Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH Archive/Good/Featured article era icons

This forum is to propose changing the good and featured article icons currently in use with the {{eras}} template. The current icons can be seen in use at the top of the page.


Current iconsEdit

Proposed iconsEdit

These will, of course, be scaled down to the 30px size used in the template.


  1. --Xwing328(Talk) 22:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Much more stylistically consistent and eye-catching. - breathesgelatinTalk 23:18, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. I agree.Tocneppil 23:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Lord OblivionSith holocronSith Emblem 23:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support, especially if the revised checkmark below is used. jSarek 05:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. --Eyrezer 03:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC) I prefer these ones in colour to the ones below (thought they also look good). I think the colour will better draw attention.


  1. Oppose. The current ones stand out better with their white/clear background. -Fnlayson 18:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


  • I had a request to make the check more like the current one, with a curved back, so here is that rendition:
    • Also, I fixed the shape of the star. I knew something looked weird about the other one.

    • Looks good.Tocneppil 23:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think you should try changing the backgrounds to white, similar to the Infinities era icon. -- I need a name (Complain here) 12:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The reason the backgrounds are black is that the current icons, with white backgrounds, are too easily missed. The black aids the colors in standing out, while still blanding in with the other eras. --Xwing328(Talk) 16:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


Here is another possibility just for the sake of variety. They are colored versions of my original proposal (seen at Forum:Era/Star troubles#New icons), modified to match our main wiki logo as closely as possible. I may need to tone down the gradient effects and make a few more tweaks, but whatever…
SentryTalk 09:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


  1. SentryTalk 09:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Thefourdotelipsis 11:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Better.
  3. Lorth NeedaStriptease 12:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Imp 17:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Cull Tremayne 02:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)-Flashy
  6. Havac 20:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jabbathehuttgartogg(Rancor pit) Grappa's Tattoo 22:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. RedemptionTalk Uglykotoricon 05:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. I like dark. Fatguy2006 23:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. --Eyrezer 02:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


  1. Well, now the color seems to be too dark. I feel that a nominated article should draw attention to it's 'nominated' status.Tocneppil 18:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


  • So we have one person that wants them to stay the same, and a split vote (5-5) on the new design for them. Suggestions? --Xwing328(Talk) 03:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Wait for more votes; it's only been two days. jSarek 22:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Lol. Yeah, I know. I was just feeling impatient then. --Xwing328(Talk) 00:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I actually really like the shape of this check, but the color of XWing's proposal. I'm sticking with my vote because I think the bright colors are important, but I really like that check shape. - breathesgelatinTalk 22:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • The shape can be changed eventually if needed. It's not too hard. --Xwing328(Talk) 22:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Enable ClearType! (As a side note, most Linuxes have antialiasing enabled by default.) - Sikon 17:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

See alsoEdit

Previous conversations involving this topic:

Front page?Edit

I also see that there is a free space next to the quote of the day section on the front page. Perhaps we could put the good articles there, in a more compact format than FA. Perhaps even without a byline from the article, just drawing attention to it. I think something tlike that would also get people more aware of the category and so it would grow faster. --Eyrezer 03:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I like it. That's a good idea. Of course, we'll have to get an admin's approval. --Xwing328(Talk) 03:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, that space can fluctuate given the length of the FA blurb. And if we did do it, it should be small, as you say, because we don't want to equate it with being a FA. The problem is that Good Articles aren't queued for certain weeks. -- Ozzel 05:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Good point about the length Ozzel. --Eyrezer 22:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Even better idea: Change the way FA works. FAs would be chosen from the pool of GAs, with GA nomination working as a peer review (similar to the FA nomination today). FA would only mean an article has been featured on the main page at some point, GA would be the mark of quality. --Imp 22:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

  • More like Wikipedia you mean, where all FAs are not necessarily featured on the front page? - breathesgelatinTalk 22:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly, except less confusing due to the non-featured FAs being called GAs. :) --Imp 22:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I like this idea! --Xwing328(Talk) 22:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
        • This could work!Tocneppil 06:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


There seems to be clear support for the new icons now and I see that the FA star has been changed already. Can we now change the good icon as well? --Eyrezer 01:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)