FANDOM


will this go on the front page then? Jedi Dude 08:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't know. I hadn't thought about that. The front page is pretty full right now. --Xwing328(Talk) 15:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I think we need to promote this category a bit more. It is the same few people that are voting. Any ideas? --Eyrezer 05:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
      • How about a Senate Hall topic titled "Vote for Good Articles!" --Xwing328(Talk) 15:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
        • And a template for the good articles, otherwise whats the point, no one is going to go into the catorgory really. Jedi Dude 17:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
          • There is a template. Currently, it places a green check at the top of the page. However, this design is under discussion and could change. The template is {{eras|good}} --Xwing328(Talk) 18:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
            • Is there an area to vote on this template? I also think that this category could use boxes for an article's page (when it is nominated) and talk page (when it is formally selected as a GA). - breathesgelatinTalk 15:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • When you say vote on the template, are you wanting to change it? The tick seems to be working well at the moment. I think the nominated banner is a good idea too. --Eyrezer 03:21, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I am not specifically wanting to change it. But since XWing328 said it was "under discussion" I thought there might be a place to vote on it. The tick is fine with me. I just think that there should also be a "Nominated as a Good Article" banner as well as a "This is a Good Article" banner for the article's talk page. - breathesgelatinTalk 04:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
      • When I looked at the dates I couldn't believe it was only a month ago that it was "under discussion". How fast time flies when you are editing! --Eyrezer 07:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
        • One of the "discussions" in question took place here. Sorry I didn't reference that before. I'll try and throw together a template for nominated articles, so we can see how it will work. --Xwing328(Talk) 17:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Nominated template Edit

Wiki-shrinkable This article is nominated to be highlighted as a good article!
Feel free to review this page's entry and voice your opinion.
LinkGA-check

For

  1. --Xwing328(Talk) 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Angel Blue (Holonet) 17:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Against

Comments

  • Here's a sample template for good article nominees. I plan to create it as Template:Good if everyone's happy with it. --Xwing328(Talk) 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I created another template based on {{nominated}}. It would serve to replace it, and could be used for both good and featured nominated articles. You just have to specify which one, with the variable "good" or "featured". The first one is {{User:Xwing328/Template:TestA|featured}}, the second is {{User:Xwing328/Template:TestA|good}}. --Xwing328(Talk) 00:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it might be a good idea to have it looking a bit different from the featured article one. Perhaps a different picture. Otherwise it would be easy to mistake them. --Eyrezer 00:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree. And now that I think about it, the one template for both is probably too confusing. What if we used Wikipedia's good article pic? Also, the background color could be changed. Maybe to a light green like #dfd. --Xwing328(Talk) 01:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I was wondering whether the check couldn't be a little more pronounced? In some cases I've missed it up in the corner of some articles. Perhaps a gold star, or since we're in the Star Wars Universe, the medal given to Luke and Han at the end of ANH.Tocneppil 05:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I was also wondering if we had to use the current logo, or if templates could be modified the way userboxes are. I was thinking of something like:


LukeSkywalker-ANH This article is nominated to be highlighted as a

good article!
Feel free to review this page's entry
and voice your opinion.

LinkGA-check

With the image of Luke waiting to be awarded his medal at the end of ANH.Tocneppil 08:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

  • I'll try and work on getting a better image once I get out of class. We can't use a gold star because that is what the featured articles use. --Xwing328(Talk) 15:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Oh, right. Actually my major 'complaint' (for lack of a better word -its not really a complaint) is with size/color. Maybe moving it over to the left corner by the name so it won't be overwhelmed by all the black of the eras?Tocneppil 17:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That's a possibility for the future, but first, the {{title}} and {{eras}} templates would have to be combined so they could work together. I did create some colord icons though for now. What do you think? (They'll be a lot smaller, of course.) --Xwing328(Talk) 17:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

{removed due to abusefilter}/albums/v307/xwing328/Featured.png {removed due to abusefilter}/albums/v307/xwing328/Good.png

        • I'm implementing the top template now. If it needs to be changed later it can easily be done so. --Eyrezer 02:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
        • Oh, yeah, that'll probably work. They'll be in their own space and won't be cozying up to the other eras. Plus, putting them a box like you've done should help highlight the colors (although could the green be a shade brighter, you know, more eye-catching?)Tocneppil 17:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Is that better? It's just pure green now. --Xwing328(Talk) 17:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

{removed due to abusefilter}/albums/v307/xwing328/Featured-1.png {removed due to abusefilter}/albums/v307/xwing328/Good-1.png

    • Yeah, that should draw the eye to the corner no problem. Thanks again:)Tocneppil 18:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
      • That brighter tick is good but I prefer the style of the current one, ie the curved back. Can we do that? --Eyrezer 23:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

ProtocolEdit

What happens when Z-95 has 6 votes for, and one vote against, giving it an overall total of 5? Promoted or not? --Eyrezer 23:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I brought this question up for possible discussion at the Mofference, but I don't think it was talked about. Unfortunately, at least two articles like the one mentioned were already promoted before this could be decided: Cha'formbi'trano and Shmi Skywalker. In the mean time, I'd suggest working to fulfill the objector's demands. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Archiving Edit

I've added a section at bottom of GA page about archiving passed nominations on a subpage. -Fnlayson 15:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Time limit? Edit

The main page here says a nomination has to get 5 votes after a week. What is supposed to happen to it if it does not get the 5 votes after that time? -Fnlayson 15:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think there is any rule on how long they can take to get the 5 votes. By the way, L8-L9 has been nominated for less than a week so isn't a GA yet. Green Tentacle (Talk) 15:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I thought the article had the GA symbol already. -Fnlayson 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
  • We've been interpreting it so far as "must have five votes, and must be left on for at least a week to give people time to object." There doesn't seem to be a time limit for the article to get five votes, though. —Silly Dan (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, thanks. -Fnlayson 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Time limit clarification/change Edit

Currently the time limit is stated as

If it has more than five votes after a week, the article will be considered a "Good article" and tagged with the {{Eras|good}} template.

I've been thinking about incorporating the time to object thing and giving it longer before being removed. What about this?

Articles that have not received five votes after two weeks after being nominated will be removed. Article will be given one week after receiving five votes to allow time for users to object. Each article that passes will be considered a "Good article" and tagged with the {{Eras|good}} template.

Tweak the wording or times as needed. Thanks. -Fnlayson 04:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  • It could use a little tweaking, but not much. Nice job, Fnlayson. This is one of the major changes that I've wanted to see on the GA page since I've started contributing to it. Hopefully it can be incorporated! Greyman(Paratus) 22:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Any other suggestions or comments on this?? -Fnlayson 16:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I like the idea of having a time limit to stop them sitting inactive for months on end, but I don't think 2 weeks is long enough since some genuinely good articles taking up longer than that to pass. As for making articles wait a week after getting to five, if we did that here we'd have to do it for FA nominations too. I don't know how popular the idea would be. Green Tentacle (Talk) 17:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
      • We're generally been waiting some time after the 5 votes here already. There's a much larger group that can vote here, so that may not apply to FA Inq voting. Change that to 2 or 3 days whatever.. -Fnlayson 17:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
      • This comes strait from the FA nomination page:
        "Once all objectors' complaints have been solved (or the article has 5 supports and no objections after at least a week), the article will be added to the queue and be officially known as a "featured article"."
        It appears that FA's already have to wait a week after the fifth vote, so that won’t be a problem. As for the "limit", I think that's a good idea but I agree with Green Tentacle two weeks is to short, perhaps three weeks will be better. I think we need a time limit for GA nominations to make sure that articles that are not yet ready for good status can’t fill the page and make new users assume they can just nominate any article thinking we will simply improve it for them. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 18:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Good, 1 week after 5 votes seems OK. The time limit here is vaguely stated as a week now so I lengthened that to 2 weeks. 1 month seems good round time limit to me. Whatever seems like reasonable.. -Fnlayson 18:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
          • Trust me, I've closed most of the FA nominations lately and we never wait a week after the fifth vote. The rule is, and has always been, that the article has to have 5 votes after being nominated for at least a week. Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
            • The 1 week thing is clearly stated on the FA nominations page under How to vote. If that's not a rule, it's a guideline of some kind.
              In any event, there's no reason things have to be exactly the same both places. I've stated 1 reason why not and I'm sure there are others... -Fnlayson 20:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
              • Yes it is clearly stated, exactly as I said. Five supports and no objections after at least a week since it was nominated. That's the rule. Ask any other Inquisitor and they'll tell you the same thing. Green Tentacle (Talk) 21:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
                • That's one way to read it and the way it was meant. But it could be read a week after getting the 5 votes. That's the whole reason I brought this up. And this is just wasting time. I'm done.. -Fnlayson 21:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • After watching this idea grow, and after much conversation in IRC, I have gone ahead and tweaked the wording on the GA nominations page to reflect the policy which, indeed, needed clarification. Cheers, Greyman(Paratus) 02:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Vote count? Edit

  • Are numbered objections counted as negative votes, like with the Quote of the Day? I don't see anything on the main page or this talk page that covers this. Thanks.. -Fnlayson 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Format/Header change Edit

  • I'm not seeing the page/discussion/edit/history tabs at the top of the Good Articles tab now. Also, the votes below the rules aren't showing up. Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Hmm. It all works fine for me in both Firefox and IE7. What browser are you running? Green Tentacle (Talk) 19:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm using IE7 now. I don't know. Does the page look the same for you if you aren't logged in? -Fnlayson 21:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Everything is fine now. Removing the TOC thing seemed to fix it. Thanks Culator. -Fnlayson 22:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Time limit for removing Edit

OK, we can at least vote on this part to the main GA page. See Time Limit section above for background.

Articles that have not received five votes after (TIME?) after (Nomination/Objection?) will be removed.

So how long should articles stay on GA page before being removed? Vote below.


One month after nomination (0)
Support. Fnlayson 20:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
See my comment above (Time Limit section) --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Jediknight19bby (Jedi High Council Chambers!) 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
One month after objection (+4)
  1. Inactivity - suggestion below AckbarSig TheOne&OnlyAdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 23:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per AdmirableAckbar. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 23:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  3. This is better. -Fnlayson 23:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  4. Ah, better. Jediknight19bby (Jedi High Council Chambers!) 14:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Other?


Comments
  • I think a GA nomination's should be down to inactivity. So, instead of what is being proposed, something like: Articles that have not had any objections addressed after (TIME?) of first objection will be removed. That way if someone nominates a really difficult article for GA, they have the time to address the objections. AckbarSig TheOne&OnlyAdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • That sounds reasonable. Added that as an option. Adjust if I got something wrong. -Fnlayson 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Inactivity needs to be in the wording too if an article doesn't get objections. Such as "Articles that have not received five votes after one month from first objection or last vote will be removed." How's that? -Fnlayson 14:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Inactivity Edit

This page has been stagnant lately. Is it possible to have some Inqs at least check the GA Nom page a few times a week? Chack Jadson Talk 19:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, I have noticed this also. What about lowering the necessary number of votes to 4? -- AdmirableAckbar [Talk] 19:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I tend to keep an eye on the nominations and inform an Inq when I think a nom is inactive and needs to be removed, some article are still undergoing improvements and others just need one more vote. I think lowering the necessary number of votes will solve most problems. --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 20:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I've been keeping an eye on the page and removing both successful and unsuccessful noms from it. The older ones that are on there are being worked on, and I have some that I've given a deadline (in my own head) for before removing them for being inactive. Greyman(Paratus) 20:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry to bring this up again, but once again this page appears to be movin very slowly. Not many voters, and many articles that have been here a while. Thoughts? Chack Jadson (Talk) 21:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Allowed to vote? Edit

I don't want to make something wrong, so I want to ask if I'm allowed to vote? Kind regards, Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk to me 14:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Users with at least 50 mainspace edits, per this CT can vote on the GAN page. It appears you have 44 edits, so after a few more contributions, you will be able to vote. Aqua Unasi 14:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to use an old section but what is the limit for recently registered users to nominate? I have 101+ edits so I'm okay on that front. I went to nominate Black Vulkars but couldn't put the actual nomination up on the GAN page. NayayenOld Republic military symbolTransmit words at me 22:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • You need 50 article edits (you currently have 46 of those, the rest are on other pages). But the page is also locked so new users can't edit it. You should be able to edit the page in a few days. Green Tentacle (Talk) 23:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

GAN rulesEdit

Is it just me, or does rule 5 need a rewrite? A Good Article must following the review process, it is stable, i.e., it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of ongoing edit wars. This does not apply to vandalism and protection or semi-protection as a result of vandalism. How can we expect GA's to be well written if the rules aren't? :) SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 07:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

  • I find that perfectly understandable. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 13:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
    • "A Good article must following the review process". Is "[subject] must following [object]" really good English? I strongly suggest a rewording.--Skippy Farlstendoiro 13:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Didn't notice that, but it's meant to mean "must, following the review process, be stable..." which is what I've changed it to (I didn't write that in the first place, so don't blame me ;-) ) -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 14:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Books Edit

Are books able to be nominated? I ask because alot of the books I've looked at on the sight seem like they could be good articles but aren't. User:Rayn3000

  • Yes, its just that few want to go through and find out every detail in them. Or get them to follow the guidelines. If you want to then go for it. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 02:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by every detail? Like I have to summarize every bit of the whole book? And thank you for the help User:Rayn3000

  • Well, frankly, yes you do. You must have a comprehensive summary, providing context, maybe description, and also have a major characters section. You must also have most of the specific things mentioned in the article by name in the sections below, maybe info about conception, critical reaction, and other things fitting. OOU articles require a lot of research. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 07:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks again :) User:Rayn3000

Woops sorry Edit

I attempted to re-nominated Radanthus Mandelatara for GA status, but in doing so it mistakenly posted the old archived nomination (which seems to have archived this entire page).

I guess I don't know how to actually re-nominate.... StarsiderSWG (talk) 22:16, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

  • Try making the page from the template on the article. I added the (second nomination) to it. Cade StupidRepublicEmblem-Traced-TORkit Calrayn 22:18, May 18, 2013 (UTC)

miscategorized steps Edit

Steps 4 and 5 under "How to vote" have nothing to do with how to vote; they explain how the result of the vote is determined. They should be under a new section header, something like Result. Asithol (talk) 00:31, May 22, 2014 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.