Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic candidates

Archives:

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Potential topic question: Inclusion of band members BLPs to topic scope

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)[reply]

SB19

6 articles

Discography

Songs recorded

Awards and nominations

Videography

Live performances

Unless I've just completely missed others, the only band topic that exists is the Ben&Ben Overview; the band doesn't have individual articles for the members. Although, I still think that an SB19 topic should include the band members' articles, mostly because the members are not ambiguous and they're clearly defined. If there was say a One Direction topic, I'd consider the topic incomplete if it didn't include all the members' articles, as they're very-well defined: Niall, Liam, Harry, Louis and Zayn. Whereas a band like Dire Straits has a seperate article which lists the members of the band; such an article could be used as a lead for a topic listing all the members of the band. The SB19 article literally has all the band members listed in the first sentence of the lead; I feel like if there was two topics, one with the band members and another with the band details (like the one presented), it would just be an unnecessary mess. A complete combined topic with everything is probably more appropriate. Idiosincrático (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Idiosincrático! I just saw your reply, which I think does make sense. Thanks for the insight! – Relayed (t • c) 13:08, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article inclusion on future Good Topic

A few of us are working towards a potential good topic on Doctor Who specials (2023). I suggested that the mini-episode "Destination: Skaro" should be included in this topic as it falls within the scope of the specials. The would-be primary page for the topic includes an episode table for the mini-episode, as well as brief information on its production, release, and novelization. It's also included as a link in two navboxes, {{Doctor Who episodes|N13b}} and {{Fourteenth Doctor stories}}, both of which, at this time, are limited in links to the three 2023 specials and the mini-episode. This leads me to believe that it should be included per WP:GT? points 1(B) and 1(C), and that excluding it (whether it's a good article at that time or not) leans towards failing 1(D).

@OlifanofmrTennant: said it shouldn't be included because mini-episodes weren't "historically" included in the series six good topic ("Space", "Time" and Night and the Doctor would be the relevant mini-episodes). I do disagree with the use of "historical" given that the aforementioned GT was just promoted in January. I also cited WP:OTHERCONTENT as a potential argument to move forward with it's inclusion in the 2023 specials and deal with series six at a later date, but that was shot down because it "usually applies to unrelated topics" (which is up for interpretation, because as they're part of the same programme, they are "unrelated" sets of episodes). Anyways, it could also be argued that the exclusion of "Space", "Time" and Night and the Doctor could also cause the topic to fail 1(D), but I'm not personally pushing for a delisting discussion at this moment.

That said, the only question I have at this time, is when we get to the point of nominating the Good Topic for 2023, should we include "Destination: Skaro"? (Pinging @Pokelego999: as the other main contributor to this future GT.) TheDoctorWho^Public (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have no preference either way. I do feel including them doesn't really have any compelling counter-arguments, so I feel it would be more comprehensive to include them, but I'm not too plussed if they end up being excluded from the GT. If we do decide to include the minisodes, I do feel we should focus on promoting Night and the Doctor in order to preserve the S6 GT, but that's a discussion for another day. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My question would be, would be be including these mini-episodes because there's a compelling reason for them to be included, or would it just be for the sake of completion? I've looked at the linked WP:GT page and 1(D) says There are no obvious gaps. I would content that leaving out the mini-episodes does not fail 1(D) because leaving them out doesn't create obvious gaps. Regarding series six, I was vaguely aware that there was some Comic Relief content at the time but I never saw it, and today is the first time I've learned the DVD-exclusive mini-episode exist. And yet, I've missed nothing by not having seem them. So for me, they're not obvious gaps. As for points 1(B) and 1(C), my reading of these is that while they suggest that the episodes can be included, they don't go far as to say they should be included. Therefore, I have a (weak) preference to leaving them out. But if the consensus goes the other way, I won't put up a fight. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 21:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 1(D), it specifically says "A topic must not cherry-pick only the best articles to become featured together." The mini-episodes are notable enough to have articles and are important enough to include in the templates. The Infobox quite literally includes them in the episode count "No. of episodes: 13 (+3 supplemental)" (or No. of episodes: 3 (+1 supplemental) for the 2023 specials). By choosing to exclude them, it just feels like very obvious cherry-picking to me. Essentially saying "they're only important enough to include as part of the season coverage but not in an overview topic on the season". Just because some people aren't aware of them doesn't mean they're not gaps in the topic. With over two million views on YouTube alone (likely more in the actual CIN broadcast), viewership on the mini-episode is on par with or has surpassed overnight viewership on some full episodes of Doctor Who. I wasn't aware that there was a Game of Thrones soundtrack yet it's still included in the relevant good topic. Regardless, I'm still not sure why the exclusion in series six automatically means we have to assume exclusion in the 2023 Specials when they could be handled on a case-by-case basis. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: I think that the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument wouldnt necessarily apply here see Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments#Precedent in usage talks about consistancy in non-fiction articles. 2600:1700:3351:1610:DC03:7348:B967:408E (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that specific instance applies here, it specifically says "Whether a given instance of something can serve as a precedent for some other instance must be decided by way of consensus." and we don't have a consensus to apply the "precedent" here. I specifically mentioned the OTHERSTUFF argument in response to another user saying they haven't been "historically" included, which I still disagree with given the RECENTISM of it's promotion. That said, regardless of whether or not it applies here, I still standby my statement that the exclusion would fail the good topic criteria. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not count the lack of a mini-sode as failing 1d, 1d mentions picking by quality when this is instead a clear topical difference. I don't think most people would expect a mini-sode to be a core part of a series. The article on Doctor Who specials (2023) does not, describing its topic as "three special episodes that aired between 25 November and 9 December 2023, to celebrate the programme's 60th anniversary". I don't see the harm of including it if anyone wants to, but it isn't an obvious gap. CMD (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My only major concern would be potentially getting series 6 demoted. Though if it is included I suggest adding the Fourteenth Doctor article. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I worry if you add Fourteenth Doctor it would create the precedent of series GTs needing to include their significant main cast, as well as their primary Doctor (Which would require a significant amount more work). Additionally, I'm not sure how much they're relevant towards their series' GT. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 21:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would necesarily the case, given that 14 is pretty much exlusive to the specials. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 21:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking credit for this IP. I was having connectivity issues which led me to be repeatedly signed out of my computer Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 14:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible good topic—yay or nay?

Thinking about working on "Electrical power delivery" with three articles to start with: electrical power transmission, electrical power distribution, and substation—this covers all the infrastructure between generation and delivery to the customer/ratepayer. Later on I could add overhead power line and underground power line. (t · c) buidhe 21:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A worthy topic and definitely in need of attention. Under the current criteria, we'd be looking to see that the proposed topic was "linked together, preferably using a template, and share[s] a common category or super-category". {{Electricity delivery}} and Category:Electric power transmission are pretty big, but I could see a topic out of just one row of {{Electricity delivery}}. Alternatively, I suspect this subject-area is not "finished" re templates and categories, so you could make a new one to define the scope more clearly. Definitely seeing potential here. Aza24 (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible featured topic?

Hello, I'm new to featured topics, but all the lists of municipalities of Canada are at featured list status. There is no overarching municipalities in Canada page (although there is a list of lists), but I'm not sure that is necessary as municipalities are different depending on the province. Would this be a possible nomination? Mattximus (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newfoundland and Labrador

Northwest Territories

Mattximus (talk) 17:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of municipalities in Canada has a cool table, I don't see why this couldn't become a FL with general overviews of municipal types across Canada. List of the largest municipalities in Canada by population could also be a good inclusion. Reywas92^Talk 17:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of municipalities in Canada would probably be the best lead for a topic like this, goes well with the topic template. I'm pretty sure that list of lists are eligible for FL status. If someone got it done I don't see a problem with this potential topic. Idiosincrático (talk) 01:13, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need there be a main article?

Do good or featured topics need to have a "central" or "lead" article? For example, could, say, "Snakes of Ontario" be a good topic even if Snakes of Ontario doesn't exist? Thanks, Cremastra ‹ u — c › 21:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This would open the door for Teams' first-round picks in the NFL draft for me! Hey man im josh (talk) 02:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't the lead for that topic be List of first overall NFL draft picks? But to answer the question, yes it does its criteria 2a. To be properly defined as a topic you need a lead Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:42, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]