Wookieepedia talk:Good article nominations

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. 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!" 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  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).  - breathesgelatin Talk 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.  - breathesgelatin Talk 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. 17:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Nominated template
For
 * 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1)  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. 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it, but I would suggest Template:Goodarticle, Template:Gooda or something along those lines, because that's more specific, which helps those of us who aren't good with remembering template names. -  Angel Blue  (Holonet) 17:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Out of those two, I'd say Template:Goodarticle
 * 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, the second is .  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. 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:

With the image of Luke waiting to be awarded his medal at the end of ANH.Tocneppil 08:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC) http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v307/xwing328/Featured.png http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v307/xwing328/Good.png
 * 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. 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.) 17:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v307/xwing328/Featured-1.png http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v307/xwing328/Good-1.png
 * 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. 17:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Probably, just give me a few minutes. Also, I started a proposal forum here - Forum:Good/Featured article era icons 23:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I love these!  - breathesgelatin Talk 23:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, the curved check is now on the forum linked to in my previous comment. 23:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Protocol
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
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?
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. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. -Fnlayson 15:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Time limit clarification/change
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 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  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)

Vote count?

 * 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)
 * Yes they are. 23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -Fnlayson 23:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Format/Header change

 * 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
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 (+2)
 * 1) Support. Fnlayson 20:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) See my comment above (Time Limit section) --Jedimca0(Do or Do Not, There is No Try) 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * One month after last objection (0)


 * 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. [[Image:AckbarSig.jpg|20px]]  TheOne&OnlyAdmirableAckbar  ( It's A Trap! ) 22:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. Added that as an option.  Adjust if I got missed something. -Fnlayson 22:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)