Featured and Good topics in Wikipedia A featured topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles).A good topic is a collection of inter-related articles that are of a good quality (though are not necessarily featured articles) with a less stringent quality threshold than a featured topic. This page is for the nomination of potential featured and good topics. See the good and featured topic criteria for criteria on both types of topic. If you would like to ask any questions about your topic and the featured topic process before submitting it, visit Wikipedia talk:Featured topic candidates. Before nominating a topic, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Featured topic questions. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the FTC/GTC process. If you nominate something you have worked on, note it as a self-nomination. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the articles of the topic should consult regular editors of the articles prior to nomination. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make an effort to address objections promptly. The delegates—GamerPro64 and Juhachi—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FT or GT status, consensus must be reached for a group to be promoted to featured or good topic status. If enough time passes without objections being resolved, nominations will be removed from the candidates topic and archived. You may want to check previous archived nominations first: |
Good content: Good and featured topic tools: |
Nomination procedureTo create a new nomination use the form below (e.g., Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Saffron/archive1) and click the "Create new nomination" button. Once the nomination page is created, remember to transclude it in the appropriate section below, to leave nomination templates on the talk pages of the articles nominated for the topic, and to create appropriate books (see Book:Jupiter for a good example). For detailed instructions on how to nominate topics or add articles to existing topics, see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure. Supporting and objectingPlease review all the articles of the nominated topic with the featured topic criteria in mind before deciding to support or oppose a nomination. Following the creation of the book, NoomBot will create a book report (see example) containing details about cleanup issues (only those that have been flagged with cleanup templates, so it may not pick up everything), and various tools to inspect external links or resolve disambiguation pages. It can be a good idea to check the report and inspect links to see if certain articles need some cleanup (doing this before the nomination is even better).
For a topic to be promoted to featured topic status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. If enough time passes without objections being resolved (at least one week), nominations will be removed from the candidates list and archived. Nominations will stay here for ten days if there is unanimous consent, or longer if warranted by debate. |
Contents
Featured topic nominations
Scheduled monuments in Somerset
8 articles
Scheduled monuments in Somerset |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
-
- Contributor(s): Rodw
A comprehensive set of articles relating to scheduled monuments in the English county of Somerset. All of the lists are Featured Lists and the lead article is GA. --— Rod talk 07:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Interstate 96 (1st supplementary nomination)
This topic is already featured. It is being re-nominated to add additional items. See Wikipedia talk:Featured topics/Interstate 96 for discussions of the topic's previous nominations. The additional items are:
Interstate 96 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
The business routes' content was expanded a bit, and that warranted splitting it out of the parent article. The new article was just promoted to GA status. Imzadi 1979 → 04:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Still meets FT criteria with addition of business route article. Dough4872 13:11, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
- Support as the criteria are still met. --Rschen7754 16:22, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Good topic nominations
2002–03 Arsenal F.C. season
3 articles
2002–03 Arsenal F.C. season |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Nominating this topic as it is a complete topic that has not previously been nominated. Any feedback is greatly appreciated. Credit should go to Lemonade51 who did the hard graft. Im merely ensuring his work is recognised! Cheers. NapHit (talk) 19:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
- Considering they finished 2nd, I think 2002–03 FA Premier League would also have to be included. Nergaal (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Asher Vollmer
3 articles
Asher Vollmer |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
This is a good topic nomination for the indie video game developer Asher Vollmer and his games. The two subarticles are his games that have garnered enough reliable, secondary source attention to warrant their own articles. It's a small topic, but I believe it meets the criteria, and will continue to expand as he makes more games over his lifetime. – czar 15:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- Support - good and complete. --PresN 16:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
- I am a bit skeptical of creating topics around people who just got kinda notable for 2 games. I propose having him instead be featured in the topic listed below here. Nergaal (talk) 03:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
-
- But there's no such thing as "kinda notable"—he and his games are the subject of significant, independent coverage. For now, the topic is complete. – czar 23:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
English Heritage sites in Somerset
13 articles
List of English Heritage properties in Somerset |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
The List of English Heritage properties in Somerset is an FL which lists all 12 sites that English Heritage manage within the county. Each of the articles about the sites is now a Good Article, therefore I think this meets the requirements for a Good Topic. If a brief description is needed part of the lead from the list could be included, but I am unclear where to put this.— Rod talk 18:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support - great job! You can just add the introductory paragraph to this page- stick <noinclude>Intro</noinclude> above the topic box on this nomination page, and the closer will put in on the actual topic page when they promote it. --PresN 19:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hrabri-class submarines
3 articles
Hrabri-class submarines |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
-
- Contributor(s): Peacemaker67
All three articles are GA, and fall within a clearly defined scope of a single class of submarines. The three articles are linked, and have a common template. There were only two submarines of this class, so there are no gaps in coverage. --Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support The articles look good, and they're all GAs. Well done.--ɱ (talk · vbm) 03:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
- Support Complete topic. Adabow (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Topic removal candidates
Minas Geraes-class battleships
The following two topics are 100% included into an overview topic, therefore I don't see the point of having the additional rather obscure mini-topics:
3 articles
Rivadavia-class battleship |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
3 articles
Minas Geraes-class battleship |
||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
The overview topic is:
South American dreadnought race | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
As a further argument, the "Almirante Latorre-class battleship" does not exist. Nergaal (talk) 05:07, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Closed with consensus to demote the "Rivadavia" and "Minas Geraes" topics. GamerPro64 15:19, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - why was I not notified about this? You can't conduct a discussion without notifying the primary contributor. That's a bit bonkers. I would have pointed out that there was earlier consensus to do it this way. I'll get the links later today. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:33, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- @GamerPro64: here, where consensus held against Nergaal's view. This is why primary contributors should always be notified. Can this be re-opened and re-examined? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- So sorry about this, Ed. I reopened the nomination. Pinging @Nergaal, PresN, and Igordebraga: on this. GamerPro64 18:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- You're fine, Gamer. Thank you for re-opening it. I'll ping Milhist, Ships, and the other primary contributor this affects. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- So sorry about this, Ed. I reopened the nomination. Pinging @Nergaal, PresN, and Igordebraga: on this. GamerPro64 18:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- @GamerPro64: here, where consensus held against Nergaal's view. This is why primary contributors should always be notified. Can this be re-opened and re-examined? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Relevant discussion: Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/South American dreadnought race/archive1. In the past 3 years the view has changed quite a bit. Ed, you should be very well aware of the super-topics that have been created under the mil-hist umbrella which in essence are quite similar to this issue here. Just take a look at Wikipedia:Former_featured_topics#Former_topics_that_have_been_merged_into_other_topics and you will see that 95% of the cases there are ship MINI-topics that have been superseeded by broader topics. The actual reason I proposed this nom was when I saw the numbers at Wikipedia:Featured topics/Main Page appearances. If you check them you will see that the Rivada views are quite below the broader topic. Other than for bragging rights I am not sure what would be the point of keeping topics separate, especially when the Latorre ships don't have their own separate topic. Also, if you read at Wikipedia:Featured_topic_criteria you will see a recommendation established a very long time ago: "The topic does not overly overlap with a current good or featured topic." I am not sure how 100% does not fall under the "overly" quantifier. Nergaal (talk) 19:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Also Ed, feel free to create an introductory paragraph for the Dreadnought race topic such that when it will be linked again on the main page like it was at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 27, 2014 and Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 17, 2015 the readers can understand what is the lone template supposed to depict. Nergaal (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
- Delist - yeah, better just leave the bigger one. (I don't even need to keep the link to FFT given the rationale is fully detailed up there) 02:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep as is From where I sit, these three all cover different aspects, therefore they should be treated separately, not merged. Keeping them as they are would be in the best interest of everyone involved. Also, this serves as a preemptive measure since I am sure that if this is delisted sooner or later someone will renominate them figuring that they are different enough that they should be there own FT. By keeping them now we can negate having to do the Texas Two Step later. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:45, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep This is an ill-informed nomination. A class of warships is a distinct thing, and so its a suitable topic for a stand-alone FT. The naval race was another thing again, and also justifies a FT. It's not like having multiple FTs is a bad thing. Nick-D (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep, basically per Nick-D. Also, there are no quality issues raised with any of the articles involved, so therefore there is no reason to delist a FT. If a FA that was part of a FT were to be delisted, then wouldn't that have the effect of delisting the FT at the same time? Mjroots (talk) 09:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep - the point of keeping these subtopics is so that when the end project is complete, they can be included without adding additional articles to what will be a large topic. And the comparison to the former GTs isn't exactly apt, since those are primarily topics that have since been rolled into national topics (which will be the building blocks for the final FT) - there aren't national topics these two can be rolled into. Parsecboy (talk) 13:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@TomStar81, Mjroots, and Parsecboy: Yo fan boys, can you actually cite policies for your views instead of turning this nomination into a popularity contest? Have any of you even glanced at wp:FT? ?. It looks like none of you even bothered to read the paragraph I wrote. I don't think this project is going to heat in any positive direction if one of the larger wikiprojects will decide to change consensus with complete disregard to existing policies with a call to arms on their talkpage whenever somebody feels insecure. Nergaal (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- Let's start with WP:NPA. Are we clear?
- As to your substantial comments, the fact that we disagree does not mean I have not read your comments. If anything, it seems you have not read what I wrote, which substantially refuted your argument (in other words, there is a reason to keep the topics separate - this was addressed here, for instance). Oh, and I don't see anyone from either side of the discussion citing policies either. Parsecboy (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Parsecboy:@Nick-D: Having a current topic because of some possible issues with a future topic (that may or may not get to be nominated in the next 5 years) is (should) not be relevant here. Those issues should be addressed WHEN that nomination is brought up not before. EVEN THEN I see little weight for your point since you can still have a major topic where say all the 10+ entires subtopics are actual subtopics, and the smaller ones (Turkey and below) would not get separate subtopics and instead would be fully present in the broader topic. EVEN if this were not enough, your point does not stand when you see that NOBODY bothered to nominate "Almirante Latorre-class battleship" as a separate subtopic (by your rationale that topic would have to be separated also). EVEN if linking only 10+ topics is not accepted in that nomination, you could STILL link a continental subtopic instead of 3 national ones (I see no reason why South American dreadnought race would not be equivalent/on par to say Austria-Hungary). As for policy: "The topic does not overly overlap with a current good or featured topic." Nergaal (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Also. Wikipedia:Consensus#Level_of_consensus. Nergaal (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have now read WP:FT, and it seems that my comments were generally correct. If an article is demoted, then there is a period of time allowed to bring it back up to scratch before the topic is also demoted. The fact stands that all articles in the topics are FAs, so I see no reason why the topic should be delisted. Mjroots (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
-
- @Nergaal: - I've said all I'm going to say on the actual proposal. Your continued arguing with those who do not share your opinion smells strongly of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, a feature which also infests some AfD discussions. I suggest that you allow editors to state their opinions, and an independent admin close the discussion in the fullness of time. Mjroots (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- At Wikipedia:Featured_topic_criteria#Recommendations there is a bullet point stating "The topic does not overly overlap with a current good or featured topic.". The only reason this has not been made into FT? #4 is because there is a vague definition as to what constitutes "overly". I am pretty sure wherever you want to draw the line at, 100% does fall on the overly side. Nergaal (talk) 18:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- Those recommendations are just that: recommendations. As for me, I draw the line at IAR, and since I perceive that the recommendations and rules as you are interpreting them prevent us from improving the encyclopedia, I am choosing to ignore them for the betterment of the project as a whole. There is no harm in co-existence, so that is the path I choose to follow here. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am assuming you are aware of FL? #3b. Do you see any parallels between this recommendation and FL?#3b ? With the negligible number of users providing any significant input the wp:FT project will die before any consistent discussion will happen about this recommendation becoming an actual rule. Nergaal (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Can we drop the Almirante Latorre class point? Just because I was stupid enough to forget to nominate the class doesn't mean that it should disqualify the worthy arguments above. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- I am assuming you are aware of FL? #3b. Do you see any parallels between this recommendation and FL?#3b ? With the negligible number of users providing any significant input the wp:FT project will die before any consistent discussion will happen about this recommendation becoming an actual rule. Nergaal (talk) 01:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Those recommendations are just that: recommendations. As for me, I draw the line at IAR, and since I perceive that the recommendations and rules as you are interpreting them prevent us from improving the encyclopedia, I am choosing to ignore them for the betterment of the project as a whole. There is no harm in co-existence, so that is the path I choose to follow here. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
-
- I have now read WP:FT, and it seems that my comments were generally correct. If an article is demoted, then there is a period of time allowed to bring it back up to scratch before the topic is also demoted. The fact stands that all articles in the topics are FAs, so I see no reason why the topic should be delisted. Mjroots (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
If it wasn't already clear, I oppose separating these topics. They're different nationalities and therefore have an explicit purpose until the WP:Featured topics/Battleships of the world (or WP:Featured topics/Dreadnoughts of the world?) topic is nominated. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep. Disclaimer: I was a co-nom on one of these articles. (OTOH, I've never associated myself with this featured topic, and my argument concerns all FTs, not just this one.) We can't consult a reliable source on what a "Featured Topic" is supposed to be; it's determined entirely by convention and practice on Wikipedia, and for many years, all the articles in a non-trivial ship class (along with the parent article) have constituted a featured topic. That's really the only argument that counts here; various recent and inconsistent notions of what featured topics should or shouldn't don't trump established practice. For better or worse, that's how Wikipedia works. - Dank (push to talk) 15:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Alternate idea: Why not keep the dreadnought race topic, but pull out all the overlapping articles? I.e. have the two battleship-class articles, plus create one for Almirante Latorre, and make the dreadnought race topic look like this:
South American dreadnought race | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
|
Cuts out the 100% overlap, without losing any articles. --PresN 22:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)