Wikipedia talk:Good articles/Archive 4

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)
*Polaris999 01:13, 18 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 

message: Following suggestion, I've set up a daughter project that will be concerned specifically with articles that are well-written and illustrated, but lack references. I feel that these are a particular quality concern for Wikipedia, and should be given proper attention.
You can find the proposal here.
Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for Unreferenced Good Articles project 

message: I'm not sure if this has come up somewhere before, but it doesn't make sense to me that there is an option to delist a good article that isn't actually good and an option to dispute it. Shouldn't all questionable articles go through a review before delisting? Others have brought up the issue of giving each editor veto power on GA status. I have that same issue. joturner 04:11, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "This article is a former Good Article candidate, see its review page for suggestions on how to improve it"? Nifboy 07:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It says "If it does not meet the criteria, or has ceased to since its inclusion, you can delist it or ask for a review." in the  template. joturner 09:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This discussion is currently taking place over there. It would seem a good idea to keep it in one place; why not participate there? — JEREMY 04:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delist or Dispute? 

message: I can't find a category to place this GA. Please put it in a category. Thank you.Loom91 06:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Earwax]] 

message: Shouldn't there the be a template that puts the "Good article" icon in the top-right corner like featured articles? It'd be easy enough to make, and I'd be willing to do it if everyone agrees.
I think it could also solve something that bothers me. The category "Good articles" is full of talkpages, not articles. I think the category should be removed from the  template and put into a top-right icon template so that the article goes into the category, not it's talkpage. - Phorque 08:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was done before, and deleted after discussion on WP:TFD.  Also, the featured star is listed for deletion there right now.  Metadata on articles is generally to be avoided.  I don't think there's anything we can do about the category listing talk pages unfortunately.  Worldtraveller 08:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arg, the category thing just seems so insanely stupid. It irritates me so much. You just can't win on Wikipedia sometimes. - Phorque 08:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top-right icon 

message: I like our nominations system here; it works very well and fulfils its intent to be unbureaucratic and rapid.  However, as I outlined above, we're identifying two types of articles - excellent short articles, which would be worthy of inclusion in a printed edition or CD release, and longer ones that aren't there yet.  I maintain my belief that for articles any longer than about 20kb, one person cannot adequately review them, and listing them as 'good articles' does not do them justice.  However, it seems people do want to carry on nominating them and reviewing them, so I thought the best thing to do would be to set up a separate page for the excellent short articles - WP:ESA (page design still a work in progress).
What I would not like to do, though, is cause a split in the pool of active reviewers.  It seems to me that with the split in the nominations page between short and long articles it would be quite simple for reviewers to simply add short articles that they pass to WP:ESA, and add long articles to WP:GA, rather than instituting another similar review system for WP:ESA.  What does anyone think? Worldtraveller 13:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: agree excellent short articles should be highlighted(encouraged), because the topic doesn't have sufficient material to create a long article shouldn't detract from from the quality of the work or exclude it from publications.. The 20kb length shouldnt be an arbitary cut of point but a flexiable guide, suggest that the limit be set within a range say 20kb - 25kb that way articles dont get squeezed to fit within the criteria. Gnangarra 00:00, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a felxible guide would be good.  I'd actually think that 'around' 15kb would be good for these purposes because that's roughly the size of the shortest FAs.  There is no reason at all why a 20kb article couldn't be an FA so I'd think the cutoff for ESA needs to be shorter than that.   I wouldn't think there'd be many examples of squeezing an article to make it an ESA - much more likely to see padding out an ESA to try and make it an FA, I would have thought! Worldtraveller 00:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I really disagree with this proposal. Many people like to browse both long and short good articles in the subject area of their interest. Splitting the short articles would make it more difficult for them. Also too many similar projects are likely to dampen the enthusiasm of potential helpers for all such projects. Cedars 00:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I also do not want to split up a project that's working very well.  I just want to see it concentrate on what it's best at, which is reviewing short articles.  The problem with reviewing a long article is that no matter how thoroughly I review something that's 40kb long, I'm bound to miss something that someone else will notice.  Laziness has nothing to do with it.  Multi-person reviews become far more effective as article length increases, and I honestly don't see a great deal of value in a single person review of a long article.  I honestly can't understand what benefit there is to getting them reviewed here instead of on peer review or FAC.  Worldtraveller 15:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for dual output

message: I created the article Medieval hunting, and while I'm very proud to see it listed as a good article, I'm a bit surprised to see it under the category of 'Sports' rather than 'History'. One of my main points in the articel was that hunting was much more than a pastime to the medieval aristocracy, and that it had wide-ranging social, military and poliitcal connotations. Could it perhaps be moved over to 'History' - 'Europe'? Eixo 22:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think being bold would apply here. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gee, the site is just too flashy and impressive, but I gave it a try. Thanks! Eixo 04:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Medieval hunting

message: Now that this has been done though, it seems to me that 'Biographies of historical figures' under 'History', and 'Royalty and nobility' under 'Royalty, nobility, and heraldry' somewhat step on each other's turf. 'Royalty, nobility, and heraldry' has three articles all together, do we really need this as a seperate category? Eixo 04:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing these are somewhat based on the categories used in WP:FA. It may also be the case that "nobility" is meant to refer to current or historically insignificant figures, but this is a wild guess. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The real problem is that there is confusion between the two, because there are plenty of royal biographies under the 'Biographies of historical figures' section of 'History', but also some under the 'Royalty and nobility' section of 'Royalty, nobility, and heraldry'. This is unfortunate, because you might not find what you're looking for. The system seems to work better for Featured articles. I suggest we either remove 'Royalty, nobility, and heraldry' altogether, or, failing that, conduct a thorough clean-up. Eixo 13:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category overlap

message: Taking our lessons from the demise of the Scientific Peer Review project, there is now a much simpler way to attract academic peer review. Feel free to give us your comments, but please remember to keep it simple.  - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Academic peer review]] 

message: Unlike with featured articles the good articles and links to them are rarely found, I believe that there should be a link in the Featured articles section and in the navigation panel to the list of good articles. We must remember that these articles like featured articles represent the better of wikipedia. 
I also think that the top right icon is vital because when a person is browsing and sees that sign it lets them no this is good work. I don't check the talk page of every article I go on.--Childzy 15:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree absolutely; 'Good articles' is an important part of improving the quality of Wikipedia. Eixo 13:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree GA need to be more identifiable. Gnangarra 13:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Please see discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles/Nominations#Good_Article_Drive_and_other_suggestions --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finding a good article- too hard 

message: I noticed that Schwarzenegger, Arnold is listed both as a politician and as an actor. He's not counted twice is he? Or is it ok to list articles in multiple categories?--SeizureDog 09:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What I think is happening was that people used to categorize in multiple categories thus double counting only a few articles. There is a bot counting the number of articles there are, once he finds these duplicates, they will be removed. Lincher 11:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No the article is only counted once by the GAAuto script. Articles can only be listed at most twice. This encourages users to think carefully about where they place articles. Cedars 11:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the info. With this in mind I double listed Megatokyo as both a website and stick it in a new category of "Comics, graphic novels, and manga" in the "Literature" section as it is both equally a website and a published series. --SeizureDog 13:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the clear up. Lincher 11:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double count?