![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I found it a shame that the FAs got their own userboxes but not the GAs, so I whipped one up.
{{ User Good Articles}} Enjoy :) -- SeizureDog 12:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
...can there be a big <!-- DO NOT EDIT: bot updated --> around the number of good articles code, or will the perl script break? — Rob ( talk) 22:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I Suggest that maybe its time GA grew from being just a project with just a list(though well created) to a complete category with sub categories. These should also highlight article that have since gone on to be Featured articles. Initially I suggest that the categories mirror the current headings that as GA progress in numbers they can be broken into individual categories. ie.
...etc
with most of these groups categories already exist ie architecture, within that category there would be a category that specifically highlights the GA within this group. This provides exposure for GA's as well as incentive for editors to get their articles accepted into these categories. Gnangarra 04:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at the page Wikipedia:Good article establishment and give your opinion if possible. There is an idea of star that was brought up by me, please give your commentaries and/or objections. Lincher 20:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we one again redesgin the GA list this time to match or look simlar to the Version 0.5 list. I put a possible draft copy here Wikipedia:Good articles/redesign. This will help make the list look more organized and it will hopefully shrink some of the larger categories. Tarret 17:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Good Articles are eligible for nomination for Release Version 0.5. Maurreen 12:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I feel one thing when people go to dispute for reinstatement of GA or if they whine that their article meets the criteria because and only because it makes me feel like they don't want to get their article better and they have disputes about little thingies though if they'd work more on their article it would probably be FA instead of GA. I was wondering why we bother with GA disputes. The editors should go through a whole re-nomination instead so that the articles would stay on the GAN page for a week or so and then re-assessed and if it is up to par now, it will pass and if not, then they should work on the article more. This is why I'm wondering if the Dispute page is really necessary? Lincher 16:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Please link to music-related Good Article candidates at the new Music Noticeboard. The Noticeboard also details current music-related Featured Article nominees and articles undergoing Peer Review. It also contains centralized music-related discussion. Λυδ α cιτγ 01:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
This is an official proposal to change the logo of the GA articles to a green star which was kindly provided by
joturner.
The star is pictured below:
Before I bother him again and ask if the other versions of the star can be created (the ones of pieces of the star etc...) I want to make sure that there is some sort of consensus about a logo change.-- SomeStrang e r( t) 03:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, I did not give this nearly enough context, so let me try this again. This proposal is in response to the discussion which was occuring over at
Wikipedia talk:Good article establishment.
Lincher first proposed that the logo be changed, as s/he thought that the green plus sign circle thing was ugly not seen in a good light. A reasonable amount of people agreed and
joturner was kind enough to create 6 colored stars for our viewing (now shown below this giant block of text so that there is more choice). Personally, I think that changing the logo would be a good idea. The currently logo (personally, I think it looks kind of ugly) is used on other wikis and often times on this wiki as a "support" vote icon. If you head over to
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser you will see that a plethora of small circles with icons in them are used as mundane markers for various notices and alerts. (You even see our logo) My hope is that in the upcoming months good articles can be established as more than just another peer review session, instead becoming an integral part of the Wikipedia article developement process. A new star logo symbolizes a new beginning, and in many ways the new found importance of GA (and once again, I think it looks better). If it is the color we have chosen that bothers you, look below at the six stars and see if another color would suit you better. Alternatively, we might lighten the green color to have more of a contrast to the featured article star.
-- SomeStrang e r( t) 12:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If an article is a GA, then becomes an FA, does that mean it gets delisted from the GA list and its GA tag removed from its talk page? Someone removed the Eagle Scout article from the list and I was wondering if that was why. Rlevse 01:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Certain disruptive editors have serially reverted my veto of the JP Cartoons article from GA, as per GA delisting rules. I have reached my revert limit on the article attempting to defend the removal, but I do not accept their actions and intend to remove the article again once I am able to do so (assuming my objections to the article's GA listing aren't rectified in the meantime, of course). — JEREMY 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm mistaken but is Wikipedia not based upon the concept of consensus? What is the point of having a unilateral "veto power" that is so completely out of step with that concept? Netscott 16:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Vetopower is ok if an article is listed as a good article by a single user. However, using veto power after discussion betweeen various editors on the merits has taken place is an abuse of vetopower (aka, it is possible to highjack an article by using your vetopower). This is very much against the basic pollicy of consensus, and I think that should be amended. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I found it a shame that the FAs got their own userboxes but not the GAs, so I whipped one up.
{{ User Good Articles}} Enjoy :) -- SeizureDog 12:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
...can there be a big <!-- DO NOT EDIT: bot updated --> around the number of good articles code, or will the perl script break? — Rob ( talk) 22:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I Suggest that maybe its time GA grew from being just a project with just a list(though well created) to a complete category with sub categories. These should also highlight article that have since gone on to be Featured articles. Initially I suggest that the categories mirror the current headings that as GA progress in numbers they can be broken into individual categories. ie.
...etc
with most of these groups categories already exist ie architecture, within that category there would be a category that specifically highlights the GA within this group. This provides exposure for GA's as well as incentive for editors to get their articles accepted into these categories. Gnangarra 04:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at the page Wikipedia:Good article establishment and give your opinion if possible. There is an idea of star that was brought up by me, please give your commentaries and/or objections. Lincher 20:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I propose that we one again redesgin the GA list this time to match or look simlar to the Version 0.5 list. I put a possible draft copy here Wikipedia:Good articles/redesign. This will help make the list look more organized and it will hopefully shrink some of the larger categories. Tarret 17:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Good Articles are eligible for nomination for Release Version 0.5. Maurreen 12:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I feel one thing when people go to dispute for reinstatement of GA or if they whine that their article meets the criteria because and only because it makes me feel like they don't want to get their article better and they have disputes about little thingies though if they'd work more on their article it would probably be FA instead of GA. I was wondering why we bother with GA disputes. The editors should go through a whole re-nomination instead so that the articles would stay on the GAN page for a week or so and then re-assessed and if it is up to par now, it will pass and if not, then they should work on the article more. This is why I'm wondering if the Dispute page is really necessary? Lincher 16:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Please link to music-related Good Article candidates at the new Music Noticeboard. The Noticeboard also details current music-related Featured Article nominees and articles undergoing Peer Review. It also contains centralized music-related discussion. Λυδ α cιτγ 01:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
This is an official proposal to change the logo of the GA articles to a green star which was kindly provided by
joturner.
The star is pictured below:
Before I bother him again and ask if the other versions of the star can be created (the ones of pieces of the star etc...) I want to make sure that there is some sort of consensus about a logo change.-- SomeStrang e r( t) 03:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Apparently, I did not give this nearly enough context, so let me try this again. This proposal is in response to the discussion which was occuring over at
Wikipedia talk:Good article establishment.
Lincher first proposed that the logo be changed, as s/he thought that the green plus sign circle thing was ugly not seen in a good light. A reasonable amount of people agreed and
joturner was kind enough to create 6 colored stars for our viewing (now shown below this giant block of text so that there is more choice). Personally, I think that changing the logo would be a good idea. The currently logo (personally, I think it looks kind of ugly) is used on other wikis and often times on this wiki as a "support" vote icon. If you head over to
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser you will see that a plethora of small circles with icons in them are used as mundane markers for various notices and alerts. (You even see our logo) My hope is that in the upcoming months good articles can be established as more than just another peer review session, instead becoming an integral part of the Wikipedia article developement process. A new star logo symbolizes a new beginning, and in many ways the new found importance of GA (and once again, I think it looks better). If it is the color we have chosen that bothers you, look below at the six stars and see if another color would suit you better. Alternatively, we might lighten the green color to have more of a contrast to the featured article star.
-- SomeStrang e r( t) 12:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If an article is a GA, then becomes an FA, does that mean it gets delisted from the GA list and its GA tag removed from its talk page? Someone removed the Eagle Scout article from the list and I was wondering if that was why. Rlevse 01:40, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Certain disruptive editors have serially reverted my veto of the JP Cartoons article from GA, as per GA delisting rules. I have reached my revert limit on the article attempting to defend the removal, but I do not accept their actions and intend to remove the article again once I am able to do so (assuming my objections to the article's GA listing aren't rectified in the meantime, of course). — JEREMY 15:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Forgive me if I'm mistaken but is Wikipedia not based upon the concept of consensus? What is the point of having a unilateral "veto power" that is so completely out of step with that concept? Netscott 16:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Vetopower is ok if an article is listed as a good article by a single user. However, using veto power after discussion betweeen various editors on the merits has taken place is an abuse of vetopower (aka, it is possible to highjack an article by using your vetopower). This is very much against the basic pollicy of consensus, and I think that should be amended. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 15:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)