Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic questions/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Featured and good topic questions. 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 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Inheritance Cycle book series GT?
Can this become a Good Topic, or would I have to include the other articles in this template? Thanks, TheLeftorium 15:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I would say yes. Inheritance Cycle books is a clearly defined, rational scope. Inheritance Cycle media would be the next step up imo, with the film(s) and game added, and Inheritance Cycle would be the last step, with the characters and such added. Do note that you'll need Book 3 and the main article to be GA and Book 4 to be peer reviewed with all issues taken care of to get the topic promoted, and Book 4 would need to be GA three months after it is released. --PresN 16:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Bird query
The Bird project has well over 100 featured or good articles but no FT. I was thinking of working up Chough, a genus article, to at least GA, to join the two species articles Red-billed Chough (FA) and Alpine Chough (GA}. Since there are no other members of the chough genus, that would appear to meet the criteria for an FT, assuming consistency of structure and presentation is fixed. The genus article will need a lot of work, so can you tell me if I've missed any obvious problem with eventually submitting this set for FT? Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 07:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, that looks good to me! I would think that WP:BIRDS, and more generally other WP:TREE-descendant projects, would be ripe for such genus-based topics - rst20xx (talk) 10:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, jimfbleak (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Future FTC: Lemurs?
At the moment, List of lemur species is a FLC (likely to pass relatively soon), and there is one FA (Ring-tailed Lemur), one GA (Ruffed Lemur), and one GAC (Gray Mouse Lemur). I also plan to submit Ruffed Lemur for FAC soon, and I'm working offline to completely re-write Lemur, which will then become my top priority on what I hope will be a relatively quick march to GA and then to FA. Of course, there are close to 100 lemur articles, and I eventually hope to re-write them all and get as many to GA and FA as possible. Do I understand correctly that I would have to finish upgrading all the lemur articles before I can submit this topic for FTC? Or can I submit it sooner, possibly when List of lemur species and/or Lemur have reached FL and FA respectively? –Visionholder (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- For the overarching "Lemur" topic, i think all the individual species are needed. But i'm sure this can (and considering the size, should) have sub-topics. The most obvious i see is topics per family. I would say the List can still be the main article - piped to "Lemurs species/genuses of the xxxx (sub)-familly" or somesuch. But the list is long enough to be split by family itself, so some may prefer that split list as the main article. In fact i think a family article could be written to FL (with long prose sections) or GA (and the individual family lists incorporated therein). A family based topic would gave a more reasonable target to aim for, and still be impressive.
- Some of the Genuses are large enough themselves to make a topic from, which would be even easier - but some are too small.
- A second possibility is to make a main "Lemur" topic, with the "List of species" being a potential in that, so the individual species are not needed. But then other general Lemur articles would be needed - Evolution of...?, Geographic distribution of...?, Conservation status of...?. At least 1 for the 3 article minimum, and maybe a couple more for comprehensive covorage.YobMod 07:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think your best bet would be to do topics on particular families or perhaps genera, with the main article being the family/genus article and the subarticles being the individual species. I realise in some cases individual species within a genus deserve to be merged so maybe families would be better - it depends upon how many articles you're playing around with at any one time. Alternatively, as Yobmod says, you could do an overview topic on lemurs along the lines he suggested - rst20xx (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, Genera. i knew i was using the wrong word!YobMod 14:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think your best bet would be to do topics on particular families or perhaps genera, with the main article being the family/genus article and the subarticles being the individual species. I realise in some cases individual species within a genus deserve to be merged so maybe families would be better - it depends upon how many articles you're playing around with at any one time. Alternatively, as Yobmod says, you could do an overview topic on lemurs along the lines he suggested - rst20xx (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- A second possibility is to make a main "Lemur" topic, with the "List of species" being a potential in that, so the individual species are not needed. But then other general Lemur articles would be needed - Evolution of...?, Geographic distribution of...?, Conservation status of...?. At least 1 for the 3 article minimum, and maybe a couple more for comprehensive covorage.YobMod 07:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- This would be an ok topic for dinosaurs (I was planning on working on it several months ago):
A lemur topic would probably have to mimic it except for the extinction part. Nergaal (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
- Let me see how the re-write of Lemur goes. It may become so large that it must be broken into separate articles, but I hope to avoid that. I've also started taking the "top down" approach to my re-writes. I'm now focusing on broad articles (like the infraorder Lemuriformes, a.k.a. the Lemur article) and will then work down to the families, then genera, and finally individual species. It may take me a couple of years, but I will be back to these pages, hopefully with a nice set of FAs and GAs for multiple Featured Topics. Thanks! –Visionholder (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Slipknot Featured Topic?
Hi. I was wondering if there could be a Slipknot featured topic that broadly covers on the basic, yet important subjects about the band, instead of going into deep detail of the topic. My idea is to include the list of band members, list of awards and nominations, Slipknot's discography (all three articles are featured lists), and the main article Slipknot (band). Please note that the slipknot discography is also a subtopic which covers articles strictly on Slipknot's albums, video releases, and live performances. —Terrence and Phillip 22:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- We also need to bring List of Slipknot concert tours to FL first. Gary King (talk) 00:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Okay asides from that anything else missing? I don't think concert tours have anything significant to Slipknot, imo. —Terrence and Phillip 05:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- I dunno if the topic is widespread enough. REZTER TALK ø 05:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- 'Widespread enough'? It has more than three articles, that's all it needs. --PresN 06:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- After looking at the list of articles from WP:SLIP, there doesn't seem anything else needed to be added onto here. Also do we need to add the concert tour article to FL? What do the other editors think? —Terrence and Phillip 06:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- My opinion is that you definitely need to add the concert tours article. Also I somewhat feel that Music made in tribute of Slipknot should be in this topic or the discography subtopic but don't think I feel strongly enough about this to oppose over it. Below that, Outside the Nine and Tattered and Torn strike me as the next most significant articles, but I don't care whether you include them at all - rst20xx (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Here's a similar topic to this one: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_candidates/2009#Rage_Against_the_Machine Gary King (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Or better yet: an actual topic. (I think creating a live performances article is beyond the call of duty and wouldn't work for most bands anyway) - rst20xx (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Here's a similar topic to this one: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_topic_candidates/2009#Rage_Against_the_Machine Gary King (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
- Based off from the NIN featured topic, Music made in tribute of Slipknot should go under the discography subtopic while the List of Slipknot concert tours should be included in the main slipknot topic. Online fan clubs and the clothing line don't have any significant importance in relation to the actual band. There are other defunct slipknot online fan clubs besides Outside the Nine scattered across the web. Tattered and Torn is currently inactive and not important enough to be included in this topic. —Terrence and Phillip 06:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Four editors from WP:SKY have been working on this proposed FT for a long time now (over a year). It would consist of 22 lists, and now all but three are featured (one is an FLC, the other two are B-class). Assuming that all three remaining lists become featured, would this be a viable featured topic proposal?
Basically, any city with a completed or under construction building on List of tallest buildings in the United States (which includes all buildings in the U.S. over 700 feet (213 m)) is included in the proposed FT's scope. Those cities are also displayed on the image map {{United States buildings}}, which is present on the main U.S. buildings list. There are five cities (
Oklahoma City, New Orleans, Austin, Nashville, Oakland, and Sacramento) that contain proposed/approved buildings are listed on the U.S. list. We had planned to not include these cities, as there is no guarantee that the buildings will ever be constructed. However, they can easily be included; I plan to bring all six of the building lists up to FL status anyway (2 already are). So, anyway, does this seem like a viable FT? Thanks! Cheers, Rai•me 14:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Which cities are included seems too arbitary. Having one tallest building in the country in the city does not mean these lists form a natural group, imo. It is like a having a list of awards, and making a topic out of the lists of other awards each award winner has won. The natural topic would be GAs on each of the tallest buildings in the original list.YobMod 15:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Is there any way to the proposed topic, as it is, less arbitrary? There has to be a cut-off at some point. A previous proposal included the cities with the most high-rises in the country, but the U.S. buildings list didn't even list buildings from some of those cities, so it didn't really work. Would a "largest skylines" list be a better fit? Cheers, Rai•me 15:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Well firstly the topic would need to be called "Lists of tallest buildings..." but I agree with Yobmod in that which cities included seems too arbitrary - why 700 feet for a cut-off point? Skyscraper suggests that "A loose convention in the United States and Europe now draws the lower limit of a skyscraper at 150 meters (500 ft)." I guess that makes 500 feet slightly less arbitrary than 700, as it has been defined as a cut-off point externally, but I'm not sure how good the source on that quote is, and the number of articles will be ballooning by now.
- The ideal solution would be to include every list in Category:Lists of tallest buildings in the United States (or even every such list that deserves to exist!) though at 92 this is clearly too many articles for one topic! The workaround I would probably favour would be to break the topic up into 4 regions, as defined by the Census-Bureau (the four colours). So you would have topics for the Northeastern United States, Midwestern United States, Southern United States and Western United States. These topics should hence need about 23 articles each, and I think they could still all use List of tallest buildings in the United States as their lead article - I think this is somewhat similar to how for example Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn uses List of listed buildings in Runcorn (urban area) as the lead, or how "albums" topics use "discography" articles as the lead - there are too many items listed in the lead to include them all in one topic, so the items are broken up into non-arbitrary subsets, each of which can then become a topic in its own right. Here, geography is the only non-arbitrary way I can think of.
- I realise this is not what you have been working towards at all but it would get you 4 topics instead of one, with the end result being much more comprehensive, and with no arbitrary cut-offs (because every list would be included!). Hopefully you've now done the hardest articles as well, the smaller city lists will be easier to do, and this change in direction wouldn't take anything away from the work you've put in so far - rst20xx (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- That is great - thank you for your input. I like that proposal much better; I also had doubts about the cut-off, but wasn't sure how to work around it. I'm curious, though - would using List of tallest buildings in the United States as a lead article for topics that include tallest building lists for smaller cities like List of tallest buildings in Providence still be appropriate, given that no Providence buildings are present on the U.S. list? Cheers, Rai•me 16:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- This wouldn't really bother me. What does everyone else think? rst20xx (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- So, would the lead article appear in the Featured topic box as "List of tallest buildings in the Northeastern United States," but then actually just be a link to the main U.S. list? That seems to be the case with the Runcorn featured topic. Sorry, I'm new at this ;) Cheers, Rai•me 17:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Yes - rst20xx (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Actually I think a bigger problem now to the comprehensiveness of the topic may be that the threshold for inclusion in say the New York list would be higher than elsewhere - the shortest building in the NY list is 600 feet but the tallest in the Providence list is 428 feet. Chicago also stops at 500 feet. All the other lists in this topic stop at 400 feet or lower. We're getting back towards the arbitrary now but I think it's possible to argue that all buildings over 400 feet are notable enough to be listed somewhere, so it's probably worth creating more New York and Chicago lists. With New York this would mean several extra lists but then the city could get its own subtopic, "Lists of tallest buildings in New York" - rst20xx (talk) 17:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- So, List of tallest buildings in New York City would have to be split up into several lists? I don't really like that idea; it would be messy, and the lists below 600 ft would be composed almost entirely of non-notable buildings that don't even have articles. The thing is, there is no standard that all buildings over 400 ft are notable - in New York City, a 400 ft high-rise barely makes the top 300 buildings, where as it is the tallest structure in a smaller city like Providence. Buildings are notable more because of their city rank than their absolute height. Cheers, Rai•me 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm you make a very good point but I still can't help but feel that all skyscrapers, i.e. all buildings over 500 feet, at least, are notable enough. There are 191 of these (plus some under construction). 82 of these are in List of tallest buildings in New York City, plus a bunch of other stuff (Tallest buildings by pinnacle height, Tallest building by borough, Tallest destroyed, Timeline of tallest buildings). I think you could fit the remaining 109 (again, plus some under construction) that are over 500 feet in a comparatively sized list called something like "List of tallest buildings in New York City (500–599 feet)" - rst20xx (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- What criteria are you using to make the city articles? A height cutoff or just whatever city's seem to support an article? --PresN 17:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Just whatever cities have a significant amount of high-rises and notable buildlings to support an article. The height cutoff varies for each city. Cheers, Rai•me 17:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- So, List of tallest buildings in New York City would have to be split up into several lists? I don't really like that idea; it would be messy, and the lists below 600 ft would be composed almost entirely of non-notable buildings that don't even have articles. The thing is, there is no standard that all buildings over 400 ft are notable - in New York City, a 400 ft high-rise barely makes the top 300 buildings, where as it is the tallest structure in a smaller city like Providence. Buildings are notable more because of their city rank than their absolute height. Cheers, Rai•me 17:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- So, would the lead article appear in the Featured topic box as "List of tallest buildings in the Northeastern United States," but then actually just be a link to the main U.S. list? That seems to be the case with the Runcorn featured topic. Sorry, I'm new at this ;) Cheers, Rai•me 17:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- This wouldn't really bother me. What does everyone else think? rst20xx (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Could we have a number cutoff for the lists? So top 50 or 25 or somesuch, rather than a height. That would ensure we have only the notable buildings from each city. Do the sources exist to make a consitant number of buildings for all the cities? I'm suprised so many FLs passed when they all seem to have random numbers of entriesYobMod 17:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- There were originally number cutoffs, but reviewers at WP:FLC requested height cutoffs instead, saying it was less arbitrary. That has been the standard ever since List of tallest buildings in Providence was passed. Cheers, Rai•me 17:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Well, that explains the FLs, but a FT should have something to make the articles consistant, but if not a number cut-off or a height cutt-off, i don't know what. Maybe the topic would pass anyway, given all the shiny stars there - a lot of obivous hard work and featured content can make reviewers less stringent (like with the Jupiter topic).YobMod 17:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm, so it is really all up to the kindness of reviewers? ;) The "something" that makes the articles consistent, IMO, is the fact that the buildinsg listed in each are the tallest in their respective cities. Cheers, Rai•me 18:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, nice signature ;) Rai•me 18:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- (Somehow i noever noticed anyone using this colour combination before i chose it, now i see it everywhere! Time for a make-over.)YobMod 10:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hmmm. Well, that explains the FLs, but a FT should have something to make the articles consistant, but if not a number cut-off or a height cutt-off, i don't know what. Maybe the topic would pass anyway, given all the shiny stars there - a lot of obivous hard work and featured content can make reviewers less stringent (like with the Jupiter topic).YobMod 17:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- There were originally number cutoffs, but reviewers at WP:FLC requested height cutoffs instead, saying it was less arbitrary. That has been the standard ever since List of tallest buildings in Providence was passed. Cheers, Rai•me 17:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- That is great - thank you for your input. I like that proposal much better; I also had doubts about the cut-off, but wasn't sure how to work around it. I'm curious, though - would using List of tallest buildings in the United States as a lead article for topics that include tallest building lists for smaller cities like List of tallest buildings in Providence still be appropriate, given that no Providence buildings are present on the U.S. list? Cheers, Rai•me 16:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Alison Krauss
Just a quick question to those who understand FTs better than I do. If Alison Krauss, List of awards and nominations received by Alison Krauss, and Alison Krauss discography hit featured status (I'm expecting the award list to get FL status and I'll start work on discography), would that be a featured topic in your opinion? I see that, for example, Gilbert and Sullivan has drawn opposition because "the topic of "Gilbert and Sullivan" is not comprehensively covered by just "W. S. Gilbert" and "Arthur Sullivan", but also includes their works and other related articles." I can understand that position, but
- A. Do you think that holds true here as well? and
- B. What else would need FA/FL/GA status to complete the topic? All of her albums? Staxringold talkcontribs 02:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- Looking at the precedent of the Nine Inch Nails topic, you'd also want to list her concert tours. Beyond that, quite a few of her albums are released with Union Station. The lead article is just called Alison Krauss but appears to also cover her band Alison Krauss and Union Station. On the other hand she has released lots of stuff without Union Station, so I think a topic called "Alison Krauss" would be fine excluding the articles on the other members of Union Station, i.e. a tours article + the 3 you named would be fine. (As an aside, I find it interesting that the two are inter-weaved and not split like, for example, Marilyn Manson and Marilyn Manson (band), or Tom Petty and Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers) - rst20xx (talk) 11:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- The issue is that Union Station really only exists as her band. The individual members are quite notable, hence their articles, but Union Station doesn't really go on tour or anything. although I guess Bruce Springsteen and The E Street Band each have their own articles. Staxringold talkcontribs 13:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- If the individual emembers are already notable, it should make it easier to make a GA for the group. A couple of paragraphs on each member and their contribution to the band, and a tours and discog summary section should do it. But that said, i agree it is not essential for this topic, although the tours have to be covered somewhere. (and the discographs should really indicate which are solo ablums and which with the band).YobMod 13:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
- To clarify, you don't have to include her albums, because following the Overview topics criteria, "you should ensure 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." With the albums, this is met by the inclusion of the discography list, and hence you don't actually need include them (they are in effect subtopiced to the discography article, which covers them sufficiently for the "Alison Krauss" overview topic. The idea being that you can in the future make an "albums" topic with the discography article as the lead, and that's independent from what you're making now). With Gilbert & Sullivan, there is no such list of works, which leads to the conclusion that the works need including directly in the main topic. It would probably be best for them to include such a list so they then only need to include that! rst20xx (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Timothy Blackstone
Would Timothy Blackstone be a viable candidate with Blackstone Library, Merle Reskin Theatre (formerly Blackstone Theatre) and Blackstone Hotel. Although the Blackstone's funded Blackstone Halls at the Art Institute of Chicago and Lake Forest College, I can find no link between them and Blackstone Hall at the University of Chicago. Maybe Union Stock Yard would be a part of the topic.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:11, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good to me! rst20xx (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
What's the point of this page?
Spot the odd one out:
- Wikipedia:Featured article questions
- Wikipedia:Featured picture questions
- Wikipedia:Featured list questions
- Wikipedia:Featured portal questions
- Wikipedia:Featured topic questions
- Wikipedia:Featured sound questions
Why not just have all the discussion here at one of the other FT talk pages? E.g. potential topics can be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates. BencherliteTalk 23:27, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- I think the difference between this and the 5 other processes you listed above is that topics don't appear outside the featured and good listing pages - there is no guidance as to how to put together a topic (or even what a topic is) aside from the criteria page. I think that's why this page is useful. The reason the page was originally broken off is because questions such as those that now appear here were taking too much of the focus away from the policy/procedural discussions that WT:FTC is principally designed for. Having said that, I do find it a shame that more people don't get involved in the discussions here, so if anyone is lurking reading this, please have more of a say here in the future! rst20xx (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
- The thing is, when you have questions about how an article, portal, or media file should be formatted/improved, you take it to their respective improvement processes—articles and lists to peer review, portals to portal peer review, and pictures (not sure about sound files) to picture peer review. There is no equivalent process for a topic, so this seems to serve that purpose. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Can I just point out that the entire discussion about what should happen to WP:WBFTN is not happening here, but at WT:FTC, rather illustrating my point about the redundancy of this little-used page - non-FTC people don't know about it and so start a discussion in the natural place, i.e. WT:FTC. More people are likely to have the FTC and its talk-page watchlisted than they are this page, anyway. From my limited experience, WT:FAC is used for far more than its limited title suggests as well, so it would hardly be odd to widen the scope of discussion at the FTC talk page. BencherliteTalk 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think that proves your point, because that discussion is about the operation of part of the FTC process, and not a question about whether a particular potential topic is viable or not, so the discussion is actually happening where it should - rst20xx (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Transition from Good to Featured
Without naming topics, if a topic is promoted as a Good topic with all GAs, but you work on the articles after their promotion and bring them up to FA, does the topic automatically become a Featured topic or does the topic need to be re-nominated? -MBK004 20:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- It's automatic - rst20xx (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'll now name the topic, on Wikipedia:Featured topics/Derfflinger class battlecruisers, once the FA bot runs its promotion routines today there will be two FAs and two GAs in this topic (50% featured) -MBK004 21:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Same article, multiple topics
This is a purely academic question, as far as I know, right now but can one article be a part of multiple featured topics? Not merely a subtopic, but the same individual article featured in two topics. For example, Wikiproject Baseball is currently working on an MLB Awards FT to match the NBA and NHL ones that already exist. To that end I've worked up Major League Baseball All-Star Game MVP Award and it looks to be going through FLC nicely. But, in the future, if we (for example) did another featured topic on Major League Baseball All-Star Game (including things like Home Run Derby, All-Star Futures Game, Taco Bell All-Star Legends and Celebrity Softball Game, Major League Baseball All-Star Game records, etc, etc) the MVP award be listed there as well, right? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, articles can be in more than one topic, so long as it's not deemed to cause the topic to "overly overlap" with another topic. In the case of the example you've given, I think it's fine, but for example when there was a nomination recently for Michigan Highway M-28, as 3 of the 4 articles already appeared in another topic, this was deemed to be too much overlap - rst20xx (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
MLB Awards inclusion discussion
Hello! Wikiproject Baseball is currently working towards an eventual featured topic based around List of Major League Baseball awards. I was hoping for any additional opinions from experienced featured topic reviewers as to just what needs to/should be included to keep the pattern of the NHL and NBA topics. The discussion is here. Thanks! Staxringold talkcontribs 03:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't read the full discussion you've linked, but in the other awards topics, the awards included have been all of those with official recognition from the sporting body, and none of those with no such recognition. In addition, any trophies with their own separate article (e.g. Stanley Cup) have been included. I hope that helps - rst20xx (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
? FT Lists of Grade I listed buildings in Somerset
Could I ask for some advice. All seven lists above are now FL, however the one which be the obvious lead Grade I listed buildings in Somerset can only ever have 7 items (because there are only 7 districts in the county) and therefore can not be FL. Is there any way around this?— Rod talk 11:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can see a few options. Firstly, you could try and turn Grade I listed buildings in Somerset into a GA, describing the listed buildings in general. Secondly, you could turn it into an FL by having it list the names of the buildings but not give any details about them, a bit like Silver Slugger Award vs its sublists. Thirdly, you could merge one or more of the sublists into the main article, so the end result is a bit like List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford, with its breakout sections - the North Somerset, Taunton Deane and West Somerset lists all strike me as quite small. I guess a fourth option is that you could say that as the main list doesn't have enough items to be featured, it can be permanently audited (i.e. peer review only) as a list of limited subject matter, but this has never been done before for something other than lists of awards/elections/champions, i.e. lists that are growing, just very slowly, so are in fact only semi-permanent. So this fourth option probably won't fly. I think I prefer any of the first 3 options - rst20xx (talk) 12:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - the first option of turning Grade I listed buildings in Somerset is probably the best & I'll work on that.— Rod talk 14:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- Rod – if you are going to make the main article a GA, then you might consider renaming it. Right now, the "Grade I listed buildings in X" lists are all lists, but ostensibly Grade I listed buildings in Somerset will be a normal article, which would confuse the reader, who would expect to see a list like the rest of the articles. I know the project's opposed to the "List of listed..." naming convention, but can we reorganize it so that it's not inconsistent and hard to understand? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Any suggestions for the new name, as I nominated it for GA last night.— Rod talk 07:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Honestly I think the Somerset article's name is better than the subarticles, but equally I think all 8 articles we're dealing with here are as well placed name-wise as possible. One option to remove confusion with the topic, and maybe any navigational templates, would be to pipe the articles involved like this:
- Any suggestions for the new name, as I nominated it for GA last night.— Rod talk 07:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Rod – if you are going to make the main article a GA, then you might consider renaming it. Right now, the "Grade I listed buildings in X" lists are all lists, but ostensibly Grade I listed buildings in Somerset will be a normal article, which would confuse the reader, who would expect to see a list like the rest of the articles. I know the project's opposed to the "List of listed..." naming convention, but can we reorganize it so that it's not inconsistent and hard to understand? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - the first option of turning Grade I listed buildings in Somerset is probably the best & I'll work on that.— Rod talk 14:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
- - rst20xx (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- - Fine by me.— Rod talk 11:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- - rst20xx (talk) 11:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
The lead article is now GA & I've nominated the topic - but noticed I haven't included a picture - is there any particular guidance on how the picture should be selected?— Rod talk 09:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- It needs to be in the public domain, and obviously relevant to the topic, but that's it. I would recommend picking the picture of a Grade I listed building in Somerset you consider to be the best - rst20xx (talk) 13:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks File:Pulteney Bridge, Bath 2.jpg is a featured picture, but I would say something from List of towers in Somerset would best represent the majority of buildings in the topic.— Rod talk 13:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
2009 Giro d'Italia
First off, I don't even know if I built that box right, but second off, do you think this will pass as a Good topic once the three articles are GA's? If I subsequently get 2009 Giro d'Italia up to FA, would it pass as a Featured topic? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 07:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- I would say this would make a good topic, and certainly if you got two FAs, then it would become a featured topic. I changed the topic box a little to present it in line with custom. It will be good to see cycling get its first of hopefully many topics - rst20xx (talk) 11:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Another Baseball topic question from Staxringold
Heh, I seem to be flooding this talk page over the past couple months. Anyways, what would be a proper topic article for baseball managers-by-team lists such as List of Baltimore Orioles managers? A huge number of them are currently featured or being worked on. Would we need a theoretical new list, such as List of current Major League Baseball managers? Staxringold talkcontribs 17:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- That could work; maybe also General manager (baseball)? --PresN 17:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well, GMs are different. They're included in these articles, though. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- What do you folks think of this topic box?
Arizona Diamondbacks
Atlanta Braves
Baltimore Orioles
Boston Red Sox
Chicago Cubs
Chicago White Sox
Cincinnati Reds
Cleveland Indians
Colorado Rockies
Detroit Tigers
- KV5 was worried that the FT stated in this way might call for articles on the individual managers, rather than the lists. How should we structure the list to use these many lists? Staxringold talkcontribs 18:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well to solve the problem you give, you'd pipe the lead to be, Lists of Major League Baseball managers. My concern would more be that the topic you are proposing only includes current teams. I do not think that you'd have to expand the topic to include former teams, because then you would have too many articles for one topic, the topic would be too big. On the other hand, Lists of Major League Baseball managers at current franchises is a bit unwieldy... can anyone think of something more concise? rst20xx (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
- What about just List of current Major League Baseball managers piped to Lists of current Major League Baseball managers? Staxringold talkcontribs 00:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- That pipe implies that the lists are only of the current managers, when that's only the case with the main list. As opposed to implying that the lists are of all the managers but only of the current franchises, which is what we want - rst20xx (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Then how about just Lists of Major League Baseball managers? I realize there are the defunct teams, but they aren't in the Majors anymore so doesn't really conflict. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure I agree, but at any rate, this is a somewhat minor issue that IMO shouldn't hold the topic up. You've got a good lead article proposed there, which is the main thing - rst20xx (talk) 01:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
- Well to solve the problem you give, you'd pipe the lead to be, Lists of Major League Baseball managers. My concern would more be that the topic you are proposing only includes current teams. I do not think that you'd have to expand the topic to include former teams, because then you would have too many articles for one topic, the topic would be too big. On the other hand, Lists of Major League Baseball managers at current franchises is a bit unwieldy... can anyone think of something more concise? rst20xx (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate a Pink Floyd Featured Topic. Currently two of their albums are FAs, two are GAs, and one will shortly be at GAN. The problem is that the main article, Pink Floyd, is presently at GAN. Its rather a large article so may take a while to be reviewed. Am I still able to nominate such a topic, given the main article isn't GA or FA? I intend to have every Pink Floyd studio album at GA as a minimum, eventually. Parrot of Doom 20:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hey, generally band topics don't include albums - see for example Wikipedia:Featured topics/Nine Inch Nails for what a band topic should look like. Instead, albums are included in "discography" or "albums" topics - see e.g. Wikipedia:Featured topics/Powderfinger albums or Wikipedia:Featured topics/Slipknot discography. So you'd need to make Pink Floyd discography the lead article, and you wouldn't include Pink Floyd at all. With Pink Floyd, I count 14 studio albums, 4 live albums, 7 compilations and 3 box sets, for 28 in total (29 including the lead). This isn't too big for one topic, so I personally would want to see the topic include all these articles. I realise this is a lot of work but the result would be a very impressive topic - rst20xx (talk) 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
- Heh, I think that may take some time then :) I'm practically doing these on my own... Parrot of Doom 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Maryland General Assembly
Would the following work? Or would it also need to include President of the Maryland State Senate and Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates? Geraldk (talk) 23:22, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm well firstly I think you should definitely include Maryland State House. That aside, when browsing through the whole range of articles that come under Maryland General Assembly, well there are a number I would have expected to see that don't exist, namely details on past senators/representatives, and also on past elections to both houses. Also I wonder if, like how there is an article on the President of the Maryland State Senate and an article on the Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, whether there equally should be 10 more articles on the 5 other leadership posts in each house. Anyway, the conclusion of all this is that I think that you could make two large topics, one each out of the State Senate and the House of Delegates, as potential subtopics to a potential topic on the Maryland General Assembly as a whole. As a result I would say that, in a topic on the Maryland General Assembly, you definitely need to include Maryland General Assembly, Maryland State Senate, Maryland House of Delegates and Maryland State House, but that would be it, because all other articles can be subtopiced. Including Current members of the Maryland House of Delegates, Current members of the Maryland State Senate, President of the Maryland State Senate and Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates would be nice, but excluding them wouldn't make me oppose, as these 4 articles can be shifted to the two large subtopics as I described. However I would say that if you include any of those 4, you should include all 4, because I think they're all about as important as each other and hence IMO there would be a bit of a scope mismatch if some but not all are included - rst20xx (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The Beatles
I haven't edited any of these articles (maybe once or twice. Maybe), but I just sort of realized they're all GA's, yet this doesn't seem to be listed as a Good Topic. Even George Martin, Brian Epstein, and Magic Alex are GA's, if the topic was thought to need to extend that far. Or would it have to include everything on {{The Beatles}}? Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 08:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- Band topics generally include other articles than just the members, like the discography and tours (maybe popular culture or others depending on what articles are deemed to be needed). Although the above looks great, i think to be treated as a topic, either the main article needs changing to some kind of "Members of the Beatles" article (which AFAIK does not exist, but one could be written using summary style of the six above and Fifth Beatle. Imo, including Fifth Beatle would preclude the need to include the more minor contributors that were not really in the band), or the discography/tours/filmography/videography articles need bringing up to GA/FL. The former seems by far the easier, and such an article would be needed anyway if a complete Beatles topic were ever to be made, as subtopics would be needed (there are a huge number of Beatles articles).YobMod 11:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it's appropriate to generalise the Fifth Beatle article into a summary style article on the members of the Beatles, these are two completely different articles, as the concept of there being a Fifth Beatle is a popular meme and a label that has been involved with a number of people who were involved with the band but weren't actually members. The only two individuals who were actually band members apart from the fab four were Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best, both before the band achieved success, but both are good articles, so certainly they can be included.
- I think that any "The Beatles" topic would, in addition to the 7 given above, need to include other articles about the band to make it more like the Nine Inch Nails topic, only as the Beatles have a lot more written about them than NIN, there will be a lot more articles needing including. I would say that the topic would need to also have The Beatles discography, Lennon/McCartney, The Beatles' influence on popular culture (maybe renamed to "The Beatles in popular culture" or better yet "Cultural impact of the Beatles"), List of awards received by The Beatles (should become "awards and nominations"), List of The Beatles songs (included or deleted), List of The Beatles' record sales (should be merged into discography article IMO), The Beatles bootleg recordings (assuming it's notable enough to exist), Beatlemania (definitely merge this into cultural impact), The Beatles in film (changed into "The Beatles filmography"?) and Fifth Beatle, then there are other articles that should be added or deleted such as The Beatles timeline, The Beatles' line-ups (oh, so there is already a Beatles members article!), List of The Beatles' instruments, List of artists who have covered The Beatles (merged into cultural impact article? Though could have enough to stand alone) and List of songs covered by The Beatles. The Quarrymen could be added and is a GA already so no reason not to. I think an article on concert tours definitely needs creating and adding. There are other articles such as The Beatles outtakes that are a bit less notable so probably don't need adding, though could be if brought up to scratch. Other individuals such as the three you mentioned and some of the members' partners could be added if well-reasoned arguments are made as to why they are more notable than individuals who are not included, or a subtopic could be built around the individuals discussed in the Fifth Beatle article (though I don't see that this precludes putting Stuart Sutcliffe and Pete Best or anybody else in the overall topic). And certainly a "Beatles albums"/"Beatles discography" subtopic would be a logical step (maybe even just "studio albums", as there are so many albums...). There could also be subtopics on the filmography and on tours. The history of the Beatles is covered extensively in the main The Beatles article, so probably doesn't merit having its own article created, but then there is a series of subarticles on this topic as found in {{The Beatles history}}. I guess you could make a subtopic out of these articles, and use either the timeline article or the main article as the lead. So lots of possible subtopics, but lots of work to be done before any topic is ready, IMO. If The Beatles' line-ups, possibly renamed to "Members of the Beatles", is deemed not to fail WIAFL 3.b, then a members topic is close to being ready, but this article, not The Beatles article, should be the lead. And I really don't think this article should be merged with the Fifth Beatle article - rst20xx (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
- tl;dr version: If you want to make a "The Beatles" topic, there are a ton of articles that need to get GA'd first, and there are a lot of subtopics that could also be made. If you want to make a "Members of The Beatles" topic similar to what you listed above, the lead article needs to be The Beatles' line-ups, aka "Members of the Beatles", not "The Beatles" itself. --PresN 00:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- All right. I'm really not keen to dive in to do all that work, I was just curious. Thanks. Alex finds herself awake at night (Talk · What keeps her up) 00:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- tl;dr version: If you want to make a "The Beatles" topic, there are a ton of articles that need to get GA'd first, and there are a lot of subtopics that could also be made. If you want to make a "Members of The Beatles" topic similar to what you listed above, the lead article needs to be The Beatles' line-ups, aka "Members of the Beatles", not "The Beatles" itself. --PresN 00:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Band topics generally include other articles than just the members, like the discography and tours (maybe popular culture or others depending on what articles are deemed to be needed). Although the above looks great, i think to be treated as a topic, either the main article needs changing to some kind of "Members of the Beatles" article (which AFAIK does not exist, but one could be written using summary style of the six above and Fifth Beatle. Imo, including Fifth Beatle would preclude the need to include the more minor contributors that were not really in the band), or the discography/tours/filmography/videography articles need bringing up to GA/FL. The former seems by far the easier, and such an article would be needed anyway if a complete Beatles topic were ever to be made, as subtopics would be needed (there are a huge number of Beatles articles).YobMod 11:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
To clarify: I meant a topic like this:
- Members of the Beatles (to be created for a GA) or The Beatles' line-ups (not yet FL)
Do ppl think that works as a topic? I think an overall topic like NIN would simply be too large, so subtopicing the members in some way is valid.YobMod 09:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- Erm, yeah, I think that just about works, but I think it should be The Beatles' line-ups used, possibly renamed to List of the Beatles members. And it should still cover the Quarrymen, or else the list would definitely fail 3b - rst20xx (talk) 13:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I am contemplateing Old Chicago Water Tower District, Chicago Water Tower, Chicago Avenue Pumping Station as a topic. I am not sure whether it would be complete without Chicago Fire Department Fire Station No. 98. and whether Magnificent Mile Chicago Avenue or Michigan Avenue.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- The fire station is part but not the whole of the designation so I am not sure whether or not it should be included, based on the general principle usually worked off that designated buildings should be included. I think instead its inclusion/exclusion should be decided on whether it is notable enough to support a stand-alone article, which you'll have to tell me! I don't think the Magnificent Mile or Avenues need including, as the Water Tower District forms part of them, not the other way round - rst20xx (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
- You could also think about adding Water Tower Place, as it is named for the District, this is something you've done in the past, but up to you - rst20xx (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Invincibles
User:YellowMonkey/Invincibles Is there any means of expediting the review process on FTCs/GTCs that would be held up by having to wait a few months for a GA review? The three remaining B-class articles are all at GAN YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 07:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
- The Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report has just started running again. The queue, is starting to gradually go back down.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 08:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Dexter
Is this topic missing anything? Nergaal (talk) 07:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
- As this topic contains every episode of Dexter with an article, then as far as I am concerned, no, it is fine, similarly to the Smallville season 1 topic. However, you have to be prepared to argue why every episode with an article is more notable than any episode without an article. If you can't do that, then this says that some of the episodes without articles deserve them, and hence the topic is not complete as it stands - rst20xx (talk) 12:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)