Wikipedia talk:Featured topic criteria

If you have any questions about a topic you are working on or about the criteria in general you can ask them at Featured topic questions. This page is primarily for discussion on changes to the criteria or their implimentation.

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 _talk^contribs 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 _talk^contribs 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)