MicroWiki talk:Good articles

From MicroWiki, the free micronational encyclopædia
Latest comment: 21 July by Ayunipear in topic I have updated education in juniperia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


I will remove the Alaurentia nomination entry. It has been over a week now, and no one has voted either in support or in opposition.

I will try again in a month, in accordance with the rule. -the Dragon of Alaurentia, President of Alaurentia, 1:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Cause it’s not good lmao -- Cole bairjjf!!1!  bill nye still hasnt replied to me on twitter please reply here bill nye  cole have a life challenge  18:25, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page is Outdated

The opening paragraph of the page is a touch outdated. It erroneously states that A small green symbol (This symbol symbolizes good content on MicroWiki.) on the top right corner of an article's page indicates that the article is of good quality., then featuring the old image which will be pictured shortly.

Could this be fixed and replaced with the new icon? I would do it myself, but the page is protected.

Many thanks! Sertor (Chat) 14:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good Article criteria

I just learned of the new criteria for Good Articles. I have to say, I am quite taken aback. Only one per month? And it's decided by a run-off election? Several of the articles I would like to propose were eligible for GA years ago, and I delayed nominating them due to nothing but wanton perfectionism. With this new requirement, I will have to renominate them every single month until they happen to win the runoff vote; and people will have to re-voice support for these articles every single month to get them re-approved. This seems like needless tedium, and it will take me potentially years to get articles that previously would have been approved as GAs in a matter of months. As well, I am concerned about the potential for political biases to play into the second election, with less-popular micronations getting fewer votes than more-popular ones, even with higher-quality articles; and likewise vice-versa. And even if we grant that these novel machinations will somehow increase the average quality of GAs across the site, this does nothing for the many, many articles approved as GAs under the previous system; and it will take at least 5 years for the new once-a-month articles to even reach the 50% point.

I would like to propose the following, as a way to preserve the old system and the new system, alike: GA status is given out as before (no approval limbo); but the second vote is still held. Only one new GA from each month will earn Featured Article status. This will, as with Wikipedia, be displayed as a special symbol on the winning articles. In this way, the aforementioned issues with the new GA system are avoided, and a special class of "extra-good" Featured Articles will exist, to present the higher-quality articles the new GA policy was intended to uncover. In addition to this, we could also institute a minimum number of support votes for an article to qualify for GA status in the first place.

Food for thought. /swέna/ 💬 04:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You said it better than I ever could. addison (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must say that's quite a good idea. I'll talk it over with the other admins. Austenasia (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no opinions on this but I want to clarify that adding a "minimum number of support votes for an article to qualify for GA status" may not be required so long as those in support make good points. (i.e. if an hypothetical article has three support votes with those votes having no text or saying nothing but "cool article" they may hold no merit for getting actual approval.). That is the de facto rule anyways. Though, obviously, making a minimum of two votes (indicating one alone support vote holds absolutely no merit regardless of the reasoning) would be helpful. ★ ♥︎ Zed 。 (talk | edits) 12:49, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good idea, and makes sense. I had the same concerns. I think a limit of two SUPPORTS is a good minimum. /swέna/ 💬 18:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As someone who has never been a fan of the new system, this is quite a good idea.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me  Look at what I've done.  09:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What was the old system like again? My memory has failed me. Sertor (Chat) 09:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Essentally once your article is approved it automatically receives GA status.  Logan (Aenopia)  Terry Tibbs talk to me  Look at what I've done.  10:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was it, yes. Thing is, that had two major problems: 1) a lot of people seemed to support nominated articles with little more than a cursory skim through them, leading either to "undemocratic" rejections or the approval of articles which didn't really deserve it, and 2) so many were getting approved that we built up a massive backlog of articles to be Featured on the Main Page (and that was with constantly decreasing the amount of time each one spent up) which was only eventually cleared literally this morning. I'm really quite happy with this new idea and none of the other admins seem to have a problem with it; I'll aim to implement it at the end of this month. Austenasia (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What I've always seen as a solution to that would be requiring people to give some sort of in-depth feedback on support votes. Just a plan SUPPORT with no elaboration shouldn't be able to cut it. border style="color:black" addison (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree -- you should be required to provide a full review of the article alongside your SUPPORT vote. Votes without reviews shouldn't count. @Austenasia: here's another idea. /swέna/ 💬 18:53, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fantastic idea- I did propose something before the new system was implemented back in early 2020 but I feel like yours is less bureaucratic. Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  these signature styles are terrible 

| 19:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

There's always room for improvement!  :) Maybe some of your ideas can make it into the next reform, after people have gotten used to this one. /swέna/ 💬 02:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a few things to say so bear with me:
  • A little misunderstanding is that you had to keep nominating them ever single month once they are approved once if they lose the first run-off vote then they are voted on again next month, but this is just a small thing.
  • I agree that the system is weird in that you have to win run-off votes and it can be discouraging.
So with that said I do agree the system you put forth would be more beneficial. Isaiah (Chat) 04:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Isaiah Burdette: That first point actually causes a completely different problem, which these reforms won't fix: The list of candidates for Featured Article will eventually become infinitely long unless we change to match my underlying assumption that the roster was reset with each passing month. /swέna/ 💬 16:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How so? This is standard now and it is not infinitely long. I think you might of misunderstood, So let's say you nominate a article and it makes it to the run off vote and you lose then next month it will go straight to the voting round but if it still doesn't win that month then you have to re-nominate it. So basically it gets two tries. Isaiah (Chat) 00:34, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I see! So it's only in the runnings for two months tops. But this contradicts the point of your first point: while with that system, I would not have to renominate every month; I would have to re-nominate every-other-month. So, not much different, in the end. /swέna/ 💬 02:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Isaiah Burdette: That still isn't fair, because potential masterpieces can be approved the next month and so your article will have to go against that and besides people only pay attention to this month's nominees anyway, not those from last month. Even if your article is approved and is even second-best the first month it will lose the second month to a better one that wasn't there before. border style="color:black" addison (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LittleMissDexterous: 100%, and those same issues will affect the new Featured Article status. We can discuss further reforms later; but for now, we should stay the course, and allow this reform to go through unhindered. /swέna/ 💬 02:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LittleMissDexterous: I didn't say it was I was just trying to correct the misunderstanding that he would have to renominate it every single month I support the new proposal. Isaiah (Chat) 02:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good Article icon

The new Good Article icon is nigh-impossible to ascertain the meaning of without prior exposure. The "GA" symbol inside the wax seal should be made a different color, to meet standard web accessibility guidelines; and it should achieve at least a AA contrast rating. With this change, visitors unfamiliar with the icon will be able to see "GA" within it, and have an inkling of what is going on. /swέna/ 💬 04:14, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here is a quick mockup of what the icon would look like with high-contrast (cut-out (transparent)) text: Unfortunately, the font used is not thick-enough to read at the scale used in articles. I will try increasing the font thickness and post another mock. /swέna/ 💬 04:38, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Swena: One thing you could try is making the font color black instead of transparent. Contributes to visibility. border style="color:black" addison (talk) 04:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not necessarily. And there are also stylistic concerns -- this is supposed to be a stamp; it would make sense for a stamp to cut something out, but it wouldn't make sense for a stamp to make some things wax and some things black. In any case, here's the thickened version: ; and also a version in black: . /swέna/ 💬 04:54, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding these new mocks: While they are better, they are still quite hard to read, especially with the ligature. By reducing the size of the little knob of wax to the top-left, we can increase the relative size of the text, thus getting some scale basically for free, and hopefully increasing readability: . /swέna/ 💬 04:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Swena: Just putting it out there, the old one could also be used: . That completely eliminates the issue of readability. border style="color:black" addison (talk) 05:13, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd definitely support that. But surely there must be a reason they switched in the first place? Someone clearly put a lot of work into the current one. I'd like to find a way to preserve it if possible. But yeah, the old one was great: It was very clear what it was. /swέna/ 💬 05:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do remember people creating a pandemonium when the icon was changed for seemingly no reason. It was an unpopular choice. border style="color:black" addison (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about a compromise of the two? The old one, but with the "GA" ligature of the new one: . /swέna/ 💬 05:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now that is one that I can get down with. It has a nice contrast and preserves feel of the old one while being readable and incorporating elements of the new one such as the font. Looks neat border style="color:black" addison (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I kind of like it, too. Let's see what others think, and whether we can get it officially approved. Hopefully this time, the change will be met with widespread approval, rather than widespread scorn. /swέna/ 💬 05:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems a bit too complex if you have to view it at a small size- the original plus one worked in my opinion Jaydenfromcanada (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10  these signature styles are terrible 

| 19:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

That would be true if we had to view it at very small sizes. But the size you see above is the size it will be on the articles: 31px. So how it looks at even smaller sizes should be a non-issue. /swέna/ 💬 19:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jaydenfromcanada: This video kind of explains what he means border style="color:black" addison (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured Article icon

@Austenasia: For the Featured Article icon, we could do the same thing, but FA instead of GA, and blue instead of green. /swέna/ 💬 06:35, 25 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured Photo icon

@Austenasia: Likewise for the Featured Photo icon (which I did not realize was a thing). This would be "FP"; but the color would be less-obvious. Perhaps purple? It is unique among colors in belonging to a hue that can only exist as a mixture of two colors (two opposites, at that: red and blue); and so is perhaps particularly representative of the blend of colors that constitutes a photo. And since it would contain blue, it would give both of the "featured" badges a common trait. /swέna/ 💬 02:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Swena: Small nitpick, the opposite of red is green and the opposite of blue is orange; anyways, I think violet would be a good color scheme for it border style="color:black" addison (talk) 03:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LittleMissDexterous: It depends what system you use. With a linear spectrum of visible light, the closest thing to opposites is the two extremes -- red, and blue; this is what I meant. In a colour wheel, the opposite of red is actually cyan -- red is 0°, cyan is 180°, and there are 360° total. (Blue is, strictly-speaking, 240°; but people usually mean "azure" when they say "blue", and that is 210°. The opposite of 210° in a colour wheel is 30°, a perfect orange. The opposite of 240° is 60°, perfect yellow.) If I remember correctly, there is a model of human vision where red and green are opposites; maybe that's where you got that idea from? /swέna/ 💬 05:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


When do they get accepted/denied? What date? User:Devinpurcell (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected edit request on 21 April 2022

Update statistics. -- President Devin Purcell  Penn Federal Republic 14:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected edit request on 11 April 2023

The statistic table in the Good Article section still links to the article 'Daniel Hamilton of Australis'. The subject in question has since moved the page to Daniel R., and other redirects have been altered to reflect this per MW:Pseudonyms. The table within this page should be changed to reflect the current page target. Sertor (Chat) 23:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have updated education in juniperia

Hello. '''Westavia''' ''Official Account of His Grace, [[Ishan Jha]], The Duke of Villevoiche (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]