Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 5

message: I found it a shame that the FAs got their own userboxes but not the GAs, so I whipped one up.
Enjoy :) --SeizureDog 12:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New GA userbox

message: 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.
*category Good Articles
**category GA -- Arts, Architecture & Archaeology
***category GA -- Archaeology
***category GA -- Architecture
***category GA -- Art
***category GA -- Biographys of Artists
***category GA -- Museums and Galleries
**category GA -- Awards and Decorations
***category GA -- Orders of Chivalry
***category GA -- Military Decorations
**category GA -- Biology 
...etc
:*category GA now Featured Articles
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)
thread_title:  Project vs Category 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GA star/status 

message: Good Articles are eligible for nomination for Release Version 0.5. Maurreen 12:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We know and try to assess the most article in order to help people at the V0.5. Lincher 17:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Release Version 0.5

message: 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. Λυδαcιτγ 01:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music noticeboard 

message: 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)
replies: text: As far as I know, that's what's meant to happen.  FA is a higher level than GA.--Konstable 02:28, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA va FA

message: 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)
replies: text: What was the point of all of this reinstatement talk? Netscott 16:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: GA veto rules may sadly state that one editor may have veto power, but they say nothing about the community having to necessarily respect and endorse those veto decisions, a good reason for the dispute page to exist. Homestarmy 17:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: JEREMY, keep in mind that the spirit of the 3RR is much more important than the letter to many people on Wikipedia. I think the real culprit here is the current GA process. Perhaps: allow anyone to add a GA, allow anyone to remove it, but once it has been removed once, it should have to go through a more thorough process for all future additions and removals. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Persistent violation of GA veto rules

message: 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)
replies: text: The real reason behind this is, I think, so that articles that do not meet GA or don't reflect the WP guidelines or policies at one very moment it should be delisted. Altough, if some disagreement occurs on that subject it can be addressed in the Disputes page. Lincher 17:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That happened, and the consensus was that the article should be reinstated which it was whereupon a single editor User:Jeremygbyrne again immediately delisted it citing single editor "veto power". The dispute page does not seem sufficient in such a case. Netscott 18:39, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but you are talking nonsense. 1. The disagreement has not been addressed at all. 2. Jeremy is not the only editor who opposes the good article status. 3. Why do you think is the JP article the only article in WP, where the majority wants to overrule the minority by changing the GA rules? Raphael1 19:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Raphael1, do you think User:Joturner is a "bad" muslim for agreeing that Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy merits standing as a "Good article"? Netscott 19:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How should I know? Besides I strongly reject every dualism (good and bad judgement). There are  more options than just black and white. Unfortunately computers only know about 0 or 1. Raphael1 20:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only ask you because of your tendency to "adopt" Muslim editors as Turkish editor User:Azate succintly explained here. I think Azate said it best when he described how in editing matters and deciscion making matters you're  "seconding them unconditionally for a while because you feel that they are 'persecuted' as a matter of principle". Why not "adopt" User:Joturner's view on this one? Netscott 20:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't "adopt" anyones view. Sometimes editors happen to share my view on certain issues. Azate and you seem to have a vivid fantasy. Raphael1 00:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you mean you happen to share their views? Heh.. come on.. admit it. Netscott 00:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "we happen to share the same view"? Raphael1 00:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now why would User:Azate have made such an accurate portrayal of your involvement on Wikipedia relative to Muslim editors? He's had no axe to grind with you. Seriously, he put that so correctly it was as though he was a psychologist in the preciscion of his analysis. Netscott 00:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about Azates motives to portray his guesswork. Anyway a professional psychologist would never conduct a remote analysis based on Wikipedia diffs. Raphael1 01:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I think what really ended up being the problem was that although Natalya got through to letting us all speak on the issue, because many editors left when Anjoe and Jeremy kind of started discussing everything with just each other, we never actually got to a real vote on whether or not we should change the policy. We don't need a unanimous vote, just consensus, and of course a replacement sort of thing to put in the veto power things place because after all, articles do often need to be delisted. Homestarmy 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The real question is how much process should be added to the GA nominations. Part of their appeal is that there is so little red tape. As I suggested above, we should keep the initial "anyone can add/anyone can remove" and then have a process for all further additions and removals. However, for articles that are controversial its questionable whether editors should be wasting time fighting over the continuous removal and addition of the GA badge and just focus on the FA process where they won't have to worry about trolls removing the badge. Basically, I'm saying that the GA badge might not be for articles that are on controversial topics. savidan(talk) (e@) 00:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There goes most religious and political articles if that's enforced.... Homestarmy 02:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But surely that's reasonable, if they're contentious. Why is it necessary that an article is given a little gold star? Isn't it preferable that there be fewer stars and more wikilove? — JEREMY 06:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually I agree with this view which is why I support you call for modification of the GA guidelines below. Netscott 00:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Need to move away from Veto power