Wikipedia talk:Featured topics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archives |
Contents |
[edit] FYI, new list of users
- Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured topic nominations, modeled after Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations and Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured portal nominations. Cheers, Cirt 19:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC).
[edit] FYI, new userbox
In addition to {{User Featured Topic}}, which only allows a user to specify a specific topic, here is {{User Featured topics}}, which simply states the number of topics an editor helped promote to WP:FT. Cirt (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Question about scope
Would this be an appropriate place to canvass opinions on whether a bunch of articles is applicable in scope (note: not quality) for a featured topic? Daniel 11:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- Now it isn't, but it should be. I'll look into getting some more links to here and checking it more often. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 02:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] move to portal namespace
See Portal talk:Featured content#move to portal namespace. —Ruud 12:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Organizing the topics
Seeing that it's been a few months, and that Featured Sounds has its sounds divided with half of the number of Featured topics, what about organizing the topics into sub-sections? --Hurricanehink (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- I said I'd do it when we got to 25, and now we have (though four of them will soon be up for FTRC). I've divided it into entertainment, science, and social studies. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 06:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Can portals be a topic
If, say, all six of the Australian states' portals were featured, and the main one already is, can that qualify as a featured topic? Or do they have to be articles and lists? Daniel 09:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- As impressive as a full series of featured portals is, I think that featured topics is for encyclopedia content (as opposed to navigational tools). --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 12:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New criteria and FTRC
After we last changed the criteria for featured topics, we said that old topics would be grandfathered in until 2008. Now that the new year has arrived, some topics are up for FTRC, but there has been some controversy. Regular contributers may want to weigh in on the debates. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
They can also give their two cents. The more the marrier. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 04:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Individual audit for quality
How exactly do I go about getting an audit for an article? Will (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
- You can ask to have a peer review done. If you need it done because an article has too limited a subject matter for GA status, you just have to show that the information is, in fact too limited, and that what little information you have is referenced and well written. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Number of featured-class articles
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria#Number of featured-class articles about if we should change criterion 3(a) to specify more precisely the number of Featured class articles required in a topic. Please place all comments there. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Developing Topics
I'm currently working on a Featured Topic regarding the ACC Championship Game, which has been held annually since 2005. Does 2008 ACC Championship Game need to be GA-class or better even though the game hasn't been played yet? JKBrooks85 (talk) 09:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Articles that cannot have enough content to write a GA about them, such as articles about events that have not yet taken place and media that has not yet been released, generally are exempt from the FA/FL/GA minimums. However, all information that is in the short article must be well written, NPOV, and referenced. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 13:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)