Talk: Good Articles

Emptiness

Why "List of Goof Articles" is so empty? Aren't the Featured Articles starting from the one of Wild Rose Rebellion get the "GA" automatically as well or do we need to consider GAs separately from FAs? Also, does "After the article has been nominated for a week, if all flagged problems have been solved and there are no further problems detected, then the article becomes a Good Article." applies to denomination as well?—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 21:06, November 30, 2013 (UTC)

No. It's not an automatic thing because the FAs don't go through the same process the GAs do.

Also yeah, denomination would be "after a week, if raised problems are not resolved, then no longer a GA". JBed (talk) 21:21, November 30, 2013 (UTC)

We still list "Odin" as a GA here, although "Odin" doesn't have the {{GA}} template, and we still list that article as a 'denomination'. And should we remove "Final Fantasy VII" and "Lightning (Final Fantasy XIII)" from nomination (preferably archive all three somehow)?—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 21:29, November 30, 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning Up

We have nearly a dozen of nominations at the moment and I'd like to see them (at least some of them) resolved, so if some could just say what each nomination lacks that's be great.—Kaimi (999,999 CP/5 TP) ∙ 00:10, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

They do. JBed (talk) 00:12, October 22, 2014 (UTC)

Denomination

Denomination sounds useless, the only time I can think of someone ever wanting to denominate an article is if a new game is released including the article's subject and suddenly there's a stub. It seems like a massive hassle to denominate and renominate the same thing every time just for that.-- Technobliterator ^T_C 11:54, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

You gave the (almost) exact reason it exists. An article is no longer a Good Article if new info becomes available that the article does not have. FAs are nominated for how they appear at a moment in time, GAs are so because of how they are at the current date.

Thus denomination exists. The process also highlights what info needs to be added and gives a timeframe for the GA to be improved before it loses its status. JBed (talk) 12:22, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the word "Denomination" is wrong, or I'm missing something. Putting a GA on hold if not updated with new info shortly works, removing, readding then renominating just seems like a hassle. If it's just putting on hold to add it after the new information is added, then maybe...actually I can't think of a better word than "denomination".-- Technobliterator ^T_C 12:27, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

If the info is not added in a timely manner then it loses its GA status, and will have to be renominated. It's not really that much of a hassle, it's logical process. JBed (talk) 12:31, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

This makes sense, but my only concerns are for upcoming unreleased games (ie, if a new game like G-Bike comes out, there's no way to unstub it or add information until release), and perhaps there should be a 'former GA' or something section that lists articles which were once GA that could get the status again if the new information is added?-- Technobliterator ^T_C 12:34, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

A stub is only a stub if it's missing available information. So missing complex gameplay information on an unreleased game a stub does not make, unless this info has been released somewhere. The worry for unreleased titles is more about citing sources than lacking info.

Once a title is released, this is when it is most vital we have the information because it's when people are going to be looking for the information about it. Even if it's only the Japanese release, English-speaking people will still be curious for knowledge of the game, or some may not mind playing a version of the game they don't fully understand so having an English resource to explain things helps.

A "former GA" list would be fine, although an archive of "successful" GA denominations would be the same list. JBed (talk) 12:43, November 4, 2014 (UTC)

Future of Good Articles

Clearly, Good Articles are dead. We could scrap this project on the grounds that nobody cares about it or we could try to put it to use. There are three potential purposes for having GAs:

• To showcase the best-written articles on the wiki, which all other pages should be based on.
• To motivate improvement of articles that are almost GA status (i.e. nominees) to GA status, improving the quality of the wiki.
• To have a pool of articles that could be used for FA. IRC's suggested that we just make FA choose a random GA, since so few people vote on FAs.

Part of the problem is a lack of nominations. But as part of an attempt to learn some more pywikibot functions, I wrote an script that prowls the wiki for potential GAs. The criteria for an Intangir-recommended GA are:

• No maintenance templates
• Not a disambiguation page, list page, or subpage
• Not an enemy page - this is temporary until the whole enemy infobox/stat table debacle is finished

With these criteria I was able to reduce the potential nominees from 25860 pages to 8459. If this is a project we're interested in undertaking I'll add stricter criteria at a later date, as I get better at using some of the more obscure pywikibot functions. That said, machines are stupid and can't see things like bad grammar and missing information like humans can, so the pool of potential nominees generated by Intangir Bot must still be subject to human scrutiny. We don't actually have 8459 articles at GA quality on the wiki, but it's a place to start.Cat (meow ∙ hunt) 21:37, July 30, 2016 (UTC)