Forum:SH Archive/Proposal for featured/good topics

Hey all, I used to edit here under a different name, and am back after a long period of inactivity. Since that time, I've started edited pretty frequently at Wikipedia, and I want to suggest the Wook adopt something that Wikipedia already uses: featured topics and good topics. (It was suggested I bring this idea here for feedback.)

FTs and GTs have some similarities to FAs and GAs, but instead of articles, they are collections of articles. Basically, a topic consists of a collection of inter-related articles of superior quality. Each FT or GT has one main article that describes the collection, plus other articles that are related to the main one.

The best way I can think to describe this is to simply show some examples from Wikipedia. Here you can see the South Park (season 13) good topic: the main article is the "season 13" article, and the other articles are episodes. Or, here you can see a Star-Wars related good topic, with "Star Wars: Jedi Knight titles" as the main article, and all the actual titles as the other articles.

The criteria for FTs/GTs are pretty simple: there be at least three distinct articles, they have a clear similarity and are linked together, and there are no obvious gaps or missing articles. At Wikipedia, a featured topic has at least one-third or one-half (the criteria is changing this month) FAs and the rest GAs; a good topic has all articles at least GAs.

Basically, the way it works is users come up with the proposed topics, and then they go through a review process, where the reviewers make sure the articles meet those requirements, and make sure nothing is missing. It's a pretty easy review process, really, because the criteria is clear-cut: you either qualify, or you don't. Once a consensus is reached and a certain period of time elapses, it passes or fails as GT or FT.

This differs from WookieeProjects because, while those encompass all articles of a certain type, these apply to a specific kind and require a certain quality designation. I can think of many possible Star Wars topics off the top of my head. For example, if articles for all members of the Max Rebo Band reached GA or FA, that could be a GT/RT with the band article itself as the main article. Or, if X-wing (novels) was the main topic subject, all the individual novels themselves would make up the rest of the topic.

Forgive my lengthy explanation, but I think FTs/GTs would be a perfect fit here at the Wook and, like FAs and GAs themselves, would help encourage contributors to make and develop articles of great quality. Any thoughts, questions, whatever?

— Hun ter Ka hn  02:30, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've actually been tossing this idea around in my head for quite a while now, and I definitely like it. We would just need to decide on our own criteria, but I think this would work. &mdash; Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg ( Jedi Council Chambers ) 03:44, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm really against this. Simply put, I don't see any sort of need for this. It's just something complex that really adds very little, IMO. We don't need to adopt everything Wikipedia does, after all.  Chack Jadson  (Talk) 16:35, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely unnecessary&mdash;any article we have that could become a "GT" or "FT" could just become a GA or FA. We have three well-organized pages for the purpose of pointing out all of our best articles; we don't need to point out that lots of articles about similar subjects are of high quality when we have those. What I want to know is: what's the big difference between a status "topic" and a status "article?" The only difference that I see is that, to take something to FT, I'm required to have taken all of the articles related to that "topic" up to status, too. That would be more harmful to the site than good; it's like saying that the Second Galactic Civil War article could never reach featured status until every single article relating to it was of status, or that Wraith Squadron couldn't be of status because we don't have all of the pilots and battles relating to the Wraiths as status articles. It would defer people from writing the larger articles, as opposed to engouraging them. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 17:03, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Chack. -- 1358  (Talk) 17:06, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * @Jujiggum: I think you're misunderstanding it. An article does not become an FT; a group of articles does. There's absolutely nothing that says a major article like Wraith Squadron can't be of FA status just because other related things aren't; FT/GT would just be a way to encourage users to write multiple related articles, ensuring that our coverage in one area is as good as possible. Also, the group of articles need not be as large as an entire major war; they could be just four or five closely related articles on a small campaign within that war. Conversely, a topic with a major war as its lead article need not include every single article related to the war, but instead could be an overview topic. This would in no way "defer people from writing the larger articles"; if they want to bring a large article like Second Galactic Civil War to FA, there's absolutely nothing stopping them. Whether or not they decide to write up other related articles and try to take the group of articles to FT/GT is up to them and is a completely separate matter. &mdash; Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg ( Jedi Council Chambers ) 17:33, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry for misunderstanding. In that case, we don't need to do this for just two reasons: 1: How would we decide what constitutes a full topic? Would the Galactic Alliance Security troopers I've written instantly be a full topic? I guess what I'm trying to ask is, so far I've written every known GAS trooper to status. Would make the Galactic Alliance Security troopers a Good Topic? Or would I have to write an "overview article" on Galactic Alliance Security troopers as a whole in order to bring them to GT? If I have to write an overview article, then I'm adding a pointless extra article on the site that has nothing to do with Star Wars canon itself. And if I don't, then what's the point of doing this at all? Which brings me to reason number 2: We already do basically do something quite similar to this. They're called WookieeProjects. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 17:44, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to address this. To your second point, GTs and FTS are really nothing like WookieeProjects. While a project encompasses all articles of a very broad range (aliens, main characters, etc.) a topic would address a very specific set of inter-related articles that have been worked up to FA or GA status. Like, for example, you could propose a GT for Figrin D'an and the Modal Nodes and include that article as the "main" article and the remaining articles (Assuming they were all GA or FA) would be Doikk Na'ts, Ickabel G'ont, Tedn Dahai, Tech Mo'r, Nalan Cheel and Lirin Car'n. (An added benefit of topics is somebody might feel even more inclined than before to work those seven articles up to GA or FA status, with the hopes of eventually making a GT or FT out of them). Regarding your first point, a decision on what constitutes a complete topic is taken on a case-by-case basis. If the reviewers feel a topic is complete, that's that. If they don't, there will be a discussion about what's missing. It sounds like it could get potentially hairy, but it really doesn't. This is the same review process Wikipedia uses and it works fine there, and I would think at the Wook, it would actually be easier to come to a consensus on what constitutes topics, since the range of content is much more specific here than at Wikipedia... — Hunter Kahn  23:54, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, Jonjedigrandmaster, I wanted to address your question about Galactic Alliance Security. It appears to me that all the members (Wruq Retk, Savar, Oric Harfard, Atar, Xanda and Carn) are already GAs. If Galactic Alliance Security were brought up to GA, then yes, that would be instantly ready for Good Topic status, with Galactic Alliance Security as the main article, and the other six as the other articles. And, in the event a book would be published down the road introducing another GAS member, we could include a guideline that says somebody has 3, 6, 9, however many months to get that article up to GA, or else the GT is downgraded. Nice and simple. — Hunter Kahn  00:04, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I still see no point to this. If someone wanted to write the articles to status, then they'd get written anyway. In the GAS example: if all it takes to become a GT/FT is just writing the GAS article itself up to status, then it is absolutely no different than if I'd just decided to write the article as a GA/FA, and I see no point in having another set of statuses for articles that are almost exactly the same as the statuses we already use. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 00:54, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just another way to recognize good content and encourage people who might otherwise have not been inspired to otherwise improve all the other articles. (I know FTs have gotten me to create GAs and FAs I otherwise would not have at Wikipedia.) There's certainly no obligation to participate if one personally doesn't care for the topic concept themselves. But I can see you're pretty set in your opinion, so I can respect that. — Hunter Kahn  01:15, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking as one of the foremost status article reviewers, I can say that there is an obligation to participate&hellip;for Inquisitors and AgriCorps members. Because this would deal with FAN and GANs, the responsibility would ultimately fall on us&mdash;and quite frankly, I'm not to enthused about shouldering an extra workload. While I speak for myself, I can almost bet that many of my fellow Inqs and ACs&mdash;Jonjedi included&mdash;would not be thrilled with the idea of yet another nomination process to oversee. —Tommy 9281 01:22, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's something we still have to work out. Should ACs and Inqs be the ones to handle the GT/FT nomination page, or should the responsibility fall to the whole community? Personally, I'd go for the latter. It seems to me that the only thing that needs to actually be "reviewed" is whether a GT/FT nom has the required GAs/FAs to be given the status. That sounds pretty simple to me. If an article that's part of a GT/FT loses its status, then so does the GT/FT, so there's not even really a need to review them after they get their status. All of that is pretty much already done in the AC/Inq meetings when we're reviewing articles. What we would need is a few volunteers to handle stuff like archiving GT/FT nominations, creating a page for the topics, etc. But I don't think this would add any meaningful amount of workload to the Inqs/ACs, and as I said before, I would prefer that this kind of thing be handled by the whole community. Anyway, I'm interested in this idea and I'd love to hear more about it. Xicer9 atgar.svg( Combadge) 01:43, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have a couple of questions that I would like to ask here. First of all, who would be the reviewers? I mean, the criteria to have a featured or good topic is clear cut, but someone has to decide which articles need to be included under a topic. For example, Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi is currently a FA. Now, if I wanted to make this a featured or good topic, what would I need to include? The comic has thirty-five issues that involve eight story arcs. Who would decide what needs to be included? The current Inqs, Acs, and Ecs? Or would another group need to be created? Secondly, would it require that the same person brought all of the articles included under the topic to good or featured status? Using Jon's example, he has put in the effort to bring up to status the Security Alliance members, and to nominate them for a good or featured topic it would only need to have the actual article brought up to status. Now, any user is eligible to that. What this says to me is not that it will encourage people to bring to status all the articles of a topic, but possibly the opposite. People will create quality articles and then, in a way, have someone else take credit for them. While I can say that I like the concept, it would seem that there would be many more complications created than benefits. Cylka  -talk- 02:23, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * At Wikipedia, there's no designated group that handles promotion. Users simply vote to support or object, and that usually leads to a discussion and eventual consensus. It's in that process that any glaring objections are identified. It would be up to the submitter to identify which articles fit into a topic, then at that point the community would discuss and determine if something is missing. I really don't think this is going to prove to be a big issue; Wikipedia has a much broader assortment of articles since the are an encyclopedia about everything, whereas the Wook is focused strictly on Star Wars, and yet the GT/FT process runs very smoothly there. As far as your second point, that wouldn't a problem with FT/GT any more than it is with FA/GA (i.e., Somebody who takes an article somebody else worked their asses off on, puts on the finishing touches, and then nominates it themselves.) Plus, in that scenario, it still involves somebody bringing at least one article to GA or FA status, so ultimately, even if their intentions aren't in the best place, the Wook gets improved, right? — Hunter Kahn  03:31, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've always liked this concept. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 18:09, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Jujiggum, how would we decide what constitutes a full topic? -- 1358  (Talk) 18:14, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Every topic would be unique, so there would be no way to do a hard "one-size-fits-all" rule, so I would suggest leaving the definition of "full topic" somewhat open and determine it by consensus on a case-by-case basis. &mdash; Master Jonathan New Jedi Order.svg ( Jedi Council Chambers ) 18:30, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with Chack. I would have said so earlier but I wanted to see a few more opinions before I voiced my own. —Tommy 9281 18:42, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Chack and Jujiggum. No need to make things more complicated if they are perfectly fine the way they are. QuiGonJinn  Senate seal.svg(Talk) 20:23, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research.svg (Comlink) 20:25, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the "making things more complicated" statement: QuiGon, you do understand that implementing Good or Featured topics will not in any way impact the existing GAs and FAs, right? That they are completely separate altogether? Quite the contrary, it would encourage people to get other articles up to FA and GA, so they could then propose the whole lot of them as a good or featured topic. — <font color="#C0C0C0">Hunter <font color="#595454">Kahn  23:46, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * See, this is what I don't get. If all of the articles that would fit into the topic are FAs or GAs, what is the point of proposing them as a whole lot? Would it be just to let others know that there are other quality articles written that have a similar topic? <span style="font-variant: small-caps; font-family: times, cursive; font-size: 16px"><font color=#008080>Cylka  <span style="font-family: times, cursive; font-size: 13px"><font color=#00A693>-talk- 02:23, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it serves multiple functions. For one, it is another way to honor quality work. Secondly, as you say, it lets readers know of that are not only related to one another, but also of especially strong quality. And, again, I strongly feel it encourages people to bring articles to FA/GA that they might not otherwise. I'm not basing that thought on theory, but the practice I observed at Wikipedia. Speaking for myself, anyway, I did three FT/GTs there: Parks and Recreation (season 1), South Park (season 1) and South Park (season 13), and I'm only two eps away from finishing Parks and Recreation (season 2). I can tell you for sure that I probably would not have brought ALL of those episode articles to GA if not for the topics; I probably would have done only a few favorites or especially important ones and left it at that... — <font color="#C0C0C0">Hunter <font color="#595454">Kahn  03:31, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * The bottom line is that this is an unnecessary addition to several systems that already work just fine. —Tommy 9281 00:04, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't get this argument at all. It's not really an addition per se, it's a way of displaying that topics X and Y are particularly well represented on our wiki. It's an alternate way of directing readers to well-written and researched subjects that they might not otherwise have looked up. It can also serve as a motivational goal for our writers&mdash;it might encourage someone to write up that last planet in the Y system or what have you. Featured topics would be great for readers and would certainly not hurt our regular users&mdash;and we might even get a few more FAs or GAs we otherwise would not have. --Imperialles 05:11, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, because it would be entirely separate from the FA and GA process, uninterested users could just ignore it if they didn't want to be involved. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:38, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would like to second Cylka's argument above, and state that I very heavily dislike how this (the first paragraph) sounds. We are not Wikipedia and we do not run the same way. But what is still bugging me the most is that no one has yet addressed the problem of how we would assort our "topics." Having just random users decide is not going to be effective or thorough; Star Wars: Tales of the Jedi may be decided to have to need only the separate issues and the story arcs, but what if Star Wars: Legacy were taken to FT, and the users decided that major characters should be included too? And what about the comic writers and artists? Should they be included too? Or what if I decided to take Outcast to FT? Would I have to improve every single article that appears in it? Or just the major ones, like the major characters and events and locations? And who is to decide what constitutes as "major?" This is highly inconsistent. And another: what if I then decided to take Fate of the Jedi to FT? Could I do that, with Outcast already being an FT? And supposing I could, would I also need to get the authors to status, etc.? I can't support something like this until I am satisfied that this can work cleanly, which (right now) it doesn't look like it will be able to do here. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 16:40, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to respond to what you said about how you "heavily dislike how this (the first paragraph) sounds." That's probably just poor wording on my part, and for that I apologize. I'm not trying to indicate we should simply take everything Wikipedia does and copy it; I've been active at both sites, and I know they are different animals. I'm simply trying to say that over at Wikipedia, the process of determining what constitutes a "topic" (which seems to be your prime area of concern) is handled by discussion and consensus and, even though the field of articles are much broader there than here, it has not proved to be a major disaster. Topic discussions over there are rarely a problem, and I think they would be even more smooth here. Much work on wiki sites is handled by discussion and consensus, and this will be no different. Also, please bear in mind that not every proposed topic is going to fly, and that's OK. Some concepts will probably be too complex (like the ones you lifted about) to be considered topics. In cases like that, the GT/FT will probably not stand up to the consensus and it will fail. But in other (and, I'd venture to say, most) cases, like some of the examples cited about, the topics will be clear and they will go very smoothly. The fact that not everything cleanly fits into a topic is not reason to object to the entire process altogether... — <font color="#C0C0C0">Hunter <font color="#595454">Kahn  18:24, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's precisely the problem that I'm trying to get at&mdash;there is absolutely no consistency whatsoever in what is and what isn't considered a topic. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 18:29, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * As an added note: I agree with the principles of this, don't get me wrong. It could get more users interested in writing more FAs, GAs, and possibly even CAs, which would be great for the site. In short, I think this idea looks good on paper. But I don't think it will work in practice here, per my point about an absolute lack of consistency in what constitutes and what doesn't constitute a topic. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 18:51, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Jujiggum. I'm sure that this would be a great addition, and as said, encourage users to write series of articles, but it's very hard to decide what a topic should contain. Some topics are easy, like 's Atrivis project, that includes all things related to the Atrivis sector, but who could really decide what articles should be promoted to complete a topic like the Battle of Coruscant? -- 1358  (Talk) 19:01, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well is there any harm in letting consensus decide on a case-by-case basis what articles should be promoted, or if something is even a valid topic? It's not really a big deal if there's a few inconsistencies. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:30, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's exactly where I disagree. In one case, an article might be deemed worthy of being a topic, whereas in another case, a very similar article might not. That lack of consistency is not fair to our writers. Also, the idea that very obvious topics such as the TotJ or Legacy comics couldn't become FTs simply because they are too large and there would be no consensus on what should be included is repulsive. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 19:38, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the articles in the TC are decided on a case-by-case basis by users' subjective opinions, but TCs are pretty consistent because we follow precedents. Of course it's harder to maintain absolute consistency with something subjective like what constitutes a featured topic than with a more mechanic process like the FAN. But I don't think it's gonna be a total lottery, because I think ultimately those who'll be involved in the process will likely be the sort of pragmatic users who populate the GAN and FAN and won't let glaring inconsistencies and will be able to agree on larger topics like those. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 19:54, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Per Chack; we don't need it, so why have it? —Tommy 9281 18:28, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * By that logic, why have GAs or FAs? We don't need those either. — <font color="#C0C0C0">Hunter <font color="#595454">Kahn  19:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * We don't need it because IMO it is redundant. —Tommy 9281 19:54, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Imperialles above. The FT and GT procedure would encourage folks to FA or GA articles they might not otherwise consider. We're doing something very similar at WookieeProject Aliens regarding the species of the Colonies region. It's a manageable chunk of aliens, and it includes a bunch of species we probably would not have done otherwise, but because they're grouped as being in the Colonies, we're trying to do them all. In other words, FT and GT would bring more articles to GA and FA than would be the case otherwise by setting another goal (arbitrary or not) for editors. ~ SavageBob 18:46, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like this. We could have some basic guidelines for the content of a FT/GT. For example: topics of individual sources should contain the main characters, the main event (the main battle or the main conflict) and could optionally contain location/weapon/planet if it plays a major role in the story (like bacta for X-wing: The Bacta War). On the other hand, series should contain only the individual issues/books and the main battle/conflict but only if it covers the whole series. I think the authors should not be included, because they are actually not part of the canon. An article could be part of more than one topic, could be main topic article and side-topic article at once. Outcast could be part of the FotJ topic and main article of the Outcast topic at the same time. We could work out many different guidelines for different kind of topics: battles (include: leaders, location), conflicts (combatants, battles), sectors (systems), systems (planets, other interstellar bodies, spacestations), planets (cities, native species)... Darth Morrt 12:01, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it's not nearly that simple. For the authors: well, the individual issues/books are OOU articles too, so I don't get your point that just because they're not IU, they shouldn't be included. For conflicts: do you mean every single combatant, because for any war about which we know more than just a tiny bit, for example the New Sith Wars or the Jedi Civil War, there are going to be a ton of "major" combatants. For sectors: what about major trade routes that pass through the sector, or if a sector is famous for a certain planet, or if a/many major battle(s) took place there? Shouldn't those be included, too? For systems, the same thing: what about battles, trade routes, moons, asteroid belts, etc.? And for planets, again: battles, major trade routes, rings, orbiting bodies such as moons, and what if there's a certain element or ore that can be found only on that planet and that has a major impact on the planet, like wintrium on Klatooine, and what about major landmarks on the planet, such as the Fountain of Ancients, that have large impacts on the world; wouldn't those have to be GA/FA'd too? And what about other topics, for example, if someone wanted to FT a certain trade route, such as the Corellian Run? Would they have to bring up all the planets on the route, and the major materials that were traded along it? Or could it even be considered a topic? What if someone wanted to FT Myrkr strike team? Other than the obvious team members, would they also have to promote the mission to Myrkr? But what about other major topics closely related to that strike team, like voxyn or Baanu Raas, and what about Lomi and Welk, since they were also briefly part of the team, and what about other team organizers like Lando and Tendra, who both were very important to the mission? All of the different situations allow for no consistent guidelines. This is just far too complicated and inconsistent for its worth. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 15:49, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, this is why it would be best to leave it as a case-by-case, discussion-and-consensus basis, rather than try to come up with guidelines for each subject. Just look at the list of featured topics and good topics at Wikipedia. Each and every one of them has been decided in this way, and as I've said it before (but you haven't addressed the argument) Wikipedia has a much broader body of articles that the Wook does, so if anything, it should be more complicated there than it would be here. And yet these topics have all been approved by a case-by-case basis and the website has not completely fallen apart. It's just a matter of somebody proposing a topic, and allowing others to weigh in on whether they think articles are missing from it or not. It's common sense. — <font color="#C0C0C0">Hunter  <font color="#595454">Kahn  16:22, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * The topics I'm seeing there are either very small/specific or extremely incomplete. That's one thing I meant in saying that we aren't Wikipedia. We have stricter guidelines and generally higher standards for our status articles. Just because something works there does not mean it will work here. Several topics there are incomplete by our standards: look, for instance, at the GT "2008–09 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team," which is both incomplete and very specific. It includes just three members of the team, and that's it. It's like making a "Rogue Squadron (14 ABY–15 ABY)" article and then only including three members of the squadron in the topic; that's extremely incomplete and pointless. And the topics that are complete are extremely specific, such as "Grade I listed buildings in Runcorn" or "Physical geography of Somerset," and for us to do such things would requrie for us to create new articles just for the topics. For instance, we could do a topic of "Planets of the Coruscant system," and conceivably stay on topic and make it complete; since it specifies just the planets, we'd only have to write up the planets. But that would mean creating a new "topic" article that doesn't have any purpose other than serving as a topic page, as it would be not IU canonical in any way, and in no way would help the site. Jonjedigrandmaster  ( Talk ) 16:53, September 3, 2010 (UTC)