Template talk:Good article

This template was considered for deletion on 2010 June 1. The result of the discussion was "Keep".

Note[edit]

Consensus has been reached at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#Should all GAs have the GA symbol on the article page? to place the GA symbol ({{Good article}}) on GAs. (see also permalink) -- Cirt (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History restored, from this talk page and the history of the template itself, per above. -- Cirt (talk) 14:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any plans for a bot to add this to all the articles (for example, to the articles connected to all the talk pages in Category:Wikipedia good articles, or something like that)? rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested at WP:BOTREQ#GA symbol. Ucucha 19:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, in fact, it's now being done by TreasuryTag (talk · contribs). Ucucha 19:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where it links to[edit]

Currently, it links to WP:GA, which, at the top, does a good job of explaining what a good article is. The problem is, that page is absolutely massive (and growing) - it makes my (not that bad) PC hang for a while. Wouldn't it be better to link to something closer to Wikipedia:Good articles/header (just where the category links work)? I haven't checked the FA counterpart for consistency, but their list is shorter... - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Made the change. The FA template does link to WP:FA (I directly copied this from the FA template and only changed "featured" to "good" and corrected the image), but as you say that page is not as massive. I think the /header page is able to stand on its own as an introduction to GAs. Ucucha 16:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, wonderful. Good job, I think. - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 16:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, but the header is specifically meant to be used in WP:GA. Having it link to a page which says "Currently, of the 3,307,936 Wikipedia articles, about 9,186 are categorized as good articles (about 1 in 361), most of which are listed below." when in fact nothing is listed below gives a kind of strange effect, don't you think? --Yair rand (talk) 20:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is easy to fix. If the /header page is going to be used elsewhere, just put the text "most of which are listed below" in <includeonly> tags and it will only show up at WP:GA, not when it's viewed by itself. rʨanaɢ (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Gary King (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Subclassing to {{top icon}}[edit]

Currently this template uses a hack-coded styling , but there's a readily-available {{top icon}} meta-template which could be used instead to simplify and standardise the code. I've dropped an update into the new sandbox demonstrating this. If there are no objections I'll sync it with the live code. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 21:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that top icon has a switch that throws an error when it is used in article space. Therefore, I have reverted for the moment. The most obvious solution is to change top icon so that it allows mainspace icons; the risk with that is that people start putting random icons in mainspace pages, but I don't think that's going to be a real problem. Ucucha 12:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a remarkably daft fix, yes; one could easily fork this template's old codebase to add random icons to articlespace if one wanted. I've left a note on that template talk. Sorry for any temporary fallout caused here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...And I've now re-enabled the new code, as {{top icon}} now whitelists ns0. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; it looks like it's indeed working now. Ucucha 12:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Nanbert, 16 July 2011 Lolita was not living in Loiza, She was living in condominio El Señorial. Rio Piedras when her icon were on fire .[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Nanbert (talk) 23:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Not an edit request. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mouseover text[edit]

I've posted with regard to the mouseover message ("This is a good article") at Wikipedia talk:Good articles. Would have posted here, but I thought the chances of participation are higher over there. --87.78.0.140 (talk) 12:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 27 September 2013[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please replace this template with the sandbox version to allow the date and an offset (for use if multiple awards have been won like GA & FA or (multiple) TFA) Results can be seen on the testcases page Technical 13 (talk) 19:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Please see my response at Template talk:Featured article#Edit request on 27 September 2013. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Click here[edit]

The |description= parameter, which becomes the alt text, reads "This is a good article. Click here for more information."

We ought to be avoiding instructions like "click here" (see http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/noClickHere for W3C's recommendation) because not everybody is using a mouse to click with. I suggest we could substitute a sentence like "Follow the link for more information", which would make more sense for users of assistive technology - the very people for whom we provide the alt text anyway.

Thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS: agreed. Helder 18:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@He7d3r: Thanks for reminding me. I've made the (long-overdue) change. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone changed it back for no apparent reason[1], the edit summary said only "edit request" but did not give a meaningful explanation. The phrasing "Click here" was wrong then and is still wrong now.

It seems as if the change recommend above may have been made without also making the same changes to {{Featured article}} so perhaps someone changed it to avoid inconsistency? Both should be fixed to avoid the phrase "Click here". this change -- 109.79.79.163 (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 7 February 2020[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Follow the link for more information." to "Click here for more information." to be consistent with Template:Featured article and use more conversational language. Sdkb (talk) 11:58, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done qedk (t 桜 c) 17:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Improving how article assessments are presented to readers[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Improving how article assessments are presented to readers. Sdkb (talk) 22:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request on 7 October 2021[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

DominicReymysterio619 (talk) 08:54, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will like to learn how to edit template

Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the template {{Good article}}. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. firefly ( t · c ) 11:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]