Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-08/Dispatches 1

Notes

Need to work in links to the criteria and the nomination page. Also, work in pending milestone if/when it's reached, per this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I would hold off on publishing this article until September, so it goes out after the milestone has been completed (and then that section of the article can be finalised, too). Also that way we can wait and see whether the minimum criteria does in fact go up to 25%/33%. It's probably worth noting there should be at least 2 additions this month, which equals the best there, too. You could also mention the current discussions about overview topics (see also the NIN nom), which would be good to mention if only because doing so might get some more input there (it may be partly because Arctic Gnome has gone away at the mo but it seems to me that conversation has halted slightly). Otherwise, a very well written article, good stuff! - rst20xx (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Tentatively, I'm thinking this could aim for the Signpost of September 1; since the Signpost never publishes on time, that would mean it wouldn't actually publish until the 3rd, 4th or 5th, and you all could chunk the text in before month-end, knowing that you would have a few days to work out any kinks. Is that good? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep, sounds good. We should have an idea what's going to happen in enough time to write it, even if it DOES go out on the 1st - rst20xx (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe not, with the WP:GOOGLE thing it's all exploded. --PresN (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

How? What does that proposal affect about FT? By the way, the link above isn't right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

It is possible that good topics will be integrated into featured topics in terms of nomination procedure etc. as apart from FA requirements criteria, they will not be much different at all. So this would require the history to be updated. It is also possible that when this comes to be, the featured topic %age criteria will go up at the same time, and some of the featured topics will automatically become good topics instead. However, I anticipate that things should have settled down by September 1st, so we should still be alright - rst20xx (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't get that in the straw poll, but the discussion is too convoluted to understand anyway. If whatever these "Good topics" are becomes integrated into "Featured topics", there's going to be a problem with using the "Featured" terminology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Integrated insofar as that they will share a nomination procedure, a log, etc. It will still be possible to tell which are which and they will probably have separate main pages. Sorry, I should have made that clearer. I guess you'll see what I mean when this all settles down, which should hopefully be within the week - rst20xx (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it appears that the two types of topics might end up being fully integrated. However:

1. This probably won't happen now til after the article publication
2. It won't affect featured topics beyond the space sharing, so it should probably get a mention at the end of the History section but that's about it

-- rst20xx (talk) 00:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)