Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:05, 1 September 2007

This page, a part of the Good article talk page collection, is archived by MiszaBot II. If your discussion was mistakenly archived feel free to go retrieve it. Current Archive location: Misplaced Pages talk:Good articles/Archive 10

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Good articles page.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Archives
October 2005 – January 2006 - initial discussions and debates 8 January – March 2006 March – May 2006 April – June 2006 June 2006 June - July 2006 July 2006 July 2006 - December 2006 December 2006 - June 2007 June 2007 - Present

See also Misplaced Pages talk:Good article candidates for general discussion about the GA process.

Sequence?

Is there a reason that people are listed (in particular, in the music section... I haven't checked the others) alphabetically by their first names? This seems rather difficult to follow, for me. Is there a particular reason for this and, if no, would anybody feel against me putting this (and those like it) into regular alphabetical order? --linca 12:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm indifferent. Either way is fine with me. Lara♥Love 15:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Other sections use piped names with last-name-first. Do that and the bot will alphabetize automatically. Gimmetrow 06:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'll do it today. --linca 00:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Template question

Is {{GA-article}} accepted by the community? If so then why is it currently used on one page? T Rex | talk 14:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, corner icons are controversial. Gimmetrow 15:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If they're controvertial, why are they used for Featured articles? I'm not for adding them, but that's the fact. We also use it for audio pages, like the constitutional pages (1st amendment is fully audio, from memory). --linca 01:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Because many people are against the idea of GA's in the first place. It's fine how it is right now. -- Phoenix2 07:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

This may be useful reading: Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/2006-05-22/Templates for deletion. Titoxd 18:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

TIE fighter

I wasn't sure what category TIE fighter belonged to so I listed it under video game characters. I'm not sure if that is the best category though. Anyone else have an idea? T Rex | talk 14:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a feeling it should be under Weapons and Military Equipment. Anyone?--SidiLemine 15:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a movie or fictional character/fiction section? A TIE fighter is about as "military" as Snow White, considering neither exists. ;) IvoShandor 02:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The military section isn't called "real world weapons and military equipment" AFAIK. And you'll have to admit it makes for an awkward character.--SidiLemine 10:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I expanded the heading of the "Fictional characters" to "Fictional characters and technologies". If the section gets to large it can be split down the line. If anyone can think of a better name go ahead and change it. I don't think that it belonged in video game characters as the TIE Fighter originated in the film, so its current location seems more appropriate. --Nehrams2020 06:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

GA symbol on main article page?

Hi,

FA have a small star on top right hand corner of the page. Similarly GA should have the circle-plus logo at that location too! Is this possible? If so how can one do it?

Regards, AshLin 01:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)\

You will find very little support for such a proposal, it has been shot down numerous times in the past, if I recall correctly. IvoShandor 02:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame. It would really help users identify reliable articles. What were the reasons for not doing it?--SidiLemine 10:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

People think GA is not formal enough, as it requires only 1 editor to list or fail the nomination. It certainly is shameful because this puts english wikipedia out of sync with other languages. OhanaUnited 10:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

With GA/R taking speed, GA is getting more and more reliable. And GA, even by one editor, is better than nothing.... --SidiLemine 12:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(<--) Definitely think that the GA badge would be nice. Besides, how about making sure the reviewing editors know what they're doing, rather than in a way penalizing the people who worked on the article? David Fuchs 13:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to show what it would look like, for us aesthetically motivated: GA article David Fuchs 13:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Another motivation is that it would constitute a great advrertisement for the GA status, an so a controlled improvement incentive.--SidiLemine 13:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

David we already have a template, {{GA-article}}. T Rex | talk 16:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So where did those discussions about (not) using it happen? Here?--SidiLemine 17:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) This be what you're lookin for. T Rex | talk 21:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

You know, everyone always says one editor, but actually, there are two involved when an article passes GA. The nominator feels it is GA worthy and the reviewer confirms this. In many cases others work on the article during on hold periods, so to say just one person is involved in GA status is really just a bit dishonest. Just a comment for all the GA naysayers. : ) IvoShandor 17:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The arguments during the discussion were somewhat odd- they talked about "self-referential symbols" and "clutter" yet these arguments could apply equally the the FA star... David Fuchs 18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Good point. The discussion is a year old, I wonder if consensus could have changed in the meantime?--SidiLemine 11:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It could but I bet if it is tried a thousand people from the FAC gang will descend upon GA to oppose it because they won't feel special if we have one too. How a one millimeter wide symbol can be considered clutter is beyond me. IvoShandor 17:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

If anything cleanup and NPOV etc tags clutter pages, and not only do they look like crap, they say the actual page is crap as well. T Rex | talk 17:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

In large part the same people who oppose this for that reason (aside from myself Raul comes to mind) opposed introducing the FA star as well, and would still not mind doing away with it. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)This has been one thing I have always wondered about, was why does FA get a symbol, but not GA also? I see a lot of GAs that are almost as good as an FA. I think this would be something good for articles.--Kranar drogin 03:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks ugly on pages. Let's not use it, or we can create a better looking symbol.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 03:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I added one to the page. Does this work?◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 03:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like a faded FA star, not the GA symbol, and its rather hard to notice at top right. Homestarmy 04:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I made it darker than GA.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 04:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There's go to be something better! The GA symbol does not look good on the article page.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 04:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This won't do. Still brainstorming....◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 04:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(←) The GA symbol looks fine. In fact, I think it looks great. It doesn't make sense to use anything else. That is the symbol of GA. Using a faded FA symbol is inappropriate.

The project is in the process of improving various aspects and ensuring quality. Once we've weeded out all the articles that clearly fail to meet the criteria, that should help improve the reputation of the project. If we could get approval to use this symbol on GAs, this would be the time to do it. Sweeps are about to start and every listed GA is getting re-reviewed. If we can tag the articles with this as they pass, it would not only take care of the tagging, but it would also serve as a marker—during this massive task—for articles that have been reviewed... an easy identifier to other participants in the sweeps. What do we need to do? Lara♥Love 04:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine in normal templates, but not positioned the way the FA star is.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I added the GA symbol on the top-right of this page. It looks better there than the regular GA one.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 04:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh. I give up. I can't make a good symbol either.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(To Lara) I'm concerned that much of the opposition is coming from this rather odd little argument that the usage of any more metadata would represent a fundamental opposition to some core Misplaced Pages doctrine somewhere about Misplaced Pages articles supposedly being easy to transclude into other mediums. It doesn't appear to be founded on anything amazingly persuasive, indeed, taking the raw text from any article would result in a large jumble of Wiki-syntax among all the text, and a little bit more wiki-syntax from a GA symbol at the top won't be the game breaker in terms of transclusion. However, it appears the people who oppose these symbols are extremely adament in their opposition, I don't know how we could convince them to allow the GA circle at the top right of GA's when they seem so increadibly determined to keep the top right area of all articles as clear as possible. I imagine the only reason the FA and semi-protect stamps have been allowed is because there were more than enough FA and policy-making contributors to block any TfD's or MfD's. Homestarmy 04:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

So what happens if we get consensus within our project and just start using it? They just go delete the template? Lara♥Love 06:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

They just try ;). And IIRC the template already exists. If we do think that the main opposers will come from FAC, why not going there and confront "them"?--SidiLemine 11:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm up for it. We can advertise it on GA pages and rally our troops... hopefully most participants in GA would support it. I suppose if not, then consensus will be reached against it and, for the time being at least, there will at least be that. Lara♥Love 21:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we just put the template on pages now? T Rex | talk 22:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The people who oppose this metadata don't seem to be slouches, if they see this discussion, they'll easily be able to build a case based on the comments above that we're an argumentive cabal of WP:CANVASers who shouldn't be polluting pristine wiki-space with little green dots. Of course, that's not true, but all the same, "rallying the troops" and proposing to start arguments on FAC really doesn't look good at all to the uninvolved editor i'd think, and $yD's comment above about advertising for the GA system could also makes someone's day in terms of an anti-self reference argument. Perhaps it would be better to review the rationale given for the FA star, so a real case can be made for the GA circle? They are probably somewhat similar.... Homestarmy 00:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I am opposed to a GA circle on GA articles. On the pages, it looks more like a worthless spam than a badge of authenticity. It does not have the right subjective quality like the FA star does. It also makes FA less distinguished from GA, which is undesirable. In addition to this, the imagery of the GA symbol does not have an obvious meaning to those just visiting wikipedia. That is, the image has no generally accepted meaning in the public like the star does.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 01:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This is better:

◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 01:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see how wanting to extand a debate to people you suspect to be opposed to your opinions can be considered cabalism, but anyway. Examining the FA star rationale would be a great start. Where is it? And my guess is that is this works, we'll have to find a new symbol, a la mascott/WP symbol contest.--SidiLemine 10:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Kmarinas, I don't see why you are so hellbent on changing the GA symbol, it's fine as is. T Rex | talk 12:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, why does this new symbol appear on this page at the top right?? T Rex | talk 12:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

He's testing it. I don't think a proposal to change the symbol would be successful. There's nothing wrong with the green dot. That aside, Homestarmy has been working in this project for a long time. Whatever he thinks is the best course of action, I'm on board with. LARA♥LOVE 16:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I never felt really strongly on this, personally, I like the FA star because it let's me know right away that the content I am looking at is of high quality, or at least some people think so. I would be interested to see what the main reasons for opposing the FA star/GA sign are. IvoShandor 00:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

While it is a good idea I should point out that the original reasons for deletion can be found here. Many were valid then and most likely will not apply now. The next thing we should do is possibly take this idea to WP:DRV when the image issue is resolved. Though in my opinion this would make the article process more consistent. Tarret 17:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for posting the link. It appears that most of the delete votes were based on a lack of quality for GA articles. Criteria was just being developed at that point and anyone that works over at GA/R knows the quality of some of those early promoted articles left much to be desired. However, with the criteria in place and the bad seeds, so to speak, being weeded out by the Project quality task force, that should no longer be an issue. Let's do this. LARA♥LOVE 03:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Heck yea, let's do it. I think it looks great, and as a recent contributor to GA/R, I can tell you that GAs are being held to an ever increasing high standard. But, in the end of the day, it is what it is: a GA is inferior to an FA. But that doesn't mean it's not an excellent article and not deserving of one little measly icon in the top right. Perhaps once the GA sweeps are done, we should really give this a shot. Drewcifer 04:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sticking with the current GA symbol. It looks good and understood by all. Why don't we do it the wiki-way? Introduce and try using it unless it's proven to be harmful. OhanaUnited 04:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The current green plus is fine. Titoxd 05:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I like that crazy little green thing.--SidiLemine 10:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I've only just noticed this discussion has been started (which I have anticipated for quite some time). I know this is merely just a discussion, but I would personally agree that this should be given some serious consideration, particularly in response to what LARALOVE said about the GA criteria now being specific and established. GA articles, although not as high quality as FA (obviously), now must be of an acceptable quality than they had to be when the discussion similar to this took place in March 06, with the reasons for having an FA star, in my opinion, are now as equally the same as having a GA star - you're reading content that has been reviewed and accepted as reaching a given standard of quality. With regards to the image used, I personally have a preference with something other than the "green dot", but that matter is trivial and can easily be discussed/dabated if/when such a process is deemed acceptable. Bungle 16:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The point of GA is not to duplicate FA

The point of this proposal seems to be to make GA more like FA. The current problem, however, is that GA is already too much like FA. We don't need two parallel formal systems to judge article quality. We have one public standard for high quality articles, which is the "FA" standard. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe GA should be more like FA in the way that you describe against it?.. but that would be an entirely different discussion altogether. GA in itself (and I am not bias in any way - I take a neutral stance with regards to the GA policy for varying reasons) is a reasonably well established method of article reviewing and rating, and does work similarly to the FA system, only for articles that haven't reached such an exceptional standard, but give readers the information that it has been reviewed to a particularly acceptable standard. I would personally like to see "A grade" made review-only, with all 3 top-tier ratings having an associated "top right image", but that is merely my personal view. The fact is, GA is around now and likely is going to be for the foreseeable future - alot of the views against it last year, from what I gather, aren't able to stand this time around. Bungle 18:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I think GA is not a duplicate of FA. Just by having a symbol, how does GA become like FA. There is no publicity for GA such as that provided by the featured portal, article, list, picture etc. If anything, GAs suffer from lack of exposure. The GA process aims to bring 'good' standards to articles. It is more important that articles reach good before they reach the 'best'. Very few people can raise articles to FA status but any normal reviewer can raise his article to GA. Since they are two accepted Wikiprojects, I dont see any difference in their purpose - to improve articles to meet set standards. They are steps towards excellence at different levels. I get the impression that 'FA-ians' refuse to accept such GA proposals in order to preserve exclusivity. So the symbol issue smacks of áristocracy' to me. But sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. So the GA symbol should remain with an article till if fails criteria or is raised to FA. I support the proposal that we go ahead and institute a GA symbol. AshLin 18:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The original point of GA was

"Many articles contain excellent content but are unlikely to become featured; they may be too short, or on too broad a topic, or on too specific a topic, or an a topic about which not much is known. We should endeavour to identify good content that is not likely to become featured."

The point was to recognize articles that weren't ever going to be candidates for FA, not to be a stepping stone on the path to FA. To that end, the approval system was completely unbureaucratic: if a nomination wasn't challenged, it remained. Over time, the process has suffered from instruction creep to the point where it is now virtually indistinguishable from FA (compare WP:WIAFA and WP:WIAGA). Adding an icon would only further distance GA from its original purpose and make it overlap more with FA. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Just in case people have forgotten: this idea has been through five deletion reviews (after the initial template-for-deletion), the last being in June 2007. Gimmetrow 19:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Carl, that link was almost 2 years ago. The first time the symbol was turned down because there're no criterias. People snowballed deletion review since then without any consideration how it has improved. We now a complete system from nomination (GAC), to approve (GA) and delete if the article no longer meets the criteria (GAR). With these, it's impossible to say the current GA system is as bad as when it is introduced. As for "GA is going towards the path of FA", I suggest everyone to take a look at Misplaced Pages:Compare Criteria Good v. Featured. You can clearly see that they're different in terms of how tough they want their criterias to be. OhanaUnited 21:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldnt waste your time trying to do this, i tried last year. many long arguments on templates for deletion came to nothing. Seriously save your time but if you do go ahead with it and be bold in creating some sort of template be sure to tell me so i can support it at templates for deletion --Childzy ¤ Talk 21:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem

WP:OWN. Obviously FA participants and GA participants are both passionate about their respective projects. Unfortunately, FA has little if any respect for GA. God forbid there be a sister or daughter project to FA for articles that can't (at least not anytime soon) make FA. No, it has to be the bastard little step-brother project.

Whether FA likes it or not, GA has become a stepping stone to FA for many editors. There's a set standard and a checks and balances system (WP:GAPQ). FA is taking ownership of the process. Pissed off that GA mirrors FA in a lot of ways. Well, damn straight. They serve the same purpose, but for a different class of articles, so what's the problem? The fact that the GA process is so close to the FA process is a valid reason why we should have a similar system for marking articles.

The point is to alert readers that the article they are reading has been reviewed and determined to meet certain standards. It's a separate symbol and in no way devalues FA. So, again, what's the problem? Many of the concerns raised regarding why we shouldn't be able to use it (from the link in early '06) are either outdated or stupid. I'd be interested to see what the concerns were from the recent ones. I'd be shocked to find anything valid. It's selfish for one project to prevent another project from doing something that in no way hurts the first project, but rather improves the encyclopedia. Really, it's shameful, in my opinion. Raise some valid claims and I'll eat humble pie. Otherwise, this is just juvenile bs. It's mine! Mine!! And I'm not sharing, so neener.

As far as Carl's comments, I don't really get what that has to do with anything. The current GA process is immeasurably better than what it started out as. To complain that the standards and process for GA has improved seems ridiculous to me. To further distance ourselves from a project that started out as "Hey, this articles is pretty good," said Joe Shmoe editor about the poorly written article on an interesting topic, "I'll tag it as Good," seems completely positive. Why degrade a project for improving as a means of rejecting their request for something they should have every right to use? LARA♥LOVE 06:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that there is still a huge difference on how articles are reviewed at FA opposed to GA. The criteria shouldn't be weakened because it might step on the toes of some folks in the clique at FA. IvoShandor 06:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

So while the criteria are similar (as are the results: an article is deemed to be of a certain quality standard by uninvolved editors) the means of reaching the result is not. In both cases, however, we are essentially saying, yeah this is written well and has sources which back up the text. Neither process truly vets an article for accuracy, so I guess I don't quite understand the view of GA being some bastard child of FA. Self importance aside, both projects intend to improve the encyclopedia but both are also subject to limitations. An icon would only help the reader, especially if it links to WP:GA. Of course, opposition is likely to be ardent (claims that GA has improved aside--mostly because those claims have been made time and again), due to the view that somehow FA is a better hallmark. Sure more editors are involved, but in my experience FA is generally more focused on style and grammar than actual content (not always the case but certainly is in many cases). I think this is mostly due to a lack of experts in many subject areas. Most of the comments on my only FA had never even heard of the event I wrote about. Perhaps I am just rambling now. IvoShandor 06:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

By what I can tell from the March 2006 discussions, people's opposition to the idea were either 1) based on the outdatted GA standard, which has since been considerably improved, 2) applicable to the FA star just as much as the proposed GA symbol (Self reference, a "pat on the back"), or 3) elitist rhetoric that insists on the FA project's own importance. Perhaps once we finish the GA sweeps, we should pursue this a bit. And speaking of which, HELP OUT WITH THE GA SWEEPS!!! Drewcifer 07:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with IvoShandor that FA is far from perfect itself. The only comments I recieved on my FACs were regarding Manual of Style issues and complaints against the prose based on personal preferences. I've seen FACs promoted after recieving support votes solely from editors who've worked on the article. Epbr123 08:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)I would also note that while the general view here is that the GA process has been improved, I have noted other discussions that do not imply the mass of editors feel that way. I could be wrong, but the last time I came across this discussion in the archives I believe it was asserted that GA was a strong process, much improved then, as well. Just a thought, is all. May want to come with much better arguments than GA has improved, if that was one of the arguments we were going to use from this page.IvoShandor 02:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC) IvoShandor 02:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The argument were making is not that the GA process has "improved overall"; the argument is that the GA process has improved "in many ways" that make the GA process a distinct and quality way to promote the quality of articles. Tarret 13:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any argument we make is going to matter. FA is just going to shoot it down for meaningless reasons. Or hypocritical ones. For example, the "pat on the back" statement from the earlier deletion discussion. Was FA just admitting their star is a pat on the back for their work? No, and now that GA has improved, that argument doesn't apply. How about instead of us defending our project constantly to a project that refuses to accept that we exist and we're not getting deleted, why don't we just use the damn button—tagging only articles that have gone through the GA Sweeps seems like a good start (It will serve a double purpose of letting readers know it's good and also letting us know an article has been reviewed for sweeps). See if any of the self-serving excuses for supporting a delete carry weight at this point. LARA♥LOVE 14:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Stability and completeness regarding ongoing and future events

In order to consolidate discussion in one place, I moved my recent post to Wikipedia_talk:What_is_a_good_article?#GAs_and_Future_Events. Please join the discussion there. Thanks, Johntex\ 18:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)