Wikipedia talk:Featured and good topic criteria/Good topics plan

The following is an archived discussion on how to implement good topics. The implementation has now occurred. Please do not modify the discussion.

rst20xx here: This plan is designed to outline, unambiguously, exactly how I would implement good topics. This is a step-by-step outline, and there are places for editors to discuss each step individually. I am aware that this is very complicated, but it is a fairly complex issue, and I think the results will be impressive, causing very little extra work for anybody.

Current Consensus

I am going to refer here to PresN's excellent outline of current consensus. This says:

Final consensus is: That WIAFT criteria 3.a.i should be changed from 20% to 25% on September 1st, 2008, with a 6 month grace period.
Current consensus is: Weakly that some form of a "tier" system should be implemented at FTopics. (26/16/3)
Possible tiers/names include "Good topics", with no minimum F* requirement, "Featured Topics" at the current level, and "Fully Featured Topics", which are 100% featured (identical to the FT star'd topics now)
Current consensus is: If there are tiers, the tiers should share the same nomination and criteria pages.
Not determined: Whether the tiers are displayed on the same "promoted" page. (i.e. WP:FT/WP:GTOP)
Currently proposed is: That nominated topics that do have outstanding GAN/FLC/FAC/FARs should have the option of being "quick-failed", in order to save time and effort.
Preliminary consensus is to pass the proposal with wording giving the "option" of quick-failing, but not requiring it.
Currently on hold: A proposal to change criteria 3.c.

I shall not attempt to deal with points 4 and 5 here, as they are unrelated, however I will recommend that if they pass, the changes made to the featured topic criteria as a result are also made to the good topic criteria.

I am writing this with two primary tiers in mind: good topics and featured topics. Fully featured topics will come into this in some places but I think everyone sees them at the moment as merely an extra bonus on featured topics, as opposed to a separate process. I am writing this with all pages being shared between the different tiers, with the possible exception of the main pages. There is no consensus yet established as to whether good topics and featured topics should have their own main pages or one joint one, so I shall cover both possibilities, and leave it up to other editors to decide which they want.

The Plan

Step one: Moving Pages

I would move all pages involved in featured topics (apart from possible Wikipedia:Featured topics itself) to more neutral ground, i.e. I would remove "featured" from their names. For example, Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates would become Wikipedia:Topic candidates. The Featured log would become the Topic log. Wikipedia:Featured topics/National symbols of Belarus would become Wikipedia:Topics/National symbols of Belarus and so on (the reasoning behind the seemingly needless moving of individual topic pages will become clear later on). An alternative to this step is to make everything be under the name "Unified topics", or "Accredited topics", to reflect that these good and featured topics are more special than simply topics. However, throughout I shall use the name "Topics".

Step two: Topic criteria

I would see Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria and Wikipedia:Good topic criteria merged. As it stands, the only difference between the two is in criteria 3.a) and 3.b), and hence we would simply need to note that "this is the criteria for good topics and this is the criteria for featured topics" at that point. If the good and featured criteria grow more apart over time, then we can always then split them off.

One more thing I want to address here is that for Wikipedia:Good topic criteria, there's been some talk that it won't change at all, whereas (3.a) and 3.b) aside) Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria will, and hence they're bound to diverge. I think this is somewhat naive, as I think all rules here on Wikipedia change over time, and I expect that (again, 3.a) and 3.b) aside) many of the changes that are made to Wikipedia:Featured topic criteria, editors will also want to see made to Wikipedia:Good topic criteria. In other words, I would rather that we test this theory, and start with them merged but split them if needs be.

Step three: Topic candidates

Again, I would see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates and Wikipedia:Good topic candidates merged. Obviously, the first paragraph of the description would have to be altered to cover both, and I would recommend using both logos.

One thing I haven't discussed is how an existing good topic moves to be a featured topic and vice versa. I believe that, under the current criteria, no additional nomination would be needed for a topic moving up from good to be featured. And similarly, if a featured topic sees enough of its featured articles become good, then it should be moved to be a good topic instead of being demoted, and this too can be without a nomination.

At this stage you may worry that people might get overeager and accidentally move topics from good to featured or vice versa by mistake, but I believe it will be possible to automate this process of topic moving, and I will outline how to do this in steps 6 and 7.

We will still have topic removal candidacies, for good topics which need to be demoted, and for topics of either type which need to be demoted for reasons other than not having enough featured content, such as notable gaps.

Of course, some topics at the nomination page will be being nominated to be featured straight off the bat, similarly to how some featured article nominations aren't of articles which are currently good articles, but are of B-class articles. So we would have both featured topic candidates and good topic candidates. sephiroth bcr recommended that the good topic candidate nominations appear in a separate section below the featured topic candidates, so that it is absolutely clear what's going on. I think this is a good suggestion.

Step four: Nomination procedure

Obviously there will be minor differences in the nomination procedure for both, though these can be noted when they occur. However, there will be large enough differences in the promotion procedure (such as announcing the promotion in different places) that this should probably be written out twice, once for each.

Step five: Topic log

Again, there should be a shared topic log, though possibly Template:Featured topic log should note how many of each type of topic has been promoted.

This gets me to an interesting point: if a topic moves from good to featured or vice versa, i.e. it moves across without a nomination, should it be noted in the log, and the Article Milestones of the individual articles? Indeed, should this be announced in various places such as Template:Announcements/New featured content, Wikipedia:Goings-on and various good article announcement places? Well I feel the answer to these questions is yes, certainly to the second question.

Step six: Templates, categories

Okay, this is the big one, and it's quite complicated. I believe it is possible to have Wikipedia work out whether a topic is good or featured. Here is how I would do it. It's going to rely on intricacies of templates and categories, so please bear with me.

Firstly, I request that you explore the existing structure, which is grounded at Category:Wikipedia featured topics. The sizes of these various categories are currently used at Wikipedia:Featured topics/count to automatically generate the counts you see lower down on that page. Now, this is going to be a bit complicated; you don't necessarily have to understand it all, just please understand it's all automatic (with a few tweaks needed to build the system in the first place), and try to understand the results.

The first thing I would do is create an overarching category, called Category:Wikipedia topics, of which Category:Wikipedia featured topics will be a subcategory. Secondly, I would create another subcategory for Category:Wikipedia topics called Category:Wikipedia topics all articles which will be much the same as Category:Wikipedia featured topics all articles, only, well, the difference is obvious. The way articles are tagged in Category:Wikipedia featured topics all articles is automatically through Template:ArticleHistory, so to simply get it to tag articles as being part of "topics" as well as "featured topics" will be simple.

The next clear step would be to create a mirrored category structure called Category:Wikipedia good topics, with fairly obvious connotations. If we wanted to, we could also create the same structure a third time at Category:Wikipedia fully featured topics (of which the existing category would quite conveniently be the main category).

Now, you think this is complicated so far? This is where it gets complicated. I am going to add a new set of layers to the existing structure. For each individual topic, I would create 3 categories: Category:Wikipedia topics ExampleTopicName, Category:Wikipedia topics ExampleTopicName good content and Category:Wikipedia topics ExampleTopicName featured content. There are currently 58 featured and former featured topics, so this would require the immediate creation of 174 categories. A lot of work, but I would be willing to do it, and after that, it would only require an editor to create 3 categories each time he or she promotes a topic, which is not too much work, and as you shall see, worth the dividends.

The latter two of these three categories will be subcategories of the former, and the former will be a subcategory of some Category:Wikipedia topics categories category which will in turn be a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia topics.

Now, Template:ArticleHistory currently takes for each article and list a parameter which tells it whether what it is dealing with is a good article, a featured article, a featured list, or none of these, and another parameter which tells it where if it what it is dealing with is in featured topics, what the names of these featured topics are. Hence, in addition to its existing functions, this template can be used to automatically put good articles into Category: WIkipedia topics ExampleTopicName good content, featured content into Category:Wikipedia topics ExampleTopicName featured content and other (audited or retention) content into Category:Wikipedia topics ExampleTopicName.

Here's the clever bit: by using the PAGESINCATEGORY and expr functions, Template:ArticleHistory can work out how many pages are in each of the three ExampleTopicName categories, and hence what number and percentage of articles are featured, and hence whether there are enough featured articles for the topic to be a good topic, a featured topic or a fully featured topic. And hence, it can categorise the article in subcategories of Category:Wikipedia featured topics all articles, Category:Wikipedia good topics all articles or Category:Wikipedia fully featured topics all articles, as appropriate. This information can then be used at Wikipedia:Featured topics/count and Wikipedia:Good topics/count to generate separate counts for the number of good, featured and retention articles and main articles of good topics and featured topics. (In fact at the moment this template already puts articles in subcategories of Category:Wikipedia featured topics all articles, I've basically just explained how it can do it for good and featured topics instead of just featured.)

At the moment, Template:Featuredtopictalk tags all pages on which it is placed in Category:Wikipedia featured topics or Category:Wikipedia fully featured topics. Getting it to put pages in the latter category is a manual process, and requires passing it an extra parameter saying "this topic is fully featured". However, similarly to above, Template:Featuredtopictalk (which I guess needs renaming) can now do exactly the same sums involving the PAGESINCATEGORY and expr functions, and hence work out automatically whether to put the topic into Category:Wikipedia good topics, Category:Wikipedia featured topics or Category:Wikipedia fully featured topics. The counts generated by the sizes of these three categories can also be used at Wikipedia:Featured topics/count and Wikipedia:Good topics/count. Template:Featuredtopictalk can also display different text and a different logo depending on whether this is a good, featured or fully featured topic it is being used by.

The third and final template that can take advantage of the PAGESINCATEGORY and expr functions is Template:Featured topic box (again, it'll need renaming), which can display a different logo in the upper right depending upon the type of topic (it already does this for fully featured topics, but like Template:Featuredtopictalk, this is through manual tagging). And maybe, in addition, it could have some header strip with text saying "Featured topic", "Good topic" or "Fully featured topic" as appropriate. Note that we could possibly create a different logo for fully featured and featured topics - as at the moment they somewhat share a logo. It depends on how far we want to distinguish the two.

Step seven: The main pages, and moving topics automatically between them

Right, so the question is, do we have one unified main page, one main page but sorted to put different tiers in different sections, or two separate main pages?

The advantage of the former is seemingly that we don't have to manually move topic box transclusions between different places whenever a topic gets promoted/demoted, which seemingly we would have to with either of the last two options. But I've worked out how to get around that. We can create a simple template that takes two parameters: a topic type (good or featured?) and a topic name. Then, using the PAGESINCATEGORY and expr functions, it can work out if the passed topic name's type matches the passed topic type. If so, it transcludes Wikipedia:Topics/Topic name, and if not it does nothing. Then we simply place this template, for every topic, on both pages/in both sections, with the topic type being given as good in the good page/section and as featured in the featured page/section, and that way, the template will transclude the topics it should, and not transclude the topics it shouldn't. And so, topics will appear to move automatically between the two sections, as the articles/lists they are made up of get promoted/demoted.

However, this brings me to a slight problem: if the process of a topic moving between good and featured, and vice versa, is automated, then how will we be able to amend the topic log, update the Article Milestones and announce automatically new featured and good topics at Template:Announcements/New featured content, Wikipedia:Goings-on and various good article announcement places? Well, the simplest and best fix I can think of is to maintain two handwritten lists somewhere: one of the good topics and one of the featured topics. There would also be a count of how many are in each list. And then we'd have the two lists sorted in the same order as the topics are sorted at Wikipedia:Featured topics and Wikipedia:Good topics. And so, each day, someone should check how many topics are in the counts, and how many are in each list, and if there's a discrepancy, they can work out if this is someone miscategorising something, or more likely which topic got promoted or demoted, and then amend the log, update the Article Milestones and bring the announcement of this to the appropriate places.

Carrying this check out once a day, and creating three categories for each new topic promoted, will be the grand total of the extra work that the good topics split would result in if all the restructuring steps given above are taken.

EDIT: Here's a better solution: As suggested by Cirt below, we could possibly set up a bot-managed Daily log of status changes, and then we'd have none of this list stuff, only the log would have to be checked daily - even easier!

Step eight: Raising the FT criteria

The reason I initially proposed good and fully featured topics was as a reaction to the prospect of the featured topic percentage criteria being raised. Current consensus seems to be that this should go up from 20% to 25%. I would at this point see this happen, but instead of putting topics which will no longer make the grade under retention, I would automatically make them good topics. This will in no way affect their prospects of regaining featured topic status, and I feel that if every time we raise the percentage a bunch of topics go under six-month retention, then it would somewhat (needlessly) cheapen the meaning of featured topics in the short term.

Conclusion

Well all of that is very complicated. But I think once it is all assembled, it will be incredibly simple, as it will all be automated, and the only extra work would be the two steps given at the end of section 7. It's just the assembly itself that's complicated; if you didn't follow it, you'll just have to trust me that it works. Please feel free to discuss each step in its appropriate section, or the general process in the general discussions section - rst20xx (talk) 15:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

I have read all of the above and after consideration I think it is an excellent way to go. (As an aside, maybe these discussion subsections should all be moved to this page's talkpage?) - Cirt (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Helpful suggestion but no, because this will ultimately be moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria/Good topics plan I think) - rst20xx (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, no worries. Cirt (talk) 22:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advantages from this process could be having some notability criteria and +3 articles minimum for FT. Nergaal (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several places where I can see that setting up straw polls might be helpful, so I'm going to go ahead and do that - rst20xx (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved discussion on renaming to section one below - rst20xx (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page should probably be linked to from WT:FTC etc. as it doesn't have that much exposure. Gary King (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, will do - rst20xx (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step one discussion

Note that the below discussion in the box has been moved by me from the general discussion section - rst20xx (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the plan, but I really don't like the name "Topics" as the overarching project. It needs some sort of adjective. --PresN (talk) 01:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with PresN. The topics are being vetted and are in a way 'featured' (though we are using the 'featured' to apply to article class, not promotion in this case.) Unfortunately there aren't many words that are good for replacing 'featured'... perhaps the name should remain the same, and only the page text should be changed to point out the difference between FT/GT? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about simply - Quality topics ? Cirt (talk) 05:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are we talking about a name for the whole thing here, or renaming the featured part? I got the impression PresN meant the former, but David Fuchs seemed to take it to mean the latter. Well anyway, for the whole thing, way back in my original proposal I suggested Unified topics, or Accredited topics - rst20xx (talk) 14:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So the potential ideas for names of the page(s) are:

Unified topics
Accredited topics
Quality topics

I like "Quality topics" it is the only term that signifies that the topics have all been given a quality rating of either "Good topic", "Featured topic", or "Fully featured topic" The other two terms simply represent that the articles in a topic are correlated to each other, but doesn't necessarily bring across the meaning that they are all of a high level of quality. Cirt (talk) 14:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accredited implies they have some kind of accreditation, whilst at the same time not suggesting anything about what level of accreditation they have. Quality further implies (to me anyway) this is a high level of accreditation. Unified implies very little. Honestly I would be happy with any of those names - rst20xx (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like "Quality Topics". --PresN (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the plan. Z gin der 2008-08-25T17:18Z (UTC)

I agree with 'Quality' as well. Even piss-poor GA is some sort of review, so it's fine to give some sense of accreditation (though it will be obvious by reading the page that what that quality is varies.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so, next question: If we are to call this "Quality topics", are we going to move all the articles to do with the process to a Wikipedia:Quality topics namespace? And further, if we get consensus here to do that, can we do that solely based on that consensus here, or do we need to seek wider consensus for such a large move? rst20xx (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that enough notice has been given and there is enough support at the Second Straw Poll at Wikipedia talk:Good topics that we can start up Wikipedia:Quality topics and move the relevant articles there and setup the process, as a preliminary step. Once the relevant articles/subpages have been setup for Wikipedia:Quality topics, should be a small matter to redirect the old WP:GTOP and WP:FT pages there. Cirt (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we should move to a new name. The word "featured" has brand recognition within Wikipedia, and moving this project to "Quality Topics" would make us lose some respectibility. I see no reason why we can't just have GTC done in a section of the existing FTC page. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that the "neutral ground" change is needed. I would like to see Featured Topics keep its status as an official part of Featured Content, and part of that official status is having nomination, criteria, and log pages with the word "featured topics" in the title. I don't see why there would be a problem with having Good Topics nominations done in a subsection of the FTC page. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment by Arctic.gnome (talk · contribs) makes sense, no objections. Cirt (talk) 17:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a move would jeopardise FTs' status as an official part of Featured Content, then I would absolutely be against it - rst20xx (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Set up a straw poll - rst20xx (talk) 19:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived straw poll. Please do not modify it.

Straw poll on renaming the pages from "Featured Topics" to "Quality Topics" or something similar

Support

Support. - I support having a subpage for Featured topics and a subpage for Good topics - and then subpages off of WP:Quality topics could be used for unified talkpages, administration, and the nomination process and keeping track of things. Cirt (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as eliminating some confusion on what definition of 'featured' we are using, and to keep everything under a unified umbrella. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 00:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose Criteria, name and everything else currently works fine, and I'm absolutely fed up of the obsession to continually modify the FT process. Also, I am strongly against a good topic process, which is an extremely poor idea. For example, if you have a topic whose articles are 80% GA, then is that a featured topic or a GA topic? Really, scrap the naff good topic proposal altogether. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per Current Consensus (as noted above), there is already significant support for a change of some sort with a lower tier like Good topics. This discussion is merely to hash out the details, not to revisit whether or not it should be done, IMO. Cirt (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'd like to see FTopics remain exactly as it is, but add WP:GTOP to hold onto passed good topics, and a new section on WP:FTC to nominate them. I don't see the need to create an umbrella organization for 2 (1.5?) processes. FT can hold onto that role. --PresN (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection this idea by PresN (talk · contribs) also sounds perfectly fine to me. Whatever the consensus turns out to be will be okay. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - PresN expresses my sentiments exactly. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I like having the nomination and criteria pages with "featured" in the name. The featured label is a respectable brand here and I wouldn't want to distance FT from it by creating a new umbrella organisation to manage our affairs. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 19:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Featured Topics" needs to stay as it is. "Good Topics" should either be a subsection of featured topics or a completely separate thing altogether. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Agree with Pres and Arctic. There is absolutely no need to change this, if you must have GAN, then have it as a subset of featured. Woody (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral - I'd probably do it, unless it would jeopardise FTs' status as an official part of Featured Content, but don't mind either way - rst20xx (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quality does not sound too "professional". I would suggest something more academic like "assesed" - only less awkward than assessed. Nergaal (talk) 05:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's been a week, so I'm archiving the straw poll. Consensus is to keep everything at the Featured topics space, except the Good topics main page (see below) - rst20xx (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step two discussion

I agree. The criteria can be merged with a note explaining the numerical difference in #3. If a rule relating to the definition of gaps or layout needs to change, it will almost definitely need to be changed in both projects. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Arctic.gnome (talk · contribs) - so long as the criteria differences are made clear. Cirt (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the merging of the criteria. If criterion #3 adequately differentiates between GTs and FTs, then there's no problem. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step three discussion

I agree that nomination pages should be merged, though it's probably a good idea to put the GT and FT candidates in different sections of that page. We would definitely want to be able to move topics between GT and FT without a new nomination, so any automated process would be good. I'm worried about My big worry about the nomination page is that we would have editors who are use to the one-man promotions of GA trying to promote GTs without properly analysing the consensus of the debate. With the increased size of the project, it would be helpful to have a bit more control over the closing of debates and promotions, though I can't think of a good way to do so without resorting to something as crass and un-wikipedian as project directors. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Arctic.gnome (talk · contribs), automation is a good thing in this case, and can be done probably as explained below through some sort of Daily status log updated by a bot. Project directors may be something we hesitate towards moving to - however it is used by other processes on this project including WP:FAC, WP:TFA/R, and WP:FPORTC, to name a few. Cirt (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we need to spell out somewhere in the criteria that "even good topics need to go through a candidacy on the FTC page" - rst20xx (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step four discussion

We might as well seperate the instructions, it might make it easier for new editors to understand the GT process. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Arctic.gnome (talk · contribs), separate instructions is probably the best way to go here. Cirt (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Separate on one page, or separate on two? The only problem with separating them is I feel that editors are more likely to try to make them diverge if they're separate, and apart from the already different part I cannot at the moment see any reason why they would differ - rst20xx (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC) Oh sorry, you're talking about the instructions, not the criteria! rst20xx (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I came to making the changes, I found the two were so similar that I left them together. If you disagree, please say so, or go ahead and split them yourself - rst20xx (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step five discussion

This might be something that a Daily log of status changes would be helpful with, if it could be integrated somehow. Might also be able to use that model to have a Listing of topics by quality - as well as a Statistics box. (Wikilinked examples are pages that could be used as models.) Cirt (talk) 23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure we'd need the last two, because they're either gonna be FT or GT, simple as that, but the former is an excellent idea that will mean even the last manned step is easier, and I'm left wondering why I didn't think of that myself - rst20xx (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my main point was really with that first link. Cirt (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted it in step seven - rst20xx (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Cirt (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step six discussion

I'd like to start rolling out the category changes, which will be exactly as described above. They won't affect any front-end stuff, just behind the scenes stuff, but they're the most time-consuming part of the implementation. Does anyone have any objections to my doing this? rst20xx (talk) 00:25, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objections, sounds good. Cirt (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time to get this show on the road, eh? --PresN (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a slight rejigging to the plan, to make it simpler, and more natural with the result of the step one poll. I would now make Category:Wikipedia good topics all articles a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia featured topics, and then Category:Wikipedia topics all articles (as described above) = Category:Wikipedia featured topics all articles + Category:Wikipedia good topics all articles. Similarly, Category:Wikipedia (featured?) topics categories would be a subcat of Category:Wikipedia featured topics. Any objections? rst20xx (talk) 19:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step seven discussion

(Just throwing an idea around) Why not display all Good and Featured Topics together and just differentiate them with , , and possibly a third (mixed) one? The current WP:FT displays all Featured and Fully Featured Topics together, and it works just fine (not to mention that it's obvious what Kind of Topic a topic is when all its article components are listed with their quality icons). – sgeureka ^t•c 07:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A very interesting idea, would take a lot of work out of the updating process. That is, if there is consensus for such a thing. Cirt (talk) 13:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That was my original proposal actually Sgeureka, back at the very start, and it is a question I've left up there at the top of step seven. However, in the rest of step seven I then attempted to go on to outline how 2 pages would not in fact affect the workload at all when compared to one page, so any decision here needs to be based on aesthetic reasons as opposed to workload ones - rst20xx (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I like this idea. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:34, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to see them all on the same page. --PresN (talk) 16:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way is fine by me. However I think in either case we should still do the automatically updated Daily log as mentioned in Step five discussion. Cirt (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with that, so the all GA topics will have the GA cluster symbol, all FA's have the FA star cluster, and we can talk out what to do with the ones that have both, either give them the GA cluster symbol, or no symbol, or a new one. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not a matter of "all GA topics" or "all FA topics", but rather "Good topics", "Featured topics", and "Fully Featured topics". For example currently at WP:FT's main page there are many topics which display the symbol but still contain GAs. Cirt (talk) 18:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about the big symbol is FA star, and then for small symbols, use 2 GA and 2 FA? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I like the current setup at WP:FT, where the symbol in the upper right corner indicates that every article in the topic is featured if possible. Cirt (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Ohana's suggesting. So to reiterate, what we'd have is this (and again, this was actually what I was originally thinking, funnily enough):

Good Topics have in the upper right
Fully featured topics inherit the existing featured topic symbol, and have in the upper right
Featured topics (as in ones with good articles) get a new symbol, which is a cross between the two existing symbols, in that the cluster of four is made up of 2 GA symbols and 2 FA symbols (while the big symbol is still an FA symbol)

Sound good? Now, to bring up another thing, people are saying they want them all on one page. I assume this is fully integrated, that people want? As opposed to say, having all the FTs on that page, and then beneath them, all the GTs? rst20xx (talk) 00:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be confusing because Good topics will also naturally be a mix of some WP:FAs in with the WP:GAs, just not enough to be WP:FTs. Cirt (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple problems with the proposal to list GTs and FTs on the same page. My first concern is how so many topic boxes will effect load time, but I guess cutting the pack in half is only a bandage solution anyway. My second concern is that the respectability of the project would be sullied if GTs and FTs were mixed together. When FT was nominated for deletion, several people wanted us to lose the word "featured", and I would really like to keep this project at a level were we can still justify using that respectible term. If we were to show GTs and FTs on the same page, I would want them to be very distinctly separated. If the only distinction between GTs and FT was in the logo, that logo would have to be much more conspicuous than it is now. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 18:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I could go either way on this, and would support either having the GT/FT boxes on the same page or on separate pages - but we should pick one way and go with it. Cirt (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Set up a straw poll - rst20xx (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived straw poll. Please do not modify it.

Straw poll on separating the GT and FT main pages

Have them mixed together on one page

Have them together on one page but in separate sections

Have two separate front pages: WP:GTOP and WP:FT

Support. Cirt (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support no need to penalize featured content by merging it with lesser-quality content. Nergaal (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - in retrospect, this way would be less confusing. --PresN (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - less confusing, makes the whole process easier. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I think that separate front pages would both give recognition to GTs and encourage users to keep working on them to get FT. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rreagan007 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree with Nergaal and Arctic Gnome. Woody (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral - rst20xx (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the most pressing issue is the log of status changes, and to that end, I have made a feature request for WP v1.0 bot here - rst20xx (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's been a week, so I'm archiving the straw poll. Consensus is to have two separate main pages - rst20xx (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Step eight discussion

Does the lack of comments mean that everyone supports putting the 20-24.99999998% featured topics down to good topics, instead of putting them under retention? rst20xx (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. --PresN (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. - Cirt (talk) 16:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes~~ Right-o. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Affirmative. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the contributors of those affected topics should be informed of what's going on. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just the Simpsons topics, and they have been kept informed all along - rst20xx (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no worries. :P -- Some folks are even anticipating it. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut (WP:GTOP and WP:GT)

It seems like there will be two pages, for Featured Topics and Good Topics. The shortcut of WP:GT (an ideal sister to WP:FT) is already assigned to Wikipedia:Search engine test ("Google Test"). However, only ~90 wiki pages use that shortcut. If we go ahead with separate Good Topics, I propose to reassign that shortcut and fix the 90 old shortcut links. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Cirt (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also agreed - rst20xx (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. Rreagan007 (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it. --PresN (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation Progress

I've made a start. I'm doing the groundwork with the categories so far. Arctic Gnome and I worked out the last step of the puzzle, for the curious, see here. Anyway, I'll keep you all posted on progress - rst20xx (talk) 00:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've done the categories and depopulated WP:GT (i.e. done all the AWB bits!) Now I need to start sandboxing the changes to Template:ArticleHistory - rst20xx (talk) 01:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've finished with the template, and now asked for it to be swapped for the protected version. That took 2 hours! It's 5 am, bedtime methinks! rst20xx (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for the template to be rolled out... rst20xx (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, I've written the magic transclusion template, Template:TopicTransclude. To reiterate, it takes two parameters, one of which is FT and GT, and the other of which is a topic name, and then it transcludes iff the topic is of the type of the first parameter - rst20xx (talk) 15:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've now brought Wikipedia:Good topics up to date. At this point, I feel I've done all I can without disrupting the Featured topics pages, i.e. without Template:ArticleHistory being updated - rst20xx (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We now have two things listed as good topics - one and two :) I'll finish off the implementing tomorrow! rst20xx (talk) 03:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of things are showing up in categories where they shouldn't be at the moment, I suspect this is the fault of the job queue. Link for self ease of access: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Featured topics articles by quality - rst20xx (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, one small thing: if you look here, you'll see I ran into a problem regarding line breaks and the invisible transclusions. To work around this, I say we remove line breaks between topics that are invisibly transcluded (but not visibly transcluded) - doing so results in the much better this. It reduces readability of the code behind the scenes slightly, but it doesn't actually effect anything in a negative way as Template:Featured topic box has a clear-all break at the bottom, so if a topic does drop down to good/move up to featured, i.e. goes from being invisibly to visibly transcluded, the topic will still appear on its own line. I've removed line breaks from both WP:GTOP [1] and WP:FT [2] now - rst20xx (talk) 17:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done!

Okay, that's it! I think I'm largely done! The last bit I need to do is wait for various categories to fill up/empty out, so I can generate the new stats that will appear at Wikipedia:Featured topics/count. But apart from that, everything's done! rst20xx (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ookay, I've now done all the little fiddly bits that I can find, too! The whole thing is now completely open for business! rst20xx (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the Good Topics Implementation

Please address any questions you have about how exactly good topics are implemented here - rst20xx (talk) 02:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]