Forum:CT:Proposal for a slight change to GA requirements

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Proposal for a slight change to GA requirements

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was: Rule 8 of the Good article requirements will now state that no redlinks are allowed "in the introduction, infobox, or any templates." Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


Hello, all. I am proposing a subtle change that I feel would better the site as a whole and promote better encyclopedic standards for our Good Articles. Specifically, this change would effect Good Article Rule 8, which currently reads, "An article must not be tagged due to an excessive number of redlinks." As the rule stands, the article can have up to five redlinks and still be awarded GA status if all other requirements are met. I have no problem with the five redlink rule. What I would like to see, however, is an addendum where no redlinks are permitted in the introduction, infobox, or other templates, in alignment with rule 8 of Featured Articles. (For reference, FA Rule 8: "An article must have no more than 3 redlinks and none in the introduction, infobox, or any templates.")

My proposal, simply yes or no, is to adopt this change to rule 8 of the GA requirements as follows: "An article must not be tagged due to an excessive number of redlinks, yet it should have none in the introduction, infobox, or any templates."

My reasoning behind this change is simple. (1) It provides an increased encyclopedic standard for our Good Articles, which is already required for FA articles. If the axiom that GAs are simply smaller FAs, then it helps create the parallel requirement. (2) While the initial rule was enacted for FAs because they grace the mainpage, we now have links to random GAs on the right-hand column of the mainpage. I periodically use these links to browse some of the articles to see if anything piques my interest. Once at the article, I read the introduction and browse the infobox. If it does not strike me, I move on. I believe visitors to our site do the same. Even though the articles are not on the mainpage itself, I believe that the links are a means of promoting our GAs and we should always have the best foot forward. If we are going to promote our best articles, they should have the best encyclopedic standard we can provide.

One last thing, for those who say that GAs are lesser articles and do not need such stiff requirements, or those who say that fixing these redlinks is too difficult, I offer this remark: We should always strive for excellence in what we offer to the public and promote on our mainpage. Laziness is not a viable excuse for a poor product and such reflects poorly on the community.

Thank you all for reading. Voting is below. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Voting

In favor

  1. — Fiolli {Alpheridies University ComNet} 19:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  2. Though I think 5 redlinks is too much for a GA, which are significantly shorter than most FAs. There should be no more than three IMO. MauserComlink 19:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  3. "Laziness is not a viable excuse for a poor product and such reflects poorly on the community." Hear, hear. Toprawa and Ralltiir 19:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  4. JMAS Hey, it's me! 19:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  5. Graestan(Talk) 19:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  6. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 19:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  7. CC7567 (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  8. IFYLOFD (You will pay the price for your lack of vision!) 22:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  9. —Master Jonathan(Jedi Council Chambers) 01:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  10. —Tommy9281 Dark side Master SWGTCG (No quarter given, all exits sealed) 01:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  11. Chack Jadson (Talk) 03:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  12. I'm all for it. It sounds logical. Trak Nar Ramble on 03:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  13. While I think I'm still in favor of allowing a small smattering of redlinks in good and featured articles, they certainly shouldn't be in any of these places. jSarek 06:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  14. Grunny (Talk) 06:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  15. Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 07:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  16. I do agree with the narrowing of where they can and cannot be. -- Riffsyphon1024 08:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  17. Not as if my vote was really needed, but. --Skippy Farlstendoiro 09:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  18. Pranay Sobusk ~ Talk 10:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  19. Someone could probably snowball-close this. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 12:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  20. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  21. Jonjedigrandmaster (Jedi Beacon) 01:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  22. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is the truth) 23:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
  23. Cylka-talk- 04:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
  24. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In opposition

Discussion

Before I vote, say if I was to nominate Young Jedi Knights: Shadow Academy. Under the new rules, it would be unable to pass if the YJK template at the bottom contained redlinks (not that it does, this is purely hypothectical), am I correct? I'm certainly not opposing this, I like just about everything else. Just wondering, that's all. SoresuMakashi(Everything I tell you is a lie) 12:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Errm, we rarely have infoboxes with redlinks anyway. MauserComlink 12:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I know it may be common sense that "Appearances" redlinks shouldn't be counted against this, at least imho, but technically all of those redlinks are contained within a template now, which would go against the current FA wording and proposed GA wording. —Xwing328(Talk) 23:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)