This page is an
archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
current talk page.
Well that doesn't really explain why we don't have any delegates. Can't it be easier if someone becomes a delegate for this FC?
GamerPro64 (
talk)
01:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
I am in for having directors, and Wiz would be fine. I remember last year having some ~4 months old noms because Rst left and nobody would really put the shoes on.
Nergaal (
talk)
03:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Template for quick nominations
I have created a set of templates ({{FTCnom}}, {{FTCnom/intro}}, {{FTCnom/init}} mimicked after the FPC ones, which should simplify the process for creating nominations. There is a link now on the submission page that uses these templates. Feel free to fix any bugs that you might encounter.
Nergaal (
talk)
22:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
New feature topics do not have the links to edit and discuss the topics in their featured boxes. I find these links are useful when maintaining the topics, specifically reverting vandalism in them. Can these links be added to the templates?
Zginder 2011-01-12T03:13Z (
UTC)
I am not sure what you mean. Once a topic is actually created (not just nominated) an edit button appears automatically. Only new noms don't get this feature.
Nergaal (
talk)
07:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
More specifically, Nehrim is using Oblivion as an engine, but is not related to the game in any other way- it's not by Bethesda, it's not set in the same world, it doesn't use the same characters or concepts, etc. It's basically a game using unlicensed copy of Gamebryo, that requires Oblivion to run due to that nature- if they gave Bethesda money it could magically stop needing Oblivion, which means it's not really in the same topic. --PresN23:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
BTW, a new bot has been coded to keep track of the quality of the articles within a book: NoomBot. NoomBot looks at the articles found within a book, and then produces a talk page report detailing the assessment ratings of each articles found in the book. It also estimates a rough "average rating" for the book, and reports cleanup tags (such as {{citation needed}}, {{dubious}}, {{inappropriate tone}}, ...) found in each articles. For users familiar with the defunct
WolterBot and its
cleanup listings, it is very similar to that, except it works on books rather than on all the articles of a WikiProject.
Since examples speak for themselves, here's a report for a small book containing eight articles. On the left is
Book:13th Floor Elevators, a book about an American rock band from Austin, Texas; on the right is the book report from NoomBot. The first column lists the articles of the book, the second their assessment ratings, the third lists cleanup issues and non-free media, and the final column gives a link to various cleanup and feedback tools.
I believe these reports will be very useful to the FT/GT discussions, so I've added links to book reports in the FT/GT template. New books usually have reports generated within the day, and updated ever 4-5 days or so. Headbomb {
talk /
contribs /
physics /
books}12:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted you. While I find them useful, you've basically just added a link to the books talk page, right next to the link to the book. That seems excessive, and not something you should have added unilaterally. --PresN17:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
User:Wizardman seems to have retired, which leaves us a bit of a dilemma, as (correct me if I'm wrong) he took responsibility for closing FTC discussions. I'm happy to start closing FTCs and GTCs, but I'd much prefer if someone else stepped up. It might be wise to have two or more closers so that situations like this become easier to deal with. Thoughts?
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs)
09:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I talked to Wizardman yesterday privately. He'll be back he said in a couple months, its just mainly a disguised Wikibreak. For now he just wants someone to stand in. Mitch32(
20 Years of Life:Wikipedia 5:33)14:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Sorry everyone. I forgot to mention that I would be filling in for Wizard until he gets back. I'll close some reviews tonight.
GamerPro64 (
talk)
18:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
As noted, I'm gone and not sure when/if I'll be back yet. If I do I'll of course dive right back into this, since the backlog is pretty bad. Until then, I know GamerPro and Sturm have closed some before so they shouldn't have any trouble.
WizardmanOperation Big Bear03:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
D'oh, I just noticed that he hasn't edited with any regularity in nearly a year. I do definitely agree that it makes a lot of sense to botify this process, though. Anyone know any other bot maintainers to do this? I'd do it myself, but I don't want to have to maintain a bot if it can simply be merged into an existing bot. Gary King(
talk ·
scripts)17:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Now I may sound like a broken record for saying this, but Featured topics may need a director or delegates. I am thinking on being one of the two and I would like to know if anyone else supports the idea.
GamerPro64 (
talk)
16:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Zginder, you act like there's a line of people waiting for the opportunity to close one. If the couple that close them now were to disappear I guarantee we would return in a month and everything would still be open.
WizardmanOperation Big Bear22:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
No, there is not a line, but if we make it an official position, no one else will ever do one. If they were to disappear for a year we would have to appoint more people. I think my main point is why does this need to be official?
Featured Sounds has four directors and all of them are away.
[1].
Zginder 2011-04-28T23:22Z (
UTC)
<--Featured topics is a lot more active than featured sounds though. By having a delegate, we have a go-to person in case of problems, which I think is invaluable, more so than having active talk pages. It's just for convenience, I agree. --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
23:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I also support having directors. David, I don't know about the others, but La Pianista practices a song (who knows how long that takes...) and then records herself playing it on piano. I think FS is a nice reward for all that work, don't you?
Ed[talk][majestic titan]19:23, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'll take a look at this tomorrow. I think I just have to cut the number and the template from that talk page. Having said that, the merge of that one makes me wonder if any of the others might be merged too, and if so we could have some problems.
WizardmanOperation Big Bear03:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There is talk that the Canada one might be merged (little on-wiki, more so in idle chatter questioning the need for a separate Canadian article). --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
03:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Should that happen, I'll probably ask for a supplemental nom, since it'll be moving from a GT to an FT and I want to make sure no one has a problem there.
WizardmanOperation Big Bear01:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
A question about a topic
I have a 62-article topic that I'm just about finished with (the last article is awaiting a GA review) - I know some people are opposed to larger topics, so I wondered what people's thoughts are. There are two options, either the full topic:
Given that all of the sub-topics already exist, I would prefer the shortened one. I think it works a lot better, organizationally speaking. --♫
Hurricanehink (
talk)
15:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Either one is fine by me, although we had an extensive discussion about using subtopics when I submitted my British battlecruiser topic that might be worth looking at.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
22:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so it looks like we'll do the subtopic version. The final article has passed GA now, so the topic is ready. Should I file the Bismarck class subtopic (see forex
here) separately so it can be included as a sub-topic? And should the {{GTC}} box go on every article talk page or just the ship class articles (which represent the subtopics)?
Parsecboy (
talk)
01:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh well, the full version looks so grand, beautiful and inspiring. Why can't we go for it, just for the heck of it! To what extent does the shortened version help up things? If not a mighty lot, I would love to see the big version up there in FTC and finally FT page. -
DSachan (
talk)
01:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Right, and I think you might be having this big picture of the full version in your eyes ever since you started working on it, and it might have partly fueled your efforts for a clean finish. Apart from all that, it looks much neater to me than the short version. Hurricanehink and Adabow, could you please both present your views about why you think the other version works a 'lot' better. When Sturm submitted his Royal Navy battlecruisers, most people except Woody left it to the choice of the nominator. Woody objected the full version on the basis of the very large scope of OMT phase I and how the full OMT would end up appearing on FTC, once it is nominated. Full OMT can be thought of as an appropriate candidate for the consideration of subtopics (maybe countrywise), but that doesn't mean every topic has to be recursively dissected right upto the two article topics. Parsec, I suggest you be bold, and nominate the full version. -
DSachan (
talk)
03:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe the second option is better, not because of the number of articles, but it is more logically ordered. The first topic "level" is classes, which is then subdivided into the ships in that class. For me it presents the information more clearly.
Adabow (
talk ·
contribs)
04:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
As far as the logical orderliness is concerned, the first version, IMHO, is as much, if not more, logical as the second version. The purpose that subtopics serve in the second version is served by the proper indentation in the first. Apart from that, the first version is better revealing and more appealing than the second, as in, once I am in the subtopic page, I have to hit twice, first to come out from that page and then go to other subtopic page, just to figure out let's say what and how many ships are in the other class, which is not the case in the full version. -
DSachan (
talk)
05:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
/archive1 is correct, since this is a new topic. I fixed the talk page of the main article, but it looks like you still need to add {{FTC|National treasures of Japan|1}} to the talk pages of all articles in the topic.
Ucucha (
talk)
22:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I added {{FTC|National Treasures of Japan|1}} to the talk pages of all articles (except for the lead article). Is there anything else I need to do for the nomination?
bamse (
talk)
23:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't tackle it immediately, but I have to take a carefully look at its notability; I know there's a review, but that doesn't necessarily mean much. --
MASEM (
t)
19:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
All of these ships initially served with the Royal Navy and the survivors were later transferred to the Canadian Navy (HMCS). All of the Canadian ship articles have been merged with the RN articles and are now just redirects. My question is if I should directly show all the redirects as if they were separate articles, or if I should delete them as they're just redirects? This will be the first of what will likely be a series of RN interwar destroyer topics. I have a similar issue with a planned topic on Soviet straight-wing jet fighters, so your thoughts and comments are welcome.--
Sturmvogel 66 (
talk)
01:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I was browsing through the FTs when I noticed that
Wikipedia:Featured topics/National Hockey League awards had a peer review icon for one of its items,
Mark Messier Leadership Award. Looking at the history of that article, it looks like that article was never a GA, FA, or FL. It became part of a Featured Topic anyways, and is currently rated "B". The peer review was in 2008, and there was an FT removal petition that was closed with the topic being kept, back in Feb. 2009.
The only other FT I noticed with the peer review icon was on
Journey (2012 video game), for the Thatgamecompany FT. I suppose that one makes more sense though, as that game hasn't been released yet.
See
featured topic criterion 3c: "(c) Items that are ineligible for featured article, featured list or good article status, either due to their limited subject matter (in the case of lists only) or due to inherent instability (in the case of either articles or lists), must have passed an individual quality audit that included a completed peer review, with all important problems fixed. Such items do not count towards criteria 1.a., 3.a.ii., or 3.b.i."
Ucucha (
talk)
12:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
I did see that, and that's why Journey didn't bother me, but I can't see any reason why Mark Messier Leadership Award couldn't be promoted to FL. It's not unstable, and has as much subject matter as many of the other smaller awards.
Sven ManguardWha?02:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Apparently there is (was?) some informal rule (
WT:FL?#Quick-fix proposal) that lists with less than 10 items don't need to go through FLC for a GT/FT. Whether that list will actually pass FLC or not, I have no idea.
Ucucha (
talk)
03:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
Other way around, I think- there was (still is, I think) an informal rule that a <10 item list could not pass FLC, and therefore was permanently stuck as a List-class article, and therefore was marked as an ineligible article here. We might want to ask FLC if that informal rule is still in effect.
Note that there's also an "ineligible" video game article in the GTs - Rewrite, which got released in June so the topic might be past it's retention period now. There used to be a few more, but they were unreleased video games that either got released or the topic grew too fast and overwhelmed the editors involved. --PresN07:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
I'll promote it once I get to it; my goal is to promote everything from September this week, starting with the one remaining from August tonight. October's consistently the busiest month here and it's the one that I usually struggle to keep up on.
WizardmanOperation Big Bear20:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm not an admin and I'm a delegate. We may need anyone if me and Wizardman aren't available. How active are you?
GamerPro6418:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on a few articles, and log on every day. I also have a GT nomination listed at the moment that's how I picked up on this thread. If that makes a difference, more than happy to do what I can when that's closed.
Jim Sweeney (
talk)
18:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
OK I will watch what happens when an article is promoted or not so I know the procedure is. I presume a nomination needs X number of supports and no opposes and all comments addressed. What is the minimum time to list an article, above it suggests two weeks
Jim Sweeney (
talk)
17:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
There's a guide on how to promote
here that sums up everything. As for the number, multiple supports and no opposes is good for promotion, multiple opposes is a fail, and one is usually a case-by-case basis, since other supports may be able to prove the opposition false. Those I usually just wait for further comment on. They should wait a minimum of two weeks so that any issues are found with any articles.
WizardmanOperation Big Bear16:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm just dropping a note to let you all know that the 2012 WikiCup will be beginning tomorrow. The WikiCup is a fun competition open to anyone which awards the production of quality audited content on Wikipedia; points are awarded for working on featured content, good articles and topics, did you know and in the news, as well as for performing good article reviews.
Signups are still open, and will remain open until February; if you're interested in participating, please sign up. Over 70 Wikipedians have already signed up to participate in 2012's competition, while last year's saw over double that number taking part. If you're interested in following the WikiCup, but not participating, feel free to sign up at
Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send to receive our monthly newsletters. If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page, or ask away at
Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, where a judge, competitor or watcher will be able to help you. Thanks!
J Milburn (
talk)
00:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)