Template talk:GA

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Can someone fix the phrasing of this template please? It doesn't make any sense. If the article "has been identified as adhering to the quality standards leading to a featured article", then why isn't it a featured article already? — Timwi 14:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] TfD debate

This template survived a debate at TfD. The discussion can be foudn here. -Splash^talk 00:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] new version

What a shame. Blindly characterising substantive and good faith revisions as vandalism hardly evers leads to a beautiful relationship. The previous version did not read well, lacked precision, and was partially informal in tone. In particular:

• A "good article" may never graduate to featured article status. The wording "adhering to the quality standards leading to a featured article" obviously means "adhering to the quality standards which may make it eligible for featured article status", but this is verbose and so an alternative was needed.
• We have a redundant link to the WP page; both "good article" and "identified" link there.
• On the matter of form and being, a given article may appear on the good article list without actually being a "good article". It is more robust to note that an article has been identified as a good article. If you think that a "good article" is always a good article in an absolute sense, well even sub-standard articles manage to become featured articles. That's why we allow this status to be revoked in the appropriate case.
• You cannot reasonably maintain that the statement "if you see a way this page (can be updated)…" is superior in tone, grammar of form to "If you can update (this article)…". It's not rocket science, it's just plain English fit for the project. Vandalism indeed. 203.198.237.30 03:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

This seems to be one of those cases where I agree with an un-logged-in editor. I think the new wording is an improvement. Slambo (Speak) 12:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

That's just too pedantic and too tortured. Don't over-analyse this stuff! Restoring and lightening the wording. Dan100 (Talk) 11:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

• Possibly valid observations, if you weren't ignorant of the background. The above was purely the result of an arbitrary reversion. In the interests of communication rather than edit conflict, the above explanation then got inserted. It didn't have to be thay way. On your modifications: So, you're from the let's improve things! school. Cool! What's not is your glossing over of the second last point above. The fact of the matter is that so-called "good articles" very often ain't. Use of the template in this form offers indefinite opportunities for embarrassment vis a vis this whole ongoing thing about WP's quality. Please reconsider and change back to "this article has been identified as a good article". 222.166.160.74 16:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Added Corrollary

See Template:FormerGA at Template:FormerGA Benjamin Gatti 03:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewording

As part of a group of related potential changes, I have very tentatively suggested rewording this to:

	GA 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 follow the delisting instructions to remove it from the good articles list.
This template adds articles to Category:Wikipedia good articles.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Good articles for more details. TheGrappler 03:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The wording has been changed substantially these past few days. Has a final result been reached? —Eternal Equinox | talk 14:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cd selection?

It appears this now includes articles in the cd selection cat. However, the featured template doesn't even do this... I'll go ahead and add it to that one for now I guess. Anything think it shouldn't? RN 15:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewed version

I'd like to suggest that the tag include a link to the reviewed version, but I'm not sure how to set it up. WP:FAs and WP:FL offer other historical information. Maurreen 15:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be fairly easy to add a new parameter (oldid) specifying the reviewed version, which if present would change the appearance to:

GA (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article for meeting the criteria for this category of articles. If you can expand or improve it further, please do so! If it does not meet the criteria, or has ceased to since its inclusion, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Is this sort of what you have in mind? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! Thank you. Maurreen 15:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I still need clarification, please. I would copy the above to the template page and then delete the "66476881", and then the appropriate number would be filled in when the tag is placed, right? Maurreen 16:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No, the above is just for appearance. The template code will be a little more complicated. Assuming this look is what you're after, I'll add a parameter and change the template so that if the parameter is supplied the (reviewed version) bit will show up. To use it, you'd put {{GA|oldid=nnnnnn}} on the talk page (replacing nnnnn with the id number of the reviewed version) rather than just {{GA}}. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much. I felt ignorant because I couldn't figure it out. Maurreen 21:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to try it out. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It works. I appreciate your help. Maurreen 22:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Instruction

To indicate the reviewed version of a Good Article, use {{GA|oldid=nnnnnn}} on the talk page (replacing nnnnn with the id number of the reviewed version) rather than just {{GA}}. Maurreen 22:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Added clarification

I put this <noinclude> message on the template's page:

Do not add this template to an article if it has not had a review on the article's talk page. To nominate a good article, use {{GAnominee}}.

I think this will be helpful with the common problem of users sticking the template on pages they think are pretty good, but which have not actually gone through the GA process, like iPod. Twinxor t 22:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Add warning note if not used with oldid

It should be useful to have a warning note for that.

Fred-Chess 02:52, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It could look something like this:

GA has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. (This template should be used together with "oldid" to denote the promoted revision, see Template:GA) If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

and if oldid was provided

GA has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. (reviewed version) If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

But I don't know, maybe the template shouldn't be cluttered. Fred-Chess 03:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)