Star Wars Fanon talk:Good articles/Archive1

Do we use this policy, please respond, anyone who knows. Darth tader Mandalore clan MPTG  19:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We do, but we haven't really go around to fully implimenting it yet. [[Image:DarthAb.gif|Jasca Ducato]] Sith Council Sith Campaign 23:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Vic, are we gonna re-open this or vote, or what???


 * We should, as a lot of the articles that have been nominated for FA aren't worthy. (A requirement to be FA is to be a GA.)  So, let's do it.
 * Yeah CBT go here for our current converastion on this, Star Wars Fanon talk:Nomination policy.
 * I'll be involved in this in some way (being a DL for Good articles, for example) -- [[Image:JM76Sig.gif]] Talk to an Admin Mind Trick Jedi Library [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg]]
 * Okay, okay, so lets start organizing this later today. 71.180.52.57 10:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So, will something ever happen here? I think I asked sometime when I was new at SWF if there was GA. I would also like to be a sort of DL if that is possible.  N@M3Le$ I know how to talk! Journal [[Image:Namelesennius.jpg|30px]] Namelesennius(Mysteries of a Distant System: Exile) 20:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but it should be a different "council" with different users on it. - Brandon Rhea 20:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We should name it after an article, like the Decreton Lords.  N@M3Le$ I know how to talk! Journal [[Image:Namelesennius.jpg|30px]] Namelesennius(Mysteries of a Distant System: Exile) 16:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * New IRC meet starting up soon for discussion on Good articles. -- [[Image:JM76Sig.gif]] Talk to an Admin Mind Trick Jedi Library [[Image:Sabersmilyjm76.jpg]]

GA Board
Sorry for the confusion there. I wasn't saying that anyone inparticular should be on a GA council, but rather that there should be a GA council like the DLs. - Brandon Rhea 21:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * How are we going to decide whos on the board. I know I would like to be on it and I know how to tell a good article from bad buts its really not my place to ask. But who is going to be on this board?TroybTalk contribs[[Image:Troyb2.jpg|20px]] 19:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dunno'. Did Brandon mean that I was in the board when he answered in the previous section?  N@M3Le$  | Talk  | Contributions | MoaDS | Namelesennius [[Image:Namelesennius.jpg|25px]] 19:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont think so, and once more may I be on this board, I know much about good article back at wookieepedia.TroybTalk contribs[[Image:Troyb2.jpg|20px]] 19:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I voted some for GA at Wookieepedia to! :D But what did Brandon say "Agreed" to if it wasn't that?  N@M3Le$  | Talk  | Contributions | MoaDS | Namelesennius [[Image:Namelesennius.jpg|25px]] 19:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dunno.TroybTalk contribs[[Image:Troyb2.jpg|20px]] 19:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there anyway I can be on the board? I can be on it if a BM is missing.TroybTalk contribs[[Image:Troyb2.jpg|20px]] 21:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The members have already been chosen in the IRC chat about Good Articles. The members appear to be myself, CurrentBigThing, Darth tader, Gnosis is Knowledge and Jedi Master 76. - Brandon Rhea 22:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I glade to hear that Two of my close friends are on it. But I wish I could have been on it, for I know I would be good at it.TroybTalk contribs[[Image:Troyb2.jpg|20px]] 22:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

In time my friend, maybe, in time. :P, well maybe one day troyb, bye.

SH*T!!! I FORGOT THE IRC! Now I won't be on the GA Board. :'(  N@M3Le$  | Talk  | Contributions | MoaDS | Namelesennius  16:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick question and it's one that I probably just could have answered by better reading the rules for GAs, but do FAs have to be nominated for this, or are they automatics? (If this is a part of it, I am allowing each and every one of you to yell at my laziness.)
 * FA's have to be a GA first. &#123;&#123;N}} 20:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about already existing FAs.
 * My guess is that they already have Good Article status.
 * Ok, I was just making sure it was official. Should I copy the FAs and move them to the Good Article list? Or would you rather wait for more confirmation from the other HPs?
 * I believe that on wikipedia, FAs aren't considered GAs anymore once they become an FA. That doesn't mean we have to do that as well, but I think it would be best.

What's the point?
I might be missing something, but I don't see the point of the good article section. It's basically just the featured article, as most of the good articles and upcoming good articles have or are going to become featured articles, and the perquisites for becoming one are the same, aside from the good article not having to have already been a good article and the featured article not needing to have a "Behind the Scenes" section. Please explain to me how it's any different from the featured article section.-- N e o m e s s i a h  22:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its a way of dividing the best articles, from the very best. It's like, how should I put it, I know. Good articles are A-grade, whilst Featured articles are A*-grade. Darth Abeonis Sith Council Sith Campaign 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, they both may have the same requirements, but with GA those requirements are more lenient than FAs. If you notice, there is one FA nomination right now that has not yet received a single support vote. So, it may be the best, but note the very best as Jasca put it. It's also a way for the community to pick articles that they think are the best. Good Articles are voted on by the community to decide if they are the best and then they are passed on to the Decreton Lords to decide whether or not they are the very best. - Brandon Rhea 23:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to ramble on, but the gap between FAs and GAs is very dim, especially when GAs are on the main page.  Pinky 49 Talk 23:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * No, not really. It's a way of showcasing good articles and then REALLY good articles. - Brandon Rhea 00:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but when their both in the same place and have the same requirements, their not really different. Especially when just about all GAs end up becoming a FA.  Pinky 49 Talk 00:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Key words: about all. Rafe Richter is a good article. It is not an FA. Why? It's good, but not FA worthy, read the reviews for more. GAs and FAs should both be showcased because some GAs may not have that privilege ever again. [[Image:NKsig.png|70px]] Jesus Freak NK says NK's 'mazin' articles [[Image:sabersmilygreend.jpg]] 02:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I also encourage the tightening of the DLs' strictness, to better distinguish the G from the F. But it is clear that there are some distinctions already, and not so much to whine about (not that I'm accusing anyone of whining). --C3PO the Dragon Slayer 6,000,000 forms of communication 02:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * But why showcase the good and the best instead of just the best? And the way they're shown  on the main page makes them seem equal.-- N e o m e s s i a h  12:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's because some articles will not have the chance to be showcased again. Also, there's no other way to showcase them without making them look bad on the main page. - Brandon Rhea 12:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Most Wikis that even have good articles don't have them on the main page at all.-- N e o m e s s i a h  13:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we could make their box smaller, or move it?--  CurrentBigThing  ( Say It To My Face ) 12:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe both.-- N e o m e s s i a h  23:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Or just get rid of it(from the main page) altogether.  Pinky 49 Talk 00:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pinky, it's not going to happen. As for making it smaller or moving it, that wouldn't make sense. How could you make it smaller? If it's just a picture and a name, it means nothing. It needs to introduction, the picture, etc. As for moving it, that'd be almost impossible, as there's no place to really put it. Besides, keep in mind that it could be the only chance that many articles have to be put up there. - Brandon Rhea 00:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then they can make their articles better if they want it to be on the main page. Instead of GAs being close to it, articles that get nominated for FA but don't win can be the ones that people know they need to make better to become a FA.  If that wasn't very clear, which it might not have been since it might be confusing, look at it this way: currently, the ranking of articles from good to bad or just plain from highest to lowest is 1. FA, 2. GA, 3. normal article.  If we get rid of GAs, then it would be 1. FA, 2. articles nominated for FA that don't win, 3. normal articles, but non-winning FA nominations wouldn't be on the front page.  People should want to strive for their articles to be on the front page and make them great, not just good.-- N e o m e s s i a h  01:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If GAs were to be gotten rid of, then we would absolutely HAVE to go back to community voting on FAs. It would be unreasonable and unfair for only five people to decide what should be FAs by themselves, especially without GA voting. - Brandon Rhea 01:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)