Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic criteria/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

I took a look at what would happen if we said that 50% rounded up of the articles in a topic had to be featured, and it looks pretty good, it would require, in the vast majority of cases, 1 additional featured article in less that thirty percent of our topics. Lets take a look;

  • Physical Geography of Somerset - 1
  • Category 5 Pacific Hurricanes - 2
  • Hurricane Dean - 1
  • Hurricane Isabel - 1
  • Lost Season 4 - 1
  • Simpson Family - 1
  • Daydreams at the Hotel Existence - 1
  • No Doubt Albums - 2
  • Powder Finger Albums - 1
  • Rock Steady - 1
  • Main Astroid Belt - 1
  • Members of the Gregorian Mission - 2 Made up the two needed, up to the new standards. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games - 4
  • State Highways in Marquette Counties , Michigan - 1
  • State highways in Essex County, New York - 2
  • State highways in Warren County, New York - 2
  • New York State Route 20N - 1
  • The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion - 1
  • Guitar Hero series - 1
  • Halo media - 1
  • Legend of Zelda - 2
  • StarCraft series - 1
  • Adriatic campaign of 1807–1814 - 1

I propose, and await your feedback, that by May 1st, 2010, 50% rounded up be the new featured topic criteria. Since there is now a Good Topic, and the work needed to do this is not too difficult to achieve for most topics, we should do this. That way, for the first time all featured topics will actually have a majority of featured articles! Also, giving till May is doable for pretty much all the topics, and we could give the seven topics with more than one to do more time if that is an issue. Thoughts? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd support this, as I'm a fan of having the Featured topics be mostly featured, and I'd like to make a note that as long as the above list seems, it currently stands at 27 topics out of a total 95, or ~28%; the majority of topics would be unaffected by this change. --PresN 20:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I said before I wouldn't support any further rises, but actually if it were to be done, well it looks pretty good in that a lot of topics are only requiring 1 or 2 more featured (sorry Virginia Tech Hokies bowl games, you're the only topic that's really screwed over), and this very long timetable would certainly be the way to do it - rst20xx (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I like the idea, but if this is done, I think the VT Hokies bowl games topic should get extra time since it has to get twice as many articles up to featured status as any other current topic. It is the second largest current featured topic (and the largest composed of articles rather than lists). I also happen to know how hard JKBrooks85 worked to get all the articles up to standards, and I'm sure he could get 4 more articles to featured status, but he's going to need time to do it. I think giving that topic an extra year would not be unreasonable. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Is that even possible though? I mean, we're not talking demotion here, we're saying change the code in the template to say .5 instead of .33- one edit, and everything automatically shows up on the GT page instead of the FT page if they don't make the cut. I suppose there's probably a way to put in a special exemption in the code for it, but if so, I'd rather see a 6 month extension for the topic after May 1, not a 1-year extension. --PresN 16:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

(Outdenting for a subtopic) - I know of the 3 of mine you listed, the 20N topic needs 173 to be an FA and it will be good to go, Warren would need a combination for 149, 254 and 418 somehow redone, as they are closer than the others. Essex has 73 which I will FAC when ready, and hopefully 431 will follow it once done.Mitch32(The Password is... See here!) 16:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

My two cents: make it April 1, 2010, such that it will be exactly one year after the 1/4 => 1/3 bumping. Nergaal (talk) 22:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, so April 1, 2010 for 50% rounded up, and perhaps September 1st, 2010 for the Virginia Hokies? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see why it should be April and not May, I think the fact that it is one year after the previous bump has got nothing to do with anything and I'd be inclined to give topics more time to get up to standard instead - rst20xx (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Experimental idea

Further, with regards to the VT Hokies topic, I'm not convinced it should get more time, because I just think that this is a bit unfair. Say for example that another topic came along between then and now with 23 articles, of which 8 are featured, should that topic get until September as well to get up to 50%? I think the reason people feel that that topic should have more time maybe reflects the fact that larger topics are harder to get featured, and as the %age goes up, that only becomes more of a problem. I'm not entirely sure what we can do about that.

Think about this - is a topic with 24 articles of which 12 are featured better or worse than one with 25 articles of which 12 are featured? It seems to me it's worse, and yet the former topic would be featured, and the latter one wouldn't be. But what about one with 4 articles, of which 2 are featured, vs 5 and 2? Well I dunno if that's any different, but with a topic with just 2 FAs, there is more of a feeling that it's fair enough that it should have more FAs in the mix as it looks a bit GA-heavy.

So what am I getting at? Maybe a straight percentage requirement is the wrong way to go, and there should be some curve to it so that the requirement gets less steep the bigger a topic gets - so until 12 articles it's around 50%, but once you get up to 20 it's down towards 40% and it bottoms out at 33% at 25 articles, or something. This does make things more complicated, but if we had a table explaining how many FAs various sizes of topics would need, then this would make things clearer - rst20xx (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

One could also look at it from the other side—that's a lot of non-featured content in a featured topic, and lowering the percentage would compound that. I think all topics should use the same percentage (and minimum of two), and all topics should have the same grace period. If that grace period is deemed too short for such a large topic, then let's extend it for all topics rather than just one. Pagrashtak 00:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I agree. The problem that you're (Rst20xx) trying to solve is that making a larger FT is more difficult than making a small one. This problem is not solvable- it is an inherent reality of a topic, that larger ones have more articles, and its therefore more difficult to get them all to GA/FA. A similar problem would be that getting Evolution to FA is much more difficult than getting a hurricane article to FA- that doesn't mean that we should lower FA standards for the evolution article since it's larger and covers a contentious topic. It's harder, it's not fair, but that's life- moving the goal line for that article doesn't mean that it's as good as an easier article. We can't make all topics take the same amount of effort to get to featured, and we shouldn't try. A 15-article topic with 33% featured is not as good as a 5-article topic with 100% featured, even though they have the same number of stars, and declaring artificially that it is doesn't make it true. --PresN 02:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Hmm I still think the first topic is better. But I think Pagrashtak's suggestion that everything gets a retention til next September is a fair way to proceed so I would be happy with that - rst20xx (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Why not April 1st for the ones with 1 article, which is 5 months to do one featured article, and then September for the other, who will have 11 months? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather just set a bright line and let everyone chase it; sure, some people will have less work cut out for them, but it saves us from remembering a lotta' dates. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, technologically it is much, much easier to have one date. I don't see the rush here - rst20xx (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
September 1st, 2010 then, sounds good to me, all agreed? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
As a final thing, I think it'd only be fair if we notify the creators of the topics that would be effected before this discussion is concluded, to get their input - rst20xx (talk) 20:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Good catch, I think your right. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Done, that took me a little while to find the time to do, but done - rst20xx (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Support raising standard YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Why not simply provide an extension of X months for each topic where X is a function of how many articles need promoting? Much like topics that are dynamic (Seasons of 30 Rock, for example) give significant lag time to work on the article, why not extend some form of this to working up GAs into FAs? One month per article? Two? Staxringold talkcontribs 01:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that, due to the automatic nature of how a topic is determined to be "featured" or "good" by each page it's transcluded on, giving multiple deadlines for different topics is a huge pain. I'm not sure that we really need a 10-month-out deadline, though; I thought May was pretty good. --PresN 01:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It makes sense to me that if you're more than 50% GA, you're a good topic, whereas if you're more than 50% FA, you're a featured topic. So yes, I agree. Serendipodous 11:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

  • As the creator of the VT Hokies bowl games topic, I'm naturally annoyed. But I'm more perturbed by the perpetually moving endline. During the two-plus years I spent creating the topic, the percentage of featured articles needed for a topic kept moving upward. If you really want to ensure standards, make the needed percentage 100 percent. Mandate that every article in a topic should be featured for the topic itself to be featured. As the hockey group has demonstrated, that requirement wouldn't be a barrier to big topics. Why not do it now and save editors such as myself from struggling to meet an ever-changing goal? JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Well standards are always increasing. Even without the quota, the individual FA/GA standards or enforcement will also. As for big topics, there are hardly any "hotspots" of quality on Wikipedia. Most of the numerically large hotspots consist of smaller articles (The cyclones and roads, songs ones are generally shortish articles), or a high percentage of lists, which are much less work than FAs. Not many of the FTs are very "fat" is the Guadalcanal one or the solar systems one. Yours is, although queuing up for 7-8 more FAs might be irritating... maybe you could get more people to review it because of the FT. I hope that happens to me too :) YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 01:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
The problem with your argument is that two years ago good topics didn't even exist. With an extra class of topics it is not suprising that standards have increased. Personally I wouldn't be that against 100%, but regardless is seems sensible to qualify a topic by what the majority (i.e. 50%) of its content is and I support raising the standard. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Can I just ask for a clarification on what we're voting on here? In his initial proposal, Judgesurreal777 proposed we make it that "50% rounded up of the articles in a topic had to be featured" - what exactly does "rounded up" mean? I assume that the intended meaning was that "at least half of the articles are featured?" ie it would be acceptable for exactly half to be featured, but not for less than half, which is similar to how things are currently, except with half instead of one third - rst20xx (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

It means that if you have 14 articles, 7 are featured, and if you have 13, then half of 13 is 6.5, so we round up to 7 required featured articles instead of rounding down to 6, thus ensuring all the topics are strictly majority featured. As you have seen, the rounding is not a big barrier and the vast majority of topics need only feature one additional article to qualify. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
OK good, that's what I thought. (But that means we're rounding the number of articles up, not the percentage, which doesn't really make sense) rst20xx (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
In regards to the "rounded up" language, I believe this was discussed some time ago and was rejected as being redundant and confusing. The criteria should just say "At least 50% of the articles are featured class..." Rreagan007 (talk) 20:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
As one affected by the change (with the Guitar Hero FT) I see no problem with the change, with the understanding that those that fail FT with the new requirements drop to a GT - that is, with GT, I see no reason for a higher FT criteria push (though I would argue any requirement above 50% after this is probably pushing it.) --MASEM (t) 18:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
  • From an outsider's perspective, I think this raising of standards is a good idea, though I wish the FT process wasn't so volatile. I understand the point of view of those contributors who are frustrated with the continually rising standards, but on the other hand, it makes sense that a "featured topic" has at least of its articles (a majority is even better) featured. The ultimate goal for every topic contributor should be getting every article in the topic featured; featured topic status is just a "checkpoint" and a recognition for all the work they've done. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
    • As the creator of the No Doubt albums topic, I am of course annoyed at the extra work I'll have to put in to keep the topic featured (I'm not a great fan of good topics). However, I agree that standards must increase. I support the increase to 50% featured. -- EA Swyer Talk Contributions 15:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Final Fantasy VIII topic went down to 4 articles due to a merger, so it now meets the proposed criteria, so only 25 topics, so only slightly more than a quarter. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
24 out of 96, actually - Video game consoles (seventh generation) was delisted a few weeks back. --PresN 01:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Now 23 out of 98, since Characters of Halo is 3/5 Featured! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems like we're all pretty much in agreement; should we just go ahead pick a date (May? September?) and put the notice on the Criteria page? --PresN 22:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say May 2010. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Wait, I thought before we'd basically agreed September[1]. Regardless, I'd rather September, in fact I would oppose May - rst20xx (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
The last one was pretty long, and September will be here before we know it, so lets just go with that one, alright? Can we put it in the criteria? Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

FT vs GT

Is anybody else thinking that an FT should have the main article of the topic be featured (since it is a featured topic on that article)? Nergaal (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There's something in this, but I personally wouldn't support tightening requirements any more for several years (FWIW, 22 topics have GAs for their lead) rst20xx (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm with rst20xx on this one. Maybe someday, but not today. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, not today but maybe in a year or so after we see how the 50% requirement has worked out. -MBK004 00:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Also while we're here, if we were to ever rise it again, I could (along similar lines to this) see the rationale beyond rising it from 50% to over 50% (ie a topic with 6 articles needs 4 instead of 3, but topics with an odd number of articles are unaffected), but again, I don't advocate doing this for a long time - rst20xx (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to think of ways to integrate featured pictures into the featured topic process, and so I'm just going to throw out an idea. Since we already have a picture in each topic box, I was thinking that we could try to encourage editors working on a topic to find/make a featured picture for the topic box by putting in the criteria that if there is a relevant featured picture for the topic box, then that can count as a featured item. So, hypothetically, if you had a topic with 9 articles and 4 are featured articles, but there is also a featured picture for the topic box, then there would be 5 out of 10 featured items (50%). Note that the topic box picture would only count as a "bonus" item if it was featured, so if it's not a featured picture it wouldn't count against the percentage. Thoughts? Rreagan007 (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry missed this before. Hmmm we should encourage featured pictures where they're available but I think what you are suggesting is tricky from a technological point of view - rst20xx (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Notifacation Of Proposal To Promote wp:quote

There is a proposal to promote wp:quote.

I do not know why candidates was notified, but they were so you should be notified as well.174.3.107.176 (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Seasons of 30 Rock

Just a note, I'll be working up 30 Rock (season 4) as soon as the Emmy info comes out on July 8. However, is there anyway to extend the retention period for Season 5? There is very little info out there on the season, as awards season for Season 4 hasn't even kicked into gear. I could expand the current stub to at least have the proper formatting, and such, but any PR on it would be largely meaningless (and that would seem sad to force through a PR just to meet a deadline). Staxringold talkcontribs 22:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Question of eligibility

Do all entries have to be GA or FA quality. I know that sounds a daft question but I was looking at putting a Good Topic together where two of the articles are WP:MILHIST A Class but were never submitted for GA. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 11:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I believe you must submit them to GA first. Gary King (talk · scripts) 17:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
And the articles should easily pass GA if they've already passed ACR. -MBK004 06:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Topic demotion

I'm a tad confused... wasn't the cutoff for 50% featured October 2010? So why were all the topics summarily demoted on September 5? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It was September 1; see the history of this page. Ucucha 21:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Tightening criteria?

Not sure how many people still follow this thread, but there are two things that were brought up about featured criteria in the past, which deserve discussing in the near future:

  1. featured topics should have a featured content lead? (no more GAs as in 17 of the present topics)
  2. featured topics should have over 50% featured content? (18 even-numbered requiring an extra featured article, some overlapping with the previous 17)

Nergaal (talk) 04:45, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No. The last change in criteria was already too much, it is easily possible to raise standards so far that FT's become close to impossible... and we're already there for larger topics. Courcelles 05:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't believe there was any consensus to boost the requirements past the current 50% threshold. AFAIK in all the discussions we had to initially raise the percentages the 50% mark was essentially the end goalpost. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
By "over 50%" I mean the even-numbered to require one more featured item (instead of "at least 50%). Nergaal (talk) 22:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Do the criteria have a bias to small topics?

I can think of one possible Topic which ideally would have about 17 articles at the same level in the structure, plus a header article. I can also think of another possible Topic which would ideally exactly 17 plus header. I know the subject area in both cases, and in both cases there's no rational ground on subdivide such prospective Topics (without gaming the system). Most WP Topics are much smaller, e.g. wp:Featured_topics/Pirates_of_the_Caribbean_films (which I like a lot) and several 2-3 article Topics about bird species. Do the criteria have a bias to small topics? --Philcha (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly easier to get smaller topics done, but that is just because there are fewer articles to write. I don't think it's right to speak of "bias". Ucucha 13:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
  • It's harder to climb a 20 foot hill than a 10 foot one. That's not a bias, it's just simple addition of labor. Similarly, assuming equal average article lengths it will be more work (and thus harder, and thus rarer) to complete a 15 article topic than a 5 article topic. Staxringold talkcontribs 15:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

So I've been thinking about this a bit, and while reading over the featured topic criteria I realized something. Criterion 3.a.i. states "(i) At least one half (50%) of the items are featured class (featured articles or featured lists), with a minimum of two featured items" (emphasis added). The last phrase isn't as meaningful as it used to be, since the standard was raised to 50% some time ago. Back when the requirement was only 25% or 33% smaller topics with only 3, 4, 5, 6, or even 7 items had to meet a higher percentage standard than larger topics did. Now, only a topic with 3 items is meeting a higher percentage standard with this requirement. I wonder if maybe we should increase the standard to a minimum of 3 featured items? Rreagan007 (talk) 01:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


"Each article or list is of high quality, including the referencing."

I see this currently listed as one of the criteria for items contained within a good or featured topic. However, I see little or no evidence that those voting on whether a collection of articles/lists etc have ever checked that the "referencing" is of a high quality. In fact, I've been shot down for noting that many links in many articles within a proposed good/featured topic are actually _not_ of high quality, or they are dead, or similar. Perhaps the people that administer this section of Wikipedia need to consider if this section (i.e. including the referencing ) is really part of the criteria for a good/featured topic, because right now, most contributors to the voting page don't even give it a passing glance. Right now I would suggest this clause is removed since people who vote for featured topics pay no attention to the quality of the constituent elements other than to check they are either GA, FA or FL, nothing more. There is no more quality control than that. The abject lack of quality control should be reflected in the criteria. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree removing it. I would rather rephrase so it is clearer; then you could say oppose based on criteria x. How about saying that the topic entries "are still passing the FX/GA criteria at the time of the nomination." Nergaal (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


Retention period

Not sure who is following this, but would anybody be opposed to increase the grace period to 6 months? Nergaal (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be. In the case of musical albums for example, I feel the grace period should be even longer. Whereas a film undergoes cinematic and DVD release and then mostly that's it, an album has touring behind it, and in the case of popular artists could spawn a string of singles. That's at least a year to two years of new information having to be added if singles are included. LuciferMorgan (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Question of Topics

Is it possible for a topic's lead article to be broader in scope than the topic itself? For example, I've been eyeing topics such as the Endemic Birds of the Sulu Archipelago and Extinct Birds of the United States, which would include 4 and 4-9 articles respectively. However, it would be a bit ridiculous to have a List of Endemic Birds of the Sulu Archipelago as it would be so small. Possible, but sort of pointless. Would I be able to count a List of Birds of the Sulu Archipelago with a section detailing the endemics and count that as the lead article for my hypothetical Endemic Birds of the Sulu Archipelago topic? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why nobody has answered this, but I believe you could. There are FTs / GTs where this has happened. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
'Cause it got answered over at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic questions, FYI. --PresN 23:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Loosening standards for big topics?

Just throwing it out there, but the 50% rule is pretty hefty once you get to a decent size, and I worry that could dissuade people from attempting big topics. What if, for big topics, there was a gradual reduction to the 50% rule? Hypothetically, a 100 article topic would be near impossible to get 50 articles to FA, and yet I believe that having 30 articles featured, for example, would be quite an accomplishment and worthy of featured topic status, IMO. Just throwing it out there. Not sure what the gradation would be though. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Intro para as requirement for FT

I think having a requirement for FUTURE FTs to have a decent short paragraph would be adequate. I've tried to push nominators to create one anyways, but I think since FTs CAN actually appear on the mainpage this would be an appropriate, easy requirement. Also, for the sake of logistics, previous FTs would not be required to have such an intro (yet) since I am assuming those can be slowly filled up in time once this new criteria becomes standard. Nergaal (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The nomination template that gets autocreated when you make a new nomination asks for an intro paragraph; it noincludes it so as not to clutter up the main FLC page but it's there. I'd be fine with requiring FTs/GTs going forward to fill one out, especially as it's basically a modified version of the lead article's lead. --PresN 17:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_and_good_topic_criteria/Archive_4&oldid=1142151077"