For lists there should be quality standards similar to those on articles, but if a topic includes alot of entries then lists make sense. For instance, a 'featured topic' on Chemical elements (which we should definitely consider) should include links to the List of elements by name, List of elements by symbol, and Periodic table (large version) 'featured lists' in addition to the articles on each individual element. --CBD 13:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

this bizarre page

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)

This project has been nominated for deletion, so you might want to restate your concerns there. On that page you'll also fine many people's defences of the project. --Arctic Gnome 13:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm also troubled by the Project in its current state. I checked the Candidates' page, and find other suggested "topics" which concern me, including Emsworth's series of uncited articles which are slowly but surely being FARC'd. I also wonder if the founders of this idea have thought about the maintenance time that is already required to keep up GA and FA, and that they are creating a future chore - who is going to track all these additions over time and make sure they remain up to snuff? Sandy (Talk) 15:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I assume your talking about the Monarchs of the United Kingdom series? That one may be a bit weak, as I'm just trying to find some topics to throw out there for people to approve or nix as they see fit, as we have something like a couple of months before a serious MfD comes to take out the project, but regardless, the articles I mentioned as FAs are FAs. If they shouldn't be, then they'll get removed at FAR/FARC. If editors (like you) have problems with them being included in a FT, even if they are technically still FAs, then they won't pass FTC. I also believe you don't realize how rare a FT really is- There are over a thousand FAs, of varying quality, so FAR(C) is a major process, with many editors. FT is much easier to maintain- while there's 50 articles there, it's only 5 topics, and it only takes one bad article to sink that ship. If somehow Monarchs passes, and it's FAs are FARCed, then it will be nominated for removal, as it's looking like (though I don't think codified yet) that a FT needs at least one FA in it. I understand your concern, but I recommend coming back in February to see if its still viable, or if a MfD should be used (again). --PresN 16:00, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I do hope you'll nix the monarchs, as they can't be processed quickly through FARC, as there are just too many of them, and we discourage people from hitting one author or one project with a bunch of FARCs at once (but since Emsworth no longer maintains those articles anyway ... ) And, I'm still very concerned that you all are adding *any* GAs to *anything* using the name "featured", since some GAs are trash, passed by a sympathetic editor. Sandy (Talk) 16:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
As I wrote in the discussion below, what's being featured is the unifying qualities of the topic, not the articles within it. The minimum quality standards of FT are there because stub, start, and B class articles would constitute a gap in the completeness of the topic, thus violating criteria #4. --Arctic Gnome 18:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
That's not actually specified, it just says no Stub or Start...I'll add it in. --PresN 18:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
(in response to the No B articles- nothing comes between B and GA. This has been a glaring omission in that scale for as long as I've been editing. Do you really want everything to be a GA or better? Thanatosimii 00:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC) )
Sandy, I disagree about what you say about GAs being "trash" — people are at the point where they want to see a good effort. Moreover, if an article is not horriffically written and cited, it's not "trash"; it's just not at the highest possible standard. It can still be an informative, accurate article. — Deckiller 23:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Tyler, I agree with Sandy: the devil is in the detail of the promotions/accountability process. Without a reliable process, you won't get high standards. This problem is what I observe everywhere with GAs. Tony 00:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I do agree that the process needs to be defined and worked out, but I still believe that the concept has potential and importance. — Deckiller 00:26, 23 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)

If I'm reading your project correctly, what you're really after is comprehensive or in-depth coverage of a complete topic, no gaps, so perhaps the name could head that direction. Sandy (Talk) 15:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I think one of the main sources of confusion is about whether the word "featured" refers to the topic or the articles within it. I see it more like the former. What is "featured" is not the article, but the fact that the topic is gap-free, shares a similar page structure between its members, is well categorized, and is linked within itself. Those criteria can be filled regardless of the quality of the articles, but we have minimum quality standards because having a start-class article would constitute a gap in the topic and violate criteria #4 for featured topics. It's like how portals don't need to have everything within them be featured, only in this case the thing being featured is not a page on the Portal: namespace, it's collective qualities between the articles. --Arctic Gnome 18:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Ideas: WikiTopic, SelecTopic, SelectWikiTopic, Wiki Selected Topic, CompTopic, WCT (Wikipedia Comprehensive Topic), etc. Sandy (Talk) 23:02, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
      • That would get in the way of any future plans to actually feature these items; say on portals. It would also mean that people wouldn't stumble upon it while looking at other pages on the {{FCpages}} template. I see where you're coming from, but I think people are right in saying that the standards will start creeping up. Before any changes like that are made I think we should wait a few months to see where this project goes to on its own. --Arctic Gnome 23:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with criticism

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. — Deckiller 22:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Issues

Some things to consider for this project as it grows and integrates with the other featured content:

  1. Consistent entry point. There should be some standard way of grouping the 'featured topic' constituent elements. Right now it is sometimes an article which gives an overview of the others, sometimes just one article from the group, and sometimes a category page. I'd suggest having it always be a category page... which could then display the normal 'featured content' star without fear of conflicting with any other 'featured' notices.
  2. Page layout. There are currently only a handful of topics featured, but as the list grows it would be a good idea to group them into categories ('art topics', 'science topics', 'history topics', et cetera) and mimic the layout of the WP:FL and WP:FA pages.
  3. How to display random samples on the featured content page. Something along the lines of the 'featured portals' might make sense... displaying an image representative of the topic and a link to the primary topic page.
  4. Color scheme. Every other type of 'featured content' has a particular color scheme which is displayed for items in that category on various pages (e.g. 'featured articles' use two shades of green on WP:FA, WP:FC, the Main page, et cetera). The WP:FT page is currently using a color scheme similar to WP:FL and should probably be differentiated.

Probably other issues to as well, but these are some things which should be worked out soon. --CBD 13:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

1- The idea is that the "main" article is the main one, like for Saffron, it's saffron, for Halloween films, it's Halloween Film Series, etc. The problem is Star Wars, where there isn't an article dealing with all 6 movies together, just one dealing with the entirety of Star Wars. I'm not sure what you mean by 'featured content' star - there's no such thing, the FA/FL star is their's, and the FT star constellation is getting deleted.
2- Eventually I see it as being something like FA/FL's, yeah, or GA's, which is in my opinion better looking.
3- I agree, though I'd wait till we had more than 6 FTs.
4- I agree again, though it's not the biggest priority at the moment.
Just my opinions. --PresN 17:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
1 - I don't mind the idea of making the main topic always be a category. It would make sure that nominators fulfiled the sugestion that all their items be in a category together, and it would give the topics some consistency with eachother. My one problem with that idea is that some users may add new articles to the category without knowing that FT exists and that it would have to be nominated here before joining the category.
2, 3 - I agree, though lets let the number of topics grow a bit more before rearanging pages.
4 - See next section. --Arctic Gnome 17:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Colour

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)

Well, if no one minds I'll go ahead and change it for now. Any comments are still welcomed. --Arctic Gnome 07:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Dummy text.
A new scheme has been introduced by User:Quiddity:
Dummy text.

Resurrection

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)

Halloween film series' status

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)

Thanks. I reverted you, because the paragraph right above it says clearly that if a topic's already been posted, you have to nominate any additions, not just add them in. --PresN 06:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

It does look like the missing movies would constitute a gap. The solution would be to either nominate the other movies to be included in the topic or nominate the topic for review. --Arctic Gnome 16:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

MFD note

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)

In case anyone is still keeping track, I strongly agree that either 1) the page should be renamed, or 2) it should only include featured articles (if it retains "featured" in the name). Sandy (Talk) 15:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Topic Completeness sounds good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calabrese (talk • contribs) 23:37, 27 December 2006

That's both inappropriate and ambiguous: this is not a WikiProject and "completeness" sounds like it offers a varying scale. violet/riga (t) 23:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topics/Archive_1&oldid=1164053597"