Talk:FTC

Organize

This page has enough entries it could stand to be organized. nandhp (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I split the list up, but it may need more adjustments. It also seems to me that there are too many red links on this page. What do you think? Some could be either removed or have a stub created in their article. Behrat (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:SELFREFHAT

The disambiguation link to WP:FTC is very low value, it's highly unlikely a reader will be looking for this after arriving at this page. Experienced Wikipedia users may be looking for Featured topic candidates, but experienced Wikipedia users should know they should be typing "WP:FTC", not "FTC". I suggest it be removed, per WP:SELFREFHAT. @Bkonrad: please reconsider your revert of my edit. –xeno^talk 23:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The hatnote is not intended for experienced editors. And WP:SELFREFHAT is a section you added only today without any consensus. older ≠ wiser 23:53, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

How in the world would someone who has no idea about Wikipedia's internal workings going to arrive here looking for Featured topic candidates? If they aren't an experienced editor they probably wouldn't even know that we have a process for this and wouldn't be looking for it at this disambiguation page. –xeno^talk 00:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

An inexperienced user is not necessarily the same as someone who has no idea about Wikipedia's internal workings. As I mentioned in the RFC you started, Wikipedia talk pages and edit summaries are replete with a bewildering amount of in-house jargon. Consider a relatively new user who gets reverted by a well-meaning editor who attempts to explain the revert by using some jargon. It is quite conceivable that this new user might try to search for the jargon without the WP prefix. older ≠ wiser 00:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)