Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 3

message: May I know if Wikipedia: represents a complete and exclusive list of all good articles which have gone through the due process of nomination and approval, and if not, where may I find such a list?  I noticed that the  template was applied to Celtic F.C. but I can't find it on Wikipedia:, so would like to check whether it's an erroneous edit or not.  Thank for any help in advance.  --Pkchan 17:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it isn't a mistake, it wasn't labelled correctly, good articles are supposed to have a  stamp on the talk pages rather than a dot in the corner, and I did not see someone comment on it. Check to see if it meets the criteria, (it shouldn't take long) and if it does, put the GA banner on the talk page, and if it doesn't, just remove the dot. Homestarmy 17:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for your reply.  I have removed the dot for the time being and left a message on its talk page to notify its authors to go through the due course from the beginning if they are to represent Celtic F.C. as a good article.  --Pkchan 17:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complete list? 

message: I have come across some GAs that are uncategorised. There is actually a clean-up tag for this - it would be odd to have something requiring clean-up still being listed as a "good" article! Perhaps one of the criteria at WP:WIAGA should be that the article is appropriately categorised? TheGrappler 19:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be a given that a GA has none of the flaws that would lead to it being listed under one of the  categories: being a stub, lacking sufficient verification, needing wikifying, NPOV issues, clearly out-of-date, etc. Sad to say, not only is Wikipedia uneven in its depth of detail & use of references between articles, but some articles are very uneven -- quite good paragraphs are mixed in with slabs of text that read as if they were written on the bus on the way to school. (I know of one article that I originally wrote, & have since found quite mangled by someone with a POV to push.) If you want to nominate an article with a cleanup problem, please fix the article first. -- llywrch 04:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be a given - but this particular criterion isn't actually explicitly stated (infact it's not even a condition for FAs, and I have seen poorly categorized FAs in the past too). What I found interesting was that I came across an article somebody else had listed as good, thought it a bit odd that it required cleanup, then realised that it actually did meet all the conditions at WP:WIAGA. Just suggests to me that this particular "given" might need to be made explicit! TheGrappler 05:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh. Give the issue some time, & I expect you'll start seeing FAs delisted because they aren't properly categorized. (Every time I look in to that forum, it seems that the denizens have again raised the bar.) But if we insist on this for GAs, it doesn't mean that the nominator can't fix these (relatively) minor issues first. -- llywrch 07:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorisation as a criterion? 

message: I see we have a bot that determines what articles are tagged for GA, but aren't on the list.  Could someone make a bot that updates the GA counts automatically, since not everyone has been doing that manually? Seems like a simple bot to make... and much less wiki-server intensive than the current bot we have. Fieari 20:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot Request 

message: There doesn't appear to be any distinction as to why articles are placed under this heading, versus under its sub-heading, "Military history."  Any thoughts?--Lordkinbote 04:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I have already proposed to move military history articles into War and Military as part of the new look proposal. TheGrappler 20:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: War and military

message: I have a question after reading the following at Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes#Zoroastrianism (note that I am not taking any position on that particular article; this question is a meta-question about the process):
:"If there's a dispute, it isn't stable, and thus isn't a GA. I've put up the DelistedGA tag, and am removing it from the list now."
It seems to me that this bar is a bit low for delisting—though I have no problem with it for initial listing.  If an article is listed as a GA, and for whatever reason, I don't want it to be listed, it sounds like I can just start a dispute in order to get it delisted, even if it otherwise meets the criteria.  In egregious cases, I might get called for violating WP:POINT, but disputes occur on all sorts of articles, even featured articles, all the time.  The mere existence of an occasional dispute doesn't seem like it should be a disqualifying factor.
The FAC process has a rule against inactionable objections disqualifying an article to prevent exactly this sort of thing, where a single editor just doesn't want an article listed no matter how much it is improved.  Keeping an article stable seems inactionable to me—there's nothing I can do, as an editor who wants an article I've invested time in to be recognized as a GA, to prevent another editor from nuisance disputes.  Am I missing something here? --TreyHarris 04:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think article stability more refers to an article not being the subject of a massive, constant edit war, with daily or even more frequent significant changes.  A good example of this is the George W. Bush entry.  For those type of entries, an article may be listed one day and have to be delisted the next.  OTOH, I took a look at the Zoroastrianism history and didn't seen anything that would cause the article to be significantly unstable, so I don't think it should have been delisted.  General disputes and hashing out of issues shouldn't keep an article from being a GA, nor should single-editor vandalism/nuisance edits. Air.dance 05:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delisting for instability 

message: I can't believe we're going to add  in the article namespace. It seems very stupid to tell the reader 'you know, we consider this article good'. It should be the standard. Yes, I know many articles are substandard, and I do see some merit in WP:GA, but I think it is a very bad idea to indicate this in the article namespace, especially since the number of GA's is bound to raise very high. Again, it should be the standard visitors expect. — mark ✎ 09:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're discussing this at some length over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Good_articles#Icon.  Would you come and comment on what we've come up with? Air.dance 09:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

text: i also oppose the proposal, GA should remain talk page only. btw, where did you see that it was gonna be added to article namespace? Zzzzz 09:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Air.dance, thanks for pointing me to the discussion. Zzzz, just check 'what links here' from . — mark ✎ 09:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No... 

message: I jumped in and made the change. I spent a long time trying to ensure all the recent changes made it in, and getting the article counts right. Please help fix it if I have missed anything. I also put biography formats in surname, firstname order which they should be for look up purposes. Regards SeanMack 14:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, man.  I can tell you worked really hard on this and I definitely appreciate it, but.. I don't like it at all.  I think the original layout (similar to FA) was much cleaner and easier to navigate and edit.  We'll wait for other opinions before doing anything, though.  Thanks for the hard work.  Air.dance 01:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I appreciate you prefer the FA version, but would you agree that the potential number of good articles will be massive? I don't think that the FA style with a very long list will be that easy to work with imo. Are there any specifics you can name that could be worked on? It's pretty dis-heartening for someone to say they don't like a change without some constructive ideas for improvement. Or even if you think there is no future in it, it would be helpful to hear why. Regards SeanMack 04:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I was just on my way here to comment again! :D  Actually, the more I play around with it, the more it's growing on me.  I hadn't really thought about how many articles would end up being listed, hence needing a hide/show feature, and that is definitely something you've addressed well with your change.  There are two main things that bug me -- the fact that the icons are clickable and the alternating blue/white title bars.  I know you may not be able to do anything about the clickable graphics, since they need to link back to their templates, but I find myself clicking on them unconsciously to expand the section and end up at the template page.  As for the blue/white, I think I'd prefer all white, since we already have the graphics for color, and the blue gives it a clunky, My First Computer feel.  I apologise for not being more specific in my original comment -- I was caught up in the template argument.  You've done a fantastic job and the more I use this new format, the more I like it. Air.dance 04:35, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks for expanding your points, I do appreciate all feedback even when negative - it's an opportunity to improve, I like to think. We could actually do something with the icons. If you check Wikipedia's sister projects on the main page you'll see they use a hack to make the icons a clickable navigation aid. To link an icon to an article or portal would be easy. However I'm thinking it would either take an expert template designer or a developer to implement an icon click to "Show" the section. I have no idea how to keep track of the javascript needed to do the show and hide.... I just tried to expand on what had already been suggested and approved of. I have no strong opinions on alternating colours or even what the colours should be. Feel free to have a play and improve it. If there is support to link the icons to certain pages I would implement that. Regards SeanMack 05:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is relevant to any discussions of how to change the functioning as icons as navigation aids: Template_talk:Click#Confusing SeanMack 09:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Implementation of proposed new look

message: I think that the introductory text on WP:GA could be seriously cut down on, on the model of WP:FA, so that it just includes the basics: brief introduction (mention difference between FA and GA), article count, summary of criteria with link to WP:WIAGA, nominations and disputes procedure, a note on page maintenance with a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles, then straight on with the article list. My proposed look would be:
----
	This page is a proposed Wikipedia  policy, guideline, or process.  The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption.  References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".
Good Articles in Wikipedia
About 0.1% of Wikipedia articles are featured articles, which have been thoroughly reviewed and designated as the very best of Wikipedia. However, there are also many articles containing excellent content but which are unlikely to become featured in their current state; so long as they meet certain quality standards, they may be listed as good articles. 
Currently 862 articles are listed here as meeting the good article criteria: to be well written, factually accurate, use a neutral point of view, be stable, referenced, and wherever possible, contain appropriately tagged images to illustrate the topic. Good articles may not be as thorough and detailed as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic.
The process for designating articles as 'good' is simpler and quicker than that by which articles become featured.  If you find or write an article matching the criteria, you can add it to the nominations page, where it will be assessed by an impartial reviewer and either added to the list or rejected, with pointers given on how to improve it. Articles are removed from this list if they are promoted to featured status (the ) template is usually left in their talk pages) or if they are delisted for not meeting the criteria. Anybody can delist an article, removing it from this list and leaving on its talk page   or  and a note to indicate what needs to be improved to meet the criteria. If editors disagree about a delisting, it can be resolved at the disputes page.
You can help to maintain this page by ensuring that articles are correctly sorted, that article counts are up to date, or by monitoring the disputes and nominations pages. There is also a WikiProject Good articles.	
----
I have consciously banged on and on about the criteria rather than use the word "good" since I have noticed in talk pages and disputes, people have been using the subjective standard ("this article isn't good, in my opinion") rather than actually assessing against the opinion. I fear my truncation misses some of the intricacies (e.g. is the GAF template meant to be applied or is it just a suggestion?) and doesn't go into as much detail about being bold not being the same as being brutal.  However, I thought some of that was more appropriate for WIAGA (one of the reasons I mentioned the criteria so many times). At the moment, the introductory text reads like the cross between a a mission statement, a call to arms, a justification, a maintenance policy, and a list of GAs. This was probably more appropriate when the system was being established, maybe it's less so now. [[WP:FA] seems to have struck a better balance; I suppose it is because the FA system is so established, robust and tough, no need is felt to justify its existence! Eventually we ought to get this page into a shape where it doesn't give instructions to readers, as it shouldn't be assumed that readers = editors. TheGrappler 19:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go for it, makes sense to me. SeanMack 01:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Much more streamlined and it doesn't overwhelm the actual list  like the current intro. Air.dance 04:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: If we are going for a new look...

message: There appear to be a fair number more "Featured Articles" than there are "Good Articles." Just a thought, but doesn't that make Wikipedia contains many good articles. However, only about 0.1% of our articles are featured articles, which have been thoroughly reviewed and designated as the very best of Wikipedia look a little foolish?
:Here's why: Both FAs and GAs require referencing. But nobody adds citations without the intent to make an article into FA status. Hence, a majority of articles with footnotes are FAs. Nifboy 04:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also why GA nominations shouldn't be a hassle; there are at least 3-4 thousand articles worthy of this status. — Deckiller 04:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also remember that the FA category has been around a lot longer than the GA. The growth of articles so far listed as GAs has slowed down a bit recently because some of the people who were involved have moved on to other projects. As long as people keep looking (& take a moment to sift thru articles that either failed FA or have been delisted), I'm certain we'll find many of those 3-4 thousand articles. -- llywrch 23:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More Featured articles than Good

message: It seems to me that some tidying up of the list is in order. Something that I think we should explicitly allow is multiple listings - so, for example, Bill Gates could be listed both under computing (perhaps with Alan Turing, who could also stay listed as a mathematician) and as a businessperson; Arnie could be both a politician and an actor - I have put him under both in the past and been reverted - either somebody doesn't count him as a politician, can't believe he's Governor of California (though I guess, neither can I...), or thinks multiple listing is disallowed. Looking at the way the German wikipedia organises their "good but not featured" content is interesting - I think there would be more openness in the process, as well as giving a bit more limelight to articles, if there were a "newly listed articles" section at the top, with perhaps 3 days worth of new listings included (a whopping 18 articles on German wikipedia!). Their project also has a by-date list of promoted articles, effectively a "good article log" (since it also contains dates of promotion to FA/delisting from GA, this must be a small nightmare to maintain, and I wouldn't recommend it), a statistics page (rather nice, it illustrates the growth in number of GAs, we might want to copy it) and a very nice set of links to "good articles in this topic..." parts of Portals. If we were able to step up co-ordination with topical WikiProjects a bit better then maybe that is something we could aim to do?TheGrappler 21:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The script that automatically formats the list would prevent multiple listings. It could be made to handle multiple listings if there was enough support for such a proposal. A newly promoted article log could also be managed if there was enough support for such a proposal. A statistics page is a bit excessive in my opinion. That said, there is a value in keeping things simple - multiple listings and a newly promoted articles would probably add to the complexity of the process. Cedars 00:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The multiple listings should not be too difficult to support but I am going to cap the number of multiple listings at two so people are forced to restrict themselves  to two categories where the subject is really significant as opposed to inflating categories that the subject may loosly be related to. Like you seem to suggest, I believe strongly the feature should be sparingly. I will also add a "New good articles" heading but this will take time to implement, I am going to cap the number of new articles to seven (lucky seven :-)). I am going to change the good article nomination pass procedure (step four) from "Update the counters at the ends of sections and at the top of the Wikipedia:Good articles page." to "Optionally update the counters and new good articles listing on the Wikipedia:Good articles page — otherwise this will be done automatically for you within a few day's time." Please be patient these changes may take a week or so to be implemented. Meanwhile, if anyone else has any objections or comments, please speak now. Cedars 03:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Dual listings should now work. Cedars 08:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The recently added section is now a part of the good articles page and can now be updated by the script. There may be some minor hiccups with the script for the first few weeks of operation. Cedars 11:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple listings; Recently Listed; Statistics; Portals

message: I have noticed that a lot of people haven't been following the delisting instructions when they are delisting an article (very often, the article is removed from this list and the "GA" template simply deleted from the talk page, without a replacement  and sometimes without even a comment explaining what has to be done to meet the criteria). This is problematic for a number of obvious reasons. One solution might be a "good article log" system, enabling delistings to be checked to see whether they have gone through "properly". However, I suspect that the cause of the problem is actually that our delisting instructions are obscured at the moment (they are in the middle of the WP:GA blurb, there isn't a "how to delist" link on good article templates, and there isn't a simple step-by-step instruction box given like there is at WP:GAN. So, I have a multiple part proposal:
===Change the introduction at Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes to cover both contested delistings/failed nominations and listings which are disagreed with===
===Good article disputes===
Wikipedia:Good articles is an unbureaucratic system to arrive at a quick consensus set of good articles: everyone can nominate good articles, and everyone has veto power. However, sometimes editors disagree whether an article reaches the good article criteria. This page is for dealing with such disputes.
=== If you believe an article should be delisted=== 
If you find an article listed as good that does not actually satisfy the good article criteria, then you can delist it:
# Check the good article criteria to see which criteria it fails to meet.
# If the problem is easy to resolve, it might be better to be bold and fix it yourself.
# If you can't fix it, remove the  tag on the article's talk page and replace it with  or .
# Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria.
# Remove the article from the list at Wikipedia:Good articles.
If you find an article that you suspect should be delisted, but aren't certain, then you can ask other editors to review the situation by adding the article to the list below.	
=== If you believe an article should be listed===
If you disagree with a delisting or failed nomination, it's best not to just take the article back to the nominations page straight away.
# Read why the article was judged to fail the criteria: there should be an explanatory note on its talk page.
# If you can fix the article to address those concerns, and satisfy the good article criteria, you can just renominate it: there is no minimum time limit between nominations! 
# However, if you believe that the explanation given was unreasonable, and that the article does fulfil all the requirements, then you can ask other editors to review it by adding it the list below. A brief discussion should be sufficient to establish consensus on whether the criteria are met.
===Alter the blurb on Wikipedia:Good articles===
If the instructions were moved to the disputes page, and made clearer, there would be less need to spend so long in the introduction to good articles talking about how to delist them (there's been a bit of an imbalance since most of the nominations instructions are kept on the noms page). A shorter, crisper introduction is an added bonus.
Good Articles in Wikipedia
About 0.1% of Wikipedia articles are featured articles, which have been thoroughly reviewed and designated as the very best of Wikipedia. However, there are also many articles containing excellent content but which are unlikely to become featured in their current state; so long as they meet certain quality standards, they may be listed as good articles. 
Currently, 888 articles are listed here as meeting the good article criteria: in short, they should be well written, factually accurate, use a neutral point of view, be stable, referenced, and wherever possible, contain appropriately tagged images to illustrate the topic. Good articles may not be as thorough and detailed as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic.
The process for designating articles as 'good' is simpler and quicker than that for featured articles.  If you find or write an article meeting the criteria, you can add it to the nominations page for an impartial reviewer to assess. Successful candidates are added to this list. Articles are removed if they are promoted to featured status or delisted for not meeting the criteria: anybody can delist an article by following the delisting instructions. If an article's nomination fails or it is delisted, pointers should be given on its talk page on how to improve it to meet the criteria. Disagreements can be resolved on the disputes page. WikiProject Good articles helps to maintain the process.	
===Alter some of the "tag" templates===
 is presently:
	is a former good article candidate. Please view the comments posted below regarding areas that need improvement. Once the objections have been addressed, you may re-submit the article to the good article nominations page or you may attempt to apply for featured article status.
I suggest:
	is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
 has a particular issue, in that it seems to contain instructions for the applier rather than guidance for the reader:
	was removed from the good articles list.  Please discuss the rationale for the removal and improve the article to such an extent that it can once again be listed, or help this article reach featured article status.
I suggest that it should be kept similar to the failed GA template, as fundamentally the article is in the same position:
	was removed from the  good article list. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
 currently doesn't mention how or why to delist, which I think is one reason "bad" delistings happen.
	has been listed as a good article; it adheres to certain quality standards.  If you can expand it or improve it further, please do so!
This template adds articles to :Category:Wikipedia good articles.	
This template adds articles to :Category:Wikipedia good articles.
I suggest, very tentatively:
	has been listed as a good article for adhering to certain quality standards.  If you can expand it or improve it further, please do so!If it does not reach these standards, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This template adds articles to :Category:Wikipedia good articles.	
This template adds articles to :Category:Wikipedia good articles.
The problem with this is that it seems to be downplaying "good article" status. However, the strength of the system comes at least partly from people's willingness and ability to delist articles they find which don't meet the criteria. And we ought to admit that just because, once, somebody judged the article to meet GA criteria, isn't a guarantee that it still does and forever will. It also partly answers the accusation that  is just a piece of back-slapping talk-page pollution (see its TfD...) by emphasising the importance of maintaining GA quality.
I also, strongly, recommend deprecating the template . It is rarely used, but regularly accidentally edited! It also doesn't leave an infobox like the others do, so is liable to get hidden when archived.
====Alternative template proposal (as per Worldtraveller)====
:An alternative would be to deprecate  and  and stick to , on the grounds that it's less obtrusive.TheGrappler 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot to consider here!  I have only got time at the moment to comment on one thing - the use of .  I personally would strongly recommend only using this template when delisting, and deprecating the others.  The reason is that many people have objected to a large tag being displayed on talk pages giving the impression of a consensus decision having been reached when only one person will have reviewed the article.  I could see their point so I created the less obtrusive template.  I use it often, and the reason it looks like it's not used often is that I (and I expect most others) substitute it in.  This stops the problem of subsequent editing as well.  Worldtraveller 16:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that makes a lot of sense. I have altered my suggestion to take account of the alternatives. However, "delisted" GA doesn't make much sense as a template name when applied to failed noms (even if readers don't get to see the template name, it's confusing to editors) - perhaps we should rename it ?  If we are going to actively recommend using it, any instructions for its use should mention that it is applied at the bottom  of the talk page using subst: , but that's easily done. It still wouldn't address my concern that there are editors "in the know" about our (basically quite simple) nomination->fail/pass/pass but then delisted->review if needed, but most aren't, and we should make it easier to seek a review (it increases transparency). One of my reasons for the suggested rewordings on the other templates was to make it clearer that it wasn't a community decision to delist, and hasn't been imposed from "up above" - you can challenge an unfair rejection or delisting if needs be. What about changing the header message to read "PAGENAME not a good article (you can ask for a review of this assessment)" or similar? TheGrappler 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The disputes and GA blurb changes have been made, since they do not appear to be controversial. Could do with a way of implementing a TOC on the disputes page though. I won't act on the template changes until more feedback arrives. TheGrappler 14:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Delisting instructions

message: is presently:
	is a former good article candidate. Please view the comments posted below regarding areas that need improvement. Once the objections have been addressed, you may re-submit the article to the good article nominations page or you may attempt to apply for featured article status.
I suggest:
	is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
 has a particular issue, in that it seems to contain instructions for the applier rather than guidance for the reader:
	was removed from the good articles list.  Please discuss the rationale for the removal and improve the article to such an extent that it can once again be listed, or help this article reach featured article status.
I suggest that it should be kept similar to the failed GA template, as fundamentally the article is in the same position:
	was removed from the  good article list. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.
 currently doesn't mention how or why to delist, which I think is one reason "bad" delistings happen.
	has been listed as a good article; it adheres to certain quality standards.  If you can expand it or improve it further, please do so!
This template adds articles to :Category:Wikipedia good articles.	
This template adds articles to :Category:Wikipedia good articles.
I suggest, very tentatively:
	has been listed as a good article for adhering to certain quality standards.  If you can expand it or improve it further, please do so!If it does not reach these standards, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
This template adds articles to :Category:Wikipedia good articles.	
This template adds articles to :Category:Wikipedia good articles.
The problem with this is that it seems to be downplaying "good article" status. However, the strength of the system comes at least partly from people's willingness and ability to delist articles they find which don't meet the criteria. And we ought to admit that just because, once, somebody judged the article to meet GA criteria, isn't a guarantee that it still does and forever will. It also partly answers the accusation that  is just a piece of back-slapping talk-page pollution (see its TfD...) by emphasising the importance of maintaining GA quality.
I also, strongly, recommend deprecating the template . It is rarely used, but regularly accidentally edited! It also doesn't leave an infobox like the others do, so is liable to get hidden when archived.
====Alternative template proposal (as per Worldtraveller)====
:An alternative would be to deprecate  and  and stick to , on the grounds that it's less obtrusive.TheGrappler 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot to consider here!  I have only got time at the moment to comment on one thing - the use of .  I personally would strongly recommend only using this template when delisting, and deprecating the others.  The reason is that many people have objected to a large tag being displayed on talk pages giving the impression of a consensus decision having been reached when only one person will have reviewed the article.  I could see their point so I created the less obtrusive template.  I use it often, and the reason it looks like it's not used often is that I (and I expect most others) substitute it in.  This stops the problem of subsequent editing as well.  Worldtraveller 16:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that makes a lot of sense. I have altered my suggestion to take account of the alternatives. However, "delisted" GA doesn't make much sense as a template name when applied to failed noms (even if readers don't get to see the template name, it's confusing to editors) - perhaps we should rename it ?  If we are going to actively recommend using it, any instructions for its use should mention that it is applied at the bottom  of the talk page using subst: , but that's easily done. It still wouldn't address my concern that there are editors "in the know" about our (basically quite simple) nomination->fail/pass/pass but then delisted->review if needed, but most aren't, and we should make it easier to seek a review (it increases transparency). One of my reasons for the suggested rewordings on the other templates was to make it clearer that it wasn't a community decision to delist, and hasn't been imposed from "up above" - you can challenge an unfair rejection or delisting if needs be. What about changing the header message to read "PAGENAME not a good article (you can ask for a review of this assessment)" or similar? TheGrappler 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The disputes and GA blurb changes have been made, since they do not appear to be controversial. Could do with a way of implementing a TOC on the disputes page though. I won't act on the template changes until more feedback arrives. TheGrappler 14:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alter some of the "tag" templates

message: :An alternative would be to deprecate  and  and stick to , on the grounds that it's less obtrusive.TheGrappler 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot to consider here!  I have only got time at the moment to comment on one thing - the use of .  I personally would strongly recommend only using this template when delisting, and deprecating the others.  The reason is that many people have objected to a large tag being displayed on talk pages giving the impression of a consensus decision having been reached when only one person will have reviewed the article.  I could see their point so I created the less obtrusive template.  I use it often, and the reason it looks like it's not used often is that I (and I expect most others) substitute it in.  This stops the problem of subsequent editing as well.  Worldtraveller 16:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that makes a lot of sense. I have altered my suggestion to take account of the alternatives. However, "delisted" GA doesn't make much sense as a template name when applied to failed noms (even if readers don't get to see the template name, it's confusing to editors) - perhaps we should rename it ?  If we are going to actively recommend using it, any instructions for its use should mention that it is applied at the bottom  of the talk page using subst: , but that's easily done. It still wouldn't address my concern that there are editors "in the know" about our (basically quite simple) nomination->fail/pass/pass but then delisted->review if needed, but most aren't, and we should make it easier to seek a review (it increases transparency). One of my reasons for the suggested rewordings on the other templates was to make it clearer that it wasn't a community decision to delist, and hasn't been imposed from "up above" - you can challenge an unfair rejection or delisting if needs be. What about changing the header message to read "PAGENAME not a good article (you can ask for a review of this assessment)" or similar? TheGrappler 18:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The disputes and GA blurb changes have been made, since they do not appear to be controversial. Could do with a way of implementing a TOC on the disputes page though. I won't act on the template changes until more feedback arrives. TheGrappler 14:55, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternative template proposal (as per Worldtraveller)

message: I am concerned about some of the summaries of the nature of the votes and discussion regarding support for keeping the Template:Good article, which was deleted. This issue is being discussed again here:  Deletion review of GA template (see Template:Good_article subtopic under April 4). I want to point out the above discussion in case any of you have something substantive to add. It occurs to me that it could be helpful to add some constructive input there. Especially, there is a need I think to correct a perception of lack of attention to, or care for, process (in general) by folks in the GA group. This isn't so, I think. It could help to have some clear restatements of the utility of the GA template while acknowledging the procedural correctness of deletion of a template for a project that is not approved is something reasonable (if you think that way). Another point: I am puzzled by the idea or policy suggested on the page above that one is not supposed to call for input in a project areas affected by a vote. That is a rather strange idea to me. Not sure I read that right. I don't see any GA supportive comments at the above link though. I guess they don't want a vote war. Well, that seems unlikely in this case. Anyway, the approval of GA project is much more important. Bottom line: Helpful statements about process and utility are needed. --Vir 06:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review under way of the GA template deletion decision 

message: This was originally being done alphabetically, but that would be a pain to update. I've made it chronological and added some "pointers" in the wikicode for the page (e.g. only list 7 articles, and  remember to replace the picture with a PD/GFDL one if you remove the currently pictured article from the list). TheGrappler 17:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like alphabetic ordering but the script could be changed to use chronological ordering. The pointers though will be more difficult for the script to maintain. I think you will find few people will be adding to the recently added list (as stated in the nominations that step is optional) and very few will be changing the graphics. Certainly, there is no problem with people adding too many articles to the list, not adding articles or misplacing articles as the script will just fix the mistake on the next run. Cedars 15:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine by me! Does the script know which articles are new? It might be an idea to leave a tagged note on the graphic, saying that PD/GFDL is needed, if only to remind us! TheGrappler 20:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most recently listed

message: What's the possibility of including good lists in GA? Maurreen 17:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the list. Did you try Featured Lists? Nifboy 17:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :Ah, I just asked this question earlier today, changing the GA requirements goes in the GA requirements talk page, its to the right of the main page of the GA article. I only asked because somebody failed a list type article earlier simply for being a list really :/. Homestarmy 17:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I didn't have a particular list in my mind, just curious in general. Maurreen 17:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lists?

message: Yes, I am peeved about this.
The name of the Ethiopian Emperor is Zara Yaqob. It means "Seed of Jacob". "Yaqob" is not his last name; no one uses last names in Ethiopia. Writing it as "Yaqob, Zara" makes as much sense as renaming "Attila the Hun" "Hun, Attila the", or "Seed of Jacob" to "Jacob, Seed of", or "ice cream" to "cream, ice". Will people please stop doing this???? Sheesh, it really mars Wikipedia's credibility every time I see another well-meaning editor mangle his name like this.
At this rate, I'm tempted to delist this article just because of this continued behavior. -- llywrch 04:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a small note in a hidden comment to tell people not to move it.  Hope that will persuade you to leave it listed!  Worldtraveller 09:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks. Some may find it hard to believe, but I don't like to rant at people -- especially when they are trying to help, & their mistake is only due to lack of information. But correcting this was getting tiresome. -- llywrch 20:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to properly alphabetize [[Zara Yaqob]] 

message: Hi everyone,
Just an update on the GAAuto script that sorts and updates the good articles list. The script is constantly undergoing improvement and I have just added comment support to the script. This means that Worldtraveller's comment as well as any other comments added next to an article in the list should stay there.
If you have any comments or ideas on the script please feel free to write me a message.
Surprisingly there are still many more improvements to be made to the script. Including previous changes promised to TheGrappler regarding section comments, improvements that cause the whole page to be updated not just the list and maybe even a bot to update the list (I've recently been learning Python and building a bot seems an excellent way to test my skills).
Cedars 12:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great stuff!  I wondered how it would treat my comment, good to know it won't inadvertently remove it.  Worldtraveller 17:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The GAAuto Script 

message: "The point of GA"? There isn't one. Most articles that are still standing after 60k are probably "good" (in the same way my breakfast was good). Secretaría de Inteligencia is actually quite good. Over-bulleted with an over-long history section and TOC, but definitely good. Take it to WP:PR if hasn't gone already and then take it to WP:FAC if you want to do something useful. If you want a slap on the back about decent content you can ask for comment, but IMHO this page is time wasted that would be better spent on making FAs and this page is actually close. Marskell 00:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't like the concept of identifying good articles - fine.  Just don't pop up repeatedly here to tell us so, it wastes everyone's time.  Worldtraveller 00:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, Worldtraveller. On a personal note, I LIKE the concept of identifying good articles. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: For the many who still don't know the former GA function was removed from the featured template. (See Template talk:Featured) 
This template added articles to :Category:Promoted good articles. This category show cased articles that have been promted from GA status. 69.192.8.106 18:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA -> FA

message: Please sign below what you think should be done with the GA tag. 
Support (Keep Former GA extension of featured template)
Object (Remove Former GA extension of featured template)
Recreate 
Comments
What are we supporting/objecting to? The removal of the GA tag or the addition thereof? Nifboy 22:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA -> FA Tag Strawpoll

message: The ? notice was gone. Not that it bugs me or something. --Howard the Duck | talk, 10:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How could it be a policy in the first place? There's nothing actionable or binding about it. For that matter, WP:FA is neither policy nor guideline; why should this be so? —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As I've said, it doesn't bug me, but I assumed that if the ? notice was gone, then GA would have been a policy already. --Howard the Duck | talk, 12:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BorgHunter is right. GA is not a policy. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Policy' is not really what it is - the tag was there because it was a proposed idea, and I suppose whoever removed it (I didn't notice that it had gone until I saw this post) thought that it's now got enough support and momentum to be beyond 'proposed'.  I'm fine with that, particularly now that we have got more than 1000 articles listed.  Worldtraveller 21:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  So is GA a policy already? 

message: There is now cs:Wikipedie:Dobré články on the Czech Wikipedia (actually, there is a bit more history behind it than that, but still...) bringing the total number of Wikipedias with GA equivalents to six.
I've also put in a picture on the "recent listings" section... people seemed to stop doing it a while ago, if there was a discussion I missed feel free to revert, but especially now that a longer list of additions is given, there is more room for a picture. TheGrappler 12:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czech version, and including a picture