I believe it is correct to say Featured Articles are not supreme stationery entities. Information is always changing and usually could exist that one piece of information in which makes an article better. However, I do believe featured articles should have some level of protection to them. According to Template:Grading_scheme, "No further editing is necessary unless new published information has come to light; but further improvements to the text are often possible." I agree information could and should always be added or removed if/when needed. However, once an article gains featured status, it becomes a prime target for people who wish to do undermine the ideals of Wikipedia. In short, the article’s potential to be vandalized increases. I propose only registered users should be able to make edits/changes to featured articles. This is not to say they should be restricted to participate in any discussion or talk regarding that article. What this does is it 1) Makes users accountable to their Wikipedia identity (or account), 2) It filters non-experienced non-registered users from ruining the integrity or structure of the article, and 3) It prevents people from hiding behind a set of decimals and numbers (IP address). I acknowledge nothing can stop vandalism, but measures can be taken to protect articles from it. I know there are bots out there that are supposed to "protect". However, I feel extra precaution should be taken towards articles Wikipedia regards closest to encyclopedic information. Killer Swath 01:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason the "-Class" part of these tags was removed? It looks quite awkward as it currently is, just having an A or a B there. --Coredesat talk! 20:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? I assumed that consistency with the other levels—FA, GA, Start, and Stub all omit "-Class" from the label—would be a good thing; is that not your impression? Kirill Lokshin 20:18, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense, it was just a little surprising since I couldn't find any discussion about it. Either that or I'm too used to seeing "-Class" there. :P I guess it's something to get used to, since consistency is always good, unless someone really objects to the change. --Coredesat talk! 04:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not entirely clear on this.. if an article fails a GA nomination, can it still be considered an A-class article, or should it be at most a B-class? a slighty different question is, must an A-class article meet the GA criteria? yet another slighty different question is, should A-class articles be likely GA candidates? and if so, shouldn't we be nominating A-class articles for GA status? Mlm42 22:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class means that it potentially meets FA criteria. So, if the article failed a GA nomination, then try to take the advice given at WP:GAC, or otherwise it will be B-Class at most (unless you believe the reason it was failed was spurious—in that case, ask at Wikipedia:Good articles/Review). A-Class articles don't have to be nominated for GA status as a prerequisite; however, in many cases, it would be nice to nominate them to get an opinion from someone who isn't a subject matter expert. Again, it isn't absolutely necessary, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 22:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is "An article can be A-Class without being a GA." Many projects nominate their A-Class articles as GA candidates once they find them - we did this at WP:Chem. Tito's comments are valid, but the situation has been complicated recently because ehe ranking on this page (putting A-Class above GA) has been affected by changes in good article standards. It used to be that there were a fair number of articles tagged as GA lacked decent refs etc, that were clearly B-Class rather than A-Class. The bar for GA seems to have been raised considerably recently, and I think it is now very possible that an article tagged as A-Class could fail GA. This arises because:

• The A/B type assessments are generally less thorough than a GA review (as typically conducted today).
• The A-Class definition clearly indicates that things are not perfect - indeed it suggests peer review. This slightly fuzzy definition is needed for a quick assessment, since you can't scrutinize every sentence for grammatical errors, etc. It's a quick and easy way of saying, "Looks like this article is pretty much there."

Of course if a GA reviewer has pointed out specific flaws in the article, as Tito suggests it's probably difficult to ignore these and say "Well it's A-Class anyway." The usual situation in 1.0 assessments I have done is that I am fairly liberal in tagging something as A-Class if it looks really nice, but if flaws are indicated then it's dropped to B-Class until those flaws are addressed. This is in a situation where only one person is making the call, as we have to review thousands of articles for 1.0. Many of the WikiProjects experienced with this grading scheme have some sort of "A-Class candidates review page" before an article is promoted to A-Class. That way any flaws missed in an initial assessment can be spotted and (hopefully) dealt with, and consensus can be reached that "This article is A-Class." This is obviously more satisfactory. Once the "inline refs" debate at GA has been resolved, we should discuss the repercussions of all this for our grading scheme. Walkerma 04:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

okay, i think i see now.. it's just that the phrase "An article can be A-class without being a GA" is somewhat misleading.. after all, a FA quality article isn't neccessarily a GA, since somebody has to nominate it first. But from what i can tell, the answer to my question "Does an A-class article have to meet the GA criteria", the answer seems to be yes - if it is, i think this should be made more clear on the template. Mlm42 07:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For as long as the GA criteria are sensible, I suppose you could say that. Of course, if GA were to decide that all page names must end with "on wheels" we probably wouldn't expect compliance ;) The key - and simple - point is that this is a sliding scale. A-class is a higher grade than GA. That's about it really. --kingboyk 23:49, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The GA criteria are not sensible; and it should be removed from this page. Consider, for example, their lastest "in-line citation" snits: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#Johann_Sebastian_Bach and Wikipedia:Good_articles/Review#Bourbonnais train accident. In one case, most of the article is matters of general knowledge in the field, backed by several general references. In the other case, the article is a narrative of the accident, drawn from two general sources, with plenty of minor points getting footnotes. Both could stand work before FA, but not much, and not this work. (I should perhaps add that I have not substantially contributed to either article; I think I fixed a typo on Bourbonnais train accident.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, some users at FA will yell about the article having no inline citations. It's the same in GA. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles have in-line citations. The railroad accident may need more specific citations for the narrative to be FA; JSBach probably does; but that's two classes up. Furthermore, in both cases, the GA people have not discussed which points need citation, as FA would do; some of them are voting delist without having read the article. (This is not a deduction; they say so.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And A-Class requires the inline citations as well (because any article listed as an A must have at least a chance of passing FAC), so I'm tempted to kick both articles down to B-Class or lower and delist them from GA myself. Entire sections of the articles (biographical details about Bach, Bach's style, and the recommendations made after the train accident) do not have sufficient levels of citation, particularly because "general knowledge in the field" is rarely a sufficient excuse for not citing an article.

Either way, many editors do take GA status seriously, so it is extremely unlikely it will be removed any time soon. Titoxd^(?!?) 19:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that. A process that is taken seriously should be conducted seriously - and GA has never been conducted seriously. Please contact me if this thread takes off. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drum and bass was rated as a Good Article recently, I was wondering how I would go about applying for an A-Class rating... Nowhere is there an indication of how to do this. Themindset 23:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've always considered A-class to mean "FA quality but not quite an FA yet". Something like Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater which is practically FA standard but needs a copyedit and hasn't been put through FAC yet. That's just me though. -- Steel 23:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule, asking the project that would be doing the rating tends to be pretty helpful. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 23:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you might want to ask at e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music genres. Looks like a great article, I'll read it when I have time. One thing jumps out at me though: your inline citations are only from web resources, although you do reference books. Some of the material on the early days of jungle - in particular your selection of which tracks were important - I would like to see cited, preferably from print sources. Anything which could be your opinion or which could be disputed should be cited. From what I've read so far, brilliance of the prose shouldn't be a problem. --kingboyk 23:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hmm.. the more and more i think about this, the more i realise that GA and A-class are pretty much the same thing.. the main difference being GA are reviewed independently, and the criteria are clearly defined (or, in the process of being clearly defined, at the moment), while A-class articles can be tagged by anyone, and the critia are considerably less well defined. i mean, "At the stage where it could at least be considered for featured article status".. what does that mean.. couldn't any GA be "at least considered for GA status"? if you look at the criteria in the grading scheme right now, i don't see any real differences between A-class and GA, except that GA's have gone through the process, and A-class haven't neccessarily..

perhaps it's a good idea to merge the two classes into a A/GA class - it would avoid confusion. To have the 1st and 3rd tiers being independently reviewed, and not the 2nd tier, seems a little silly anyway. Mlm42 10:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh. "A-class articles can be tagged by anyone" isn't true in all cases; see, for example WP:MHA#Requests for A-Class status. I strongly object to taking the actual WikiProjects out of the loop more on this issue, particularly given that the GA process does not have exactly the most stellar track record. Kirill Lokshin 16:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but the WikiProjects wouldn't be taken out of the loop.. i said merge the A and GA classes. it seems to me the criteria have very little difference. merging the two would mean all A class articles are in the class, and GA articles are in the class.. it would avoid confusing editors and reviewers who are trying to figure out the difference between the two classes. Mlm42 16:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would create a class where half the articles are identified through one process and half through a very different process, though, with the result that, looking at an article with that rating, it would be difficult to say, at a glance, anything about its quality. Kirill Lokshin 16:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't even go there. I don't know if you're aware or not but there's a lot of controversy around GA at the moment, and the system is unstable as a result. The point with A-class is that it's assessed by the WikiProjects; GA is assessed by one person who may know nothing about the topic in hand. (That's not slagging off GA which I personally support, but Kirill doesn't so don't give him any fuel for the GA fire ;)) FA is a peer review process, where (supposedly) subject matter experts, expert writers, fair use specialists etc review an article collectively. --kingboyk 16:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

maybe i'm too much of an optimist, but it seems that there should be a way to have articles that supposedly satisfy the same criteria (though this is determined through different methods) in the same class in the grading system..

and i think you are drawing too much of a divide between the two methods.. i mean, ideally (i'm definitely too much of an optimist) if the GA process were more respected, and perhaps used more than a single reviewer, then.. well, alright, maybe that if is too big. Mlm42 16:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A month late into the thread, but writing it down for future reference anyways: A-Class articles are supposed to pass a stricter criteria: WP:WIAFA. In practice, they are articles that are ready for shipping at FAC, and which have a chance of passing "as-is". Several projects would loudly protest the merger of A-Class and GA-Class; MILHIST comes to mind, and Tropical cyclones would strongly object as well. Titoxd^(?!?) 07:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a somewhat technical request: Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Filmmaking - scroll down 2 or 3 screens, on the right side there is a yellow bar and at the bottom of this bar there is a list of filmmaking articles by quality - with the total numbers in each category, and links to these quality classes (FA: 3, A: 2, GA: 7 etc.). Problem is, the links (FA, A, GA etc.) link to the general page Category:FA-Class articles instead of the much more relevant page Category:FA-Class Filmmaking articles. I've tried fixing it myself, but it boils down to the template pages Template:FA-Class to Template:Stub-Class allowing a parameter to be passed ("which project") that it will link through. Since the talk pages of those template pages redirect here, I was expecting this is the correct place to ask sometbody if this is correct, and how to do it exactly, since "passing parameters" can sometimes be a tricky matter. Thanks! :-) Peter S. 22:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I've done as a work around in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0 is creat a new table with direct links by the side. You probably want Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index for technical discusson on bot generated pages. --Salix alba (talk) 22:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that doesn't seem too objectionable of a change, so I wouldn't object to it. However, the default behavior should point to the full listing, though. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:42, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I asked my question at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. Let's see what happens :-) Peter S. 09:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw it's now implemented. See Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Request:_allow_.22Template:xx-Class.22_to_create_direct_links. Peter S. 20:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i'm not sure about these new images.. i definitely don't like the stub having a red X next to it. the first time i saw it, actually it made me think of something else - the check-mark next to a B-class rating makes it look like somebody has 'seconded' the B-class rating.. which isn't the case, but was an interesting idea. in general, though, i don't see what the new images add.. Mlm42 14:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I removed the images earlier but was quickly reverted. Since there is additional opposition, I will remove the images again. Pagrashtak 04:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They give symbols for the classes, but sice nobody wants them, never mind. Eyu100 04:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think full protection of the {{B-Class}} etc. templates, is a bit too strict. semi-protection would prevent any vandle problems, of which there have been none I'm aware of. As a rule meta:Protected pages considered harmful. --Salix alba (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policy here is Wikipedia:High-risk templates. Someone made a small change to {{Needed-Class}} and the job queue went up to 200,000 articles; Needed-Class is the least used of our templates, so you can imagine what will happen if someone adds a vandalistic image to {{Start-Class}}, which is transcluded at least several million times inside Wikipedia.. There's really no need to edit these templates at all, as any substantial changes should be discussed somewhere (preferably here) anyways, so there shouldn't be any issues here. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Tito here. We've been very lucky so far, and anything used millions of times should require thorough discussion before being edited anyway. Thanks, Tito! Walkerma 03:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA class has a barnstar and a GA class has a round stamp, but none for the "A" class article. If GA class has one, then A class must have an image. I am thinking something like a tick mark to indicate quality. Any ideas? Idleguy 09:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was already tried, it drew many complaints, so they were removed. Besides, the only reason FAs and GAs have images is that those are the images used by the external processes that designate them, not the ones we want to use. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My favourite icon to use would be the letter "A" - this would avoid the need for image loading, and would indicate quality...! :) Walkerma 20:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So there's no idea on the A class not having a logo?; while the one above (FA) and one below (GA) have a logo, it does sound lonely for the A class article. Idleguy 05:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All templates aside from the Needed-Class template have notation such as '''{{#if:{{{category|}}}|[[:Category:{{{category}}}|Stub]]|[[:Category:Stub-Class articles|Stub]]}}''' to introduce a link to the project's corresponding category. Current class also lacked this, but I added it. Anyone agree that it should appear there? -Runningonbrains 21:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current-Class and Future-Class are not officially part of the assessment scale (meaning Mathbot doesn't read them), but I can't see a good reason why they can't have it... Titoxd^(?!?) 21:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you comment fast...lol. But anyway, I reverted my change to the current template...apparently there is no main Category:Current-Class articles or Category:Needed-Class articles aside from individual projects, so it produced a redlink on article talk pages. -Runningonbrains 21:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category for usefulness and practicality

Might I request per the above comment by Runningonbrains that a category heirarchy be set up so that the change made can stay?

The reason I ask is because it's all well and good having a "needed class", but unless it's possible to find out from a projects article rating table just what article it is that's needed, what use is the rating to a project? I know the tables are primarily for 1.0, but feedback as a result of 1.0 ratings (through article improvements) is one of the things that drives improvements in projects, and thus wikipedia as a whole. That way, everyone's a winner :) Crimsone 04:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure I understand what you mean here. You mean to create a Needed-Class meteorology articles category to be read by the bot? You probably want to bring that up at WP:1.0/I's talk. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My word! quick isn't a fitting description! lol

I was actually coming back to remove my comment. It seems I'd lost the plot a bit, and I've since found what I'm looking for - We do have a category - it just isn't linked to our custom table a the moment. :) Thanks for replying though. Crimsone 04:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} The template is not as it is supposed to be. The wikitext was not poperly entered so the template is not shown in a box as it should. Please fix it so it can be put on articles.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Parent5446 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The template is not protected, so you can edit it yourself. I also do not see what edit you are suggesting, as the template should never be used in any article. Please explain what problem you see in more detail. Kusma (討論) 12:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it was only a small change, but it made a whole heap of uses of these templates (those that omitted the "Category:" from the category parameter) break. See for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Football (soccer) in Australia/A-League player project, which is just a massive bank of red links now. I don't see how this change is useful, and although not harmful causes a huge amount of small, annoying changes to be made to places where the category parameter is used. Could someone please explain what the advantage of this is? The only reason I can make out is that someone possibly coded their bot wrongly and rather than fixing that and re-running, they changed this... – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template was shrunk to allow more instances of the template to fit within the 2 MB memory limit, as shown on Special:Expandtemplates. At least that is what I heard. You may want to ask Oleg Alexandrov, who codes the bot and made the change. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the {{WikiProject Louisville}} project banner template, I would like to have templates like {{Start-Class}} specified therein to allow a parameter that provides for category placement specificity. For example, I would like to specify {{Start-Class|Louisville}}, and this would place the article in Category:Start-Class Louisville articles. I would rather people be able to go directly to the WikiProject Louisville start-class articles category rather than the umbrella category for all start-class articles. Simple, right? :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This already works, but you need to specify the full category name; for example, {{Start-Class|category=Category:Start-Class Louisville articles}} produces class="assess-start " style="background: #ffaa66; text-align: center; " | Start. Kirill Lokshin 01:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok. Thanks! I must've misunderstood what I was looking at.  :) Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about my edit and thanks for the revert! I'm embarassed. First time I'm editing a WikiProject Assessment page. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :-) Kirill Lokshin 03:06, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion can be found here. Nifboy 00:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not there anymore. Please fix link. 38.100.34.2 02:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal died and was archived. Nifboy 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The selected version of the Gilwell Park article that's referenced as the canonical example of a FA has a broken image link at the top of the article - that's hardly acceptable in an FA! You either need to pick a later version of that article or use something else. SteveBaker 01:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switched it to the featured version of Supernova. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the template is broken and looks like this - class="assess-a " style="background: #66ffff; text-align:center; " | A

The template isn't broken, it's meant to use in tables. Like this:

etcetera / 81.226.131.216 23:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking that articles with trivia sections should be considered a "start" or B-class on the scale. Like, when an article looks like it is a GA class and above, the trivia section should downgrade it. I don't see any mention of trivia sections in the scale, so I really think it should be mentioned. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 16:42, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia sections are just one part of the assessment criteria reviewers use. Different reviewers have different views of how important trivia sections are, or even if they are important at all. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also hate trivia sections. However, for some topics "trivia" are a little more relevant, and I think it's hard to quantify. There are a lot of factors to weigh when reviewing. This should probably be a factor mentioned in the quality guidelines somewhere, but I think how it counts will ultimately be down to the individual reviewer of the individual article. Thanks, Walkerma 04:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be reasonable to add a parameter (or system of parameters) to this template so that the links in the left-column could be to project-specific categories instead of the global ones?

e.g. perhaps {{Grading scheme|project=Filmmaking}} would link to Category:FA-Class Filmmaking articles instead of Category:FA-Class articles

Also, it would be nice if there was a way to add rows to this table for non-standard classes, like List class. Is there a clever template syntax that could be used for that? Thanks. jhawkinson 03:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One thing about this worries me a lot with this (otherwise good) suggestion - the fact that it may lead to the whole grading scheme losing its uniformity. The real power of this system is that Start-class means approximately the same thing to everyone on WP. I realise that there are differences - there are a couple of projects that require refs for their B-Class articles, for example - but if everyone goes their own way the system could fall apart! From June/July we will have a bot trawling through these articles picking some out for our next DVD, and that selection depends on a B being a B in every project. (Even the French Wikiepdia are using the same system!) So I think we must keep this template as a uniform standard across all projects. Walkerma 04:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the foo-Class templates already accept a category= parameter that causes them to link to a category, like {{FA-Class|category=FA-Class Filmmaking articles}} so it seems like a change here would only be paralleling that existing feature. Also, if you're looking at a WikiProject page, chances are you are interested in finding the FA-class articles in that project, not all the ones that exist universally...So it seems like the case for having the parameter in {{Grading scheme}} is even stronger than the case for having it in {{FA-Class}}, etc. jhawkinson 04:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes! Sorry I missed the point there, well it's getting late here. This DOES seem reasonable to me now. Maybe Tito or Kirill could comment, and perhaps add such a parameter if they think it's OK? Walkerma 04:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think these would be a very nice features to add. I will go ahead and do this probably sometime later today. For the links to project-specific categories, I'll add the {{Grading scheme|project=Filmmaking}} parameter. This parameter would be used for the category links. I'll also do this for {{Importance Scheme}}.

As for the non-article classes ({{List-Class}}, {{Template-Class}}, {{Dab-Class}}, {{NA-Class}}, and {{Cat-Class}}), I can think of 2 ways to handle this. By default, they should be hidden, since they are non-standard. I could either make a new parameter like "|nonarticle_classes = dab, template, ..." or I could show them individually when "|Template_example = " is specified. Even when the parameter is left blank, it could be shown. I prefer this second option to the first. It is both easier to program and encourages project-specific examples to be used. If there are no objections, I'll start on this later today. Also, if anyone uses other common non-article classes, let me know. For each of these non-article classes, a description will be needed for Criteria, Reader's experience, Editor's experience, and Example. --Scott Alter 06:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Go ahead. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remove it here for all the reasons now to be found on Wikipedia talk:Good articles. Briefly, it is a strongly disputed process, of extremely dubious results; a request to move it to a less prejudicial name has alteady produced much sentiment that it should be done away with altogether. Its standards are certainly inconsistent; the same discussion has produced proposals that it be the minimum acceptable for a non-deleted article, and that it be merged with FA. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think removing it is right, even if it is deprecated or going away. People look at the Grading scheme template to find out what a given grade means. If I find an article with grade GA, I should still be able to look it up in the template to find out what GA means. Perhaps you want to mark it "deprecated" instead? jhawkinson 22:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How's this? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...And I've reverted you. There is nothing like consensus here, don't remove it until you get some. --tjstrf talk 00:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We actually had a long debate on this issue earlier in the year, and despite the fact that I was the one proposing removing GA-Class from the scheme, I backed down when it was clear that many people felt strongly it should stay. No one whould unilaterally change a grading scheme used on over 600,000 articles without discussing it first, and the discussion must involve the WP1.0 editorial team since we are the ones overseeing this scheme (and also using the information). However, an individual WikiProject can certainly decide to opt out of using the GA level if they wish. Walkerma 00:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should not stay without warning that the process is despised, of no clear meaning, and may lead to rejection at FA. Please read the present discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good articles, or, better yet, join in. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that discussion page, and that is exactly why I know to revert you. While there are a lot of people expressing minor concerns and ways to improve, you're the only one yelling "ABOLISH!!! ABOLISH!!!".

And no, we don't need a warning that the grading system has mixed results, because that is true of every single ranking on this page, even FA. --tjstrf talk 19:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm still trying to fix it, or move it to a non-prejudicial name, where I will be happy to ignore it. Girolamo Savaronola and Steve Block !voted to abolish it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do think this sentence important; there is no consensus on what GA means, if anything:

GA class has been compared to B-class; mergers with A-class or even FA-class have been proposed. Its meaning is uncertain; its value disputed.

None of the following opinions are mine. Many of them are by regulars and defenders of GA.

• Fits uncomfortably in the Stub-B-A-FA system
• I think having a clear path from Stub to Start to B to A to FA makes sense.
• I am all for the merger of the A-Class and GA on the quality scale,
• I've always seen GA as B-class
• title=Wikipedia_talk:Good_articles&diff=134642096&oldid=134641865 I used to remove GA tags on articles I was taking to FA. The people who edit GA heavily might not realize the degree to which GA is viewed as just more tag cruft by other editors
• I know the Chemistry wikiproject once refused or currently refuses to allow articles to be classed as GA class in their templates, (Don't ask me how that makes sense, if they don't want any articles classed as GA class, then why does their template allow the classification?)
  • (Because they are constrained by this template, and other things.]
• GA is far too close to FA.

These can be summarized by: there is radical uncertainty about where GA lies on this scale; there is doubt about whether it ought to be on this scale at all. These opinions should be clearly indicated, for the benefit of newbies who will otherwise be led to use GA as just another rung on the ladder. To prevent this is censorship; and there are remedies for that. I will accept mediation; the Cabal seems to be working slightly better this week. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a case to be made for moving GA out of this scale, although it certainly should not be done without discussion, and may be better decided at the WikiProject level. In particular, this question has nothing to do with arguments to abolish GA or change its name, but rather with the uncertainty over what it means, and the fact that it assesses articles in a completely different way, and with different criteria, to the Wikipedia 1.0 process. Steve Baker, who is a strong and particularly coherent supporter of GA, has made a compelling statement at Wikipedia talk:Good articles#On the A vs GA debate. Although he finds it helpful to place GA between B and A, some of his arguments suggest it may not be. I have added my own comments on the issue there. Geometry guy 15:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why was the stub example changed from Coffee table book (as of July 2005) to Dave Briggs (as of June 2007) ? The Dave Briggs stub actually looks too good to be a typical example of a stub (though it's a close call) -- it has a link, a box, and the key info. Coffee Table, by contrast, is more typical of a stub that someone would write in just as a placeholder. More importantly, as the older stub, people can see how Coffee Table book progressed over time into a half-decent article, which is probably more instructive and helpful to editors trying to understand the overall progression of articles. I propose that we revert. Thesmothete 16:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thes

I noticed the previous example was a cople of years old so I thought I'd refresh it with something recent. Violentbob 20:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can appreciate that, but let's look for a stub that is the best example for the benefit of the template. It might not be coffee table -- perhaps it is something else. But I really don't think Briggs, although newer, is better. Thesmothete 21:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Judging from the look, I think something happened and the code broke. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't immediately see the problem; could you elaborate, by chance? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing apparently wrong for me (currently using Firefox 2). Which browser are you using, what appearance does the problem take, and which change to the template caused the problem (try viewing versions from the history)? --ais523 09:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Disabling edit protected tag for the moment. If you can list specific change(s) that need to be made to fix any problems, you can of course re-enable it. Resurgent insurgent 09:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the wording within A-Grade to correspond to the current wording of WP:V. At the same time, I've removed serious bias against online sources. Whether information is published via paper or websites makes no difference. What matters is independence, fact checking, and accuracy. Jehochman ^Hablar 09:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of wording, it's crap throughout that table. Why doesn't someone fix it all? To start with, indicative and imperative moods are mixed up ("Provides a well-written, reasonably clear and complete description of the topic, as described in How to write a great article. It should be (?is) of a length suitable for the subject ..."). And ... um ... try "It is of suitable length for the topic". The whole thing is riddled with glitches. Tony 11:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the sample FA be added by the main editor/nominator of that article,[2] when it only recently passed FAC with copyedit objections? Of course, it didn't displease me TS was added back in April by an uninvolved editor, based on unanimous FAC support.[3] [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not cool, but then, it's a natural instinct. Since Tourette was passed unanimously, I'll switch back to it. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, I reviewed that FAC, so I'll hold until someone else even less involved decides to change it back. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of several FACs that passed unanimously that could be used, but I also reviewed most of them, so will wait for someone else to change. But, a recently-passed FA, without a unanimous FAC, shouldn't be our sample, and for the editor to add it him/herself raises eyebrows ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very disappointing that the article was promoted to FA status despite its generally poor standard of prose. This is typical of the director's careless attitude to this aspect of FACs. It's downright embarrassing to have this article paraded as an example of one in which "no further editing is necessary". Tony 11:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon specifying a project, why do the category links point to "List-Class <project> pages" and "NA-Class <project> pages" when very few, if any, projects use these conventions (based on Category:NA-Class articles and Category:List-Class articles)? --TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 09:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of the common classes used with article assessment (see the table on the right), it appears that all but four of the templates link directly to their associated parent category. For example, the B on {{B-Class}} links to Category:B-Class articles. Is this linking inconsistency caused by design or oversight? If it is an accident, I would propose the following:

• Category on {{Cat-Class}} be linked to Category:Category-Class articles
• Template on {{Template-Class}} be linked to Category:Template-Class articles
• NA on {{NA-Class}} be linked to Category:NA-Class articles
• Needed on {{Needed-Class}} be linked to Category:Needed-Class articles

Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was by design. These templates were all created at different times and were never standardized to match the others. All of these templates are protected, so you need an administrator to do this (or to unprotect them temporarily and I could do this). There are also other changes that should be made to the common templates with categories at Category:Articles by quality (items crossed out have been completed):

• {{Needed-Class}} should be fixed to link to Category:Needed-Class articles and accept the category parameter to link to a specified category
• {{Dab-Class}} should be fixed to link to Category:Disambig-Class articles and accept the category parameter to link to a specified category
• {{-Class}} should be fixed to link to Category:Unassessed-Class articles and accept the category parameter to link to a specified category
• {{Portal-Class}} should link to Category:Portal-Class articles
• {{Cat-Class}} should link to Category:Category-Class articles
• {{Template-Class}} should link to Category:Template-Class articles
• {{FA-Class}}, {{A-Class}}, {{GA-Class}}, {{B-Class}}, {{Start-Class}}, {{Stub-Class}}, {{-Class}}, {{Needed-Class}}, and {{Portal-Class}} should be modified to display as a table when viewing the template pages (using noinclude tags)
• {{Dab-Class}} should be merged with {{Disambig-Class}}

--Scott Alter 03:59, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would any modifications to the main assessment templates (e.g., A-Class and such) would affect the number of them that can be displayed on Special:Expandtemplates? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what your question is, but making these changes to the main assessment templates should not effect their display on any page other than Template:A-Class. The noinclude tags would not transclude to other pages. Instead of seeing the HTML used to format the cell at {{A-Class}}, you would see the actual formated cell (like {{Image-Class}}). --Scott Alter 04:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} {{FA-Class}}, {{A-Class}}, {{GA-Class}}, {{B-Class}}, {{Start-Class}}, {{Stub-Class}}, {{-Class}}, {{Needed-Class}}, and {{Portal-Class}} should be modified to display as a table when viewing the template pages directly. This should be done by adding this at the very beginning of the template:

<noinclude>{|
!</noinclude>

and this immediately after the existing <noinclude>:

|}

Additionally, {{NA-Class}} is missing the closing tag for the table, and it needs a |}. {{List-Class}} can be used as an example of a class that properly uses this formatting. --Scott Alter 05:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the same question stands: Will making these templates bigger cause the large tables on WP:1.0/I to hit the 1 MB transclusion limit? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I have not seen any official documentation of such a transclusion limit, I do not believe it would change the bytes transcluded. The table coding I would like to include is entirely within <noinclude></noinclude> tags. All of this should be parsed before it is transcluded. If the transclusion limit included items within <noinclude></noinclude> tags, the first place to reduce the bytes is by removing:

{{pp-template|small=yes}}
----
'''''NB:''' This is not a stub template. Therefore, it is not to be placed on articles. It is used in assessment summaries for the WP1.0 project; see [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment]].''
[[Category:Classification templates|{{PAGENAME}}]]

This is standard in all of the -Class articles. If it were included in the transclusion limit, I'd imagine that this text would have been removed long ago. Adding my changes would still produce the same results when the template is put in Special:ExpandTemplates. --Scott Alter 05:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The documentation is at Wikipedia:Template limits. Noinclude sections are counted, which is why the {{documentation}} template was developed. Making the templates longer probably is a bad idea; moving those comments to the doc page ps probably a good idea. There's no great need to view the templates directly, and a demo table could always be put on a doc subpage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For those who may want to use it as a graphical element: Image:A-class-wiki-symbol.PNG.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template at the top of this page says the template is protected, but there is no actual indication that it really is, other than that template (i.e. no little padlock) --Thinboy00 ^talk/_contribs 00:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Can an admin please add this image, (Image:Symbol a class.svg), to the A-Class template to resemble the FA and GA-Class templates. I ask this because A-Class is higher than GA-Class, yet lower than FA-Class, but there is no image for A-Class (unlike GA and FA-Class). -- LAX 17:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The message that was at the top of the page was wrong. I have removed it - the page is infact not protected. Davnel03 18:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aah, the Template:A-Class is protected, but that template talkpage redirects here, hence why this has been posted here. In any situation, can an admin add the image to Template:A-Class? Davnel03 18:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea. If we must have an image for A-Class, let us have a unique one, not just a modification of the GA image. I am against any measure which serves to associate A-Class ratings with the GA process. Kirill 18:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need an image for A-Class? What's wrong with the letter A—I think that's pretty clear. I'm disabling the editprotected template, as it appears that this is not consensus. Pagrashtak 22:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be possible to get the text of the Grading template changed?

"Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then add comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article."

'and/or' isn't really valid so it's kind of funny to see it in a statement regarding grading of articles. Simply using "or" is sufficient in this context. Either that or it should be changed to "and/exclusive or" but even that is implied by a simple "or" while avoiding the awkwardness of reading "and/exclusive or".

This page also provides a quick synopsis regarding why and/or shouldn't be written http://www.geocities.com/thorin.geo/and_or_invalid.html

Wikipedia even has an entry about "and/or" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And/or —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.96.11 (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done 206.47.249.251 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} This is somewhat of a continuation of the above #Template linking consistency?, but the discussion has changed gears and brought about a new topic. I just created a new documentation page, designed for all of the -Class templates. The documentation page itself is located at Template:Grading scheme/doc/class, but it can not be properly viewed through that page. It is designed so that the one page can be used as the same documentation for all of the -Classes. The proper documentation link to use on the -Class templates would be {{Documentation|Template:Grading scheme/doc/class}}, and it would be placed directly on the -Class template pages in place of the current note. A sample can be viewed at Template:FA-Class/doc. Replacing the current note on all of the -Class pages with this will significantly reduce the pre-expand include size when the templates are transcluded. --Scott Alter 05:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per the trend to transclude documentation, and per the discussion above, could someone please go through all of the article classifications (listed at Template:Grading scheme/doc/see also), and replace the current documentation with this:

<noinclude>{{Documentation|Template:Grading scheme/doc/class}}</noinclude>

So each of the templates would look something like this:

style="background: #6699ff; text-align: center;" | [[Image:Featured article star.svg|14px|✓|Featured article]] '''{{#if:{{{category|}}}|[[:{{{category}}}|FA]]|[[:Category:FA-Class articles|FA]]}}'''<noinclude>
{{Documentation|Template:Grading scheme/doc/class}}</noinclude>

The {{pp-template}} and categories are within the transcluded documentation, so they can be removed. --Scott Alter 00:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page isn't protected - you can make the edit yourself. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page isn't protected, but each of the -Class templates are. All of their talk pages redirect to here. A list of the article classification templates (all protected) can be seen here. --Scott Alter 16:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes. Sorry for the delay. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It looks good, and now the pre-expand include sizes have been reduced. They could be reduced even more by removing the "{{pp-template|small=yes}}" - this is also transcluded from the documentation subpage. --Scott Alter 20:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The new preprocessor no longer worries about pre-expand sizes, and they aren't output any more. Try checking them to see what I mean. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Currently, all of the classes, except for {{Cat-Class}} and {{Dab-Class}}, use same name for their page, class displayed, and category. Here are a few examples:

I would like to rename {{Cat-Class}} to {{Category-Class}}, and {{Dab-Class}} to {{Disambig-Class}}. Doing so provides consistency with the other classes, and is more intuitive for editors - the class they assign is the actual name of the class. Currently, the redirects are in the opposite direction. Making these changes will have no effect on any of the pages currently using either template, and it will not have an effect on WikiProject assessments or the WP 1.0 bot. This is evident by the 4 targets (to the actual template and the redirect for both classes) each having several thousand links. Performing these renames would also allow for the new, standardized documentation of the templates to link to the correct categories. --Scott Alter 03:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Half done - the category one is done. I'll move the other one later this morning. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig isn't even its full name! StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 09:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey everyone! I'm proposing a slight alteration to the color scheme, here's a comparison:

I think it's a little better due to the fact that it's not unbelievably fucking retarded! Let me know what you think. —Figure (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think we prefer the current system thanks. Walkerma (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Walkerma. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a wiki. I'm "we" too. —Figure (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And with me that's four. There's no improvement in the proposed scheme, as the difference between all the colors is negligible, hence the colors lose their effectiveness. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three, actually. Read more carefully. I guess my only question is, who is the target audience that can't distinguish between words without their being covered in garishly colored rectangles, and why are they editing an encyclopedia? "A" and "B" are different letters, doesn't that suffice to distinguish them? It would be nice to read a talk page without the visual onslaught on every single article. Why the insistence on deliberately bad design? —Figure (talk) 01:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few requests. - LA @ 23:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. The Needed-Class template needs a link to its categories.
2. I am creating a table where I would like these text align:left NOT centered.
3. I would like to turn off the star in the FA-Class and FL-Class templates and the circled plus sign in the GA-Class template.
4. List-Class should be above Stub-Class (Lists can also be stubs).
5. Not all classes are represented in the Grading scheme table: Future, Needed, Disambig, Redirect, Portal, and Image.
6. Not all classes are represented in the Quality statistics table: Future, Needed, Disambig, Redirect, Portal, Cateogory, Image, Template, and NA.
7. Needed-Class color to #cc2200 to match the color of a red link.
   1. Maybe.
   2. Use template substitution and CSS. Adding more conditionals makes the code bloated, and these templates are designed to use hundreds of times on a page, so they must be lean.
   3. Again, substitution. Using a switch to turn off the star would add unnecessary complexity to the template.
   4. List-Class is a non-standard class, as it is not an assessment of quality, but of article type. The exact placement is a matter of dispute.
   5. Future, Needed, Disambig, Redirect, Portal, Category, Image, Template, and NA-Classes are also non-standard classes.
   6. Ditto.
   7. Changing the color of Needed-Class to that value would make it too similar to {{Stub-Class}}, and makes a sharp color contrast with bluelinks, making the text hard to read. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      1. In the table I want to create, all of the others are linked to the right categories, except Needed-Class which had no link.
      2. I can do it with 8 characters per template if I could edit them.
      3. Are those images really needed in these templates?
      4. Non-standrad classes need monitoring too.
      5. Ditto
      6. Ditto
      7. It was just a thought, though the more it hurts one's eyeballs the more likely one would create the article to rid oneself from hurt. :) - LA @ 00:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Please add interwiki links for the following template:

• Template:FA-Class th:แม่แบบ:ระดับคัดสรร
• Template:GA-Class th:แม่แบบ:ระดับคุณภาพ
• Template:B-Class th:แม่แบบ:ระดับดี
• Template:Stub-Class th:แม่แบบ:ระดับโครง
• Template:List-Class th:แม่แบบ:ระดับรายชื่อ
• Template:Portal-Class th:แม่แบบ:ระดับสถานีย่อย
• Template:Category-Class th:แม่แบบ:ระดับหมวดหมู่

Thanks --Jutiphan | Talk - 09:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Happy‑melon 10:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} I think that the non-standard categories parameters (i.e. List, NA, Template...) should not be to specify a category, but rather just be yes or no to indicate whether it should be included in the table, instead of if an example is given. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...
{{#if:{{{List_example|}}}|
<tr>
{{!}} {{List-Class|category=Category:{{#if:{{{List_cat|}}}|{{{List_cat}}}|List-Class {{{Project|}}} articles}}}}<br /><small>{{tl|List-Class}}</small>
...

↓

...
{{#ifeq:{{{List_cat|}}}|yes|
<tr>
{{!}} {{List-Class|category=Category:List-Class {{#if:{{{Project|}}}|{{{Project}}}}} articles}}<br /><small>{{tl|List-Class}}</small>
...

 Not done This page isn't protected, so you can just make the changes yourself. I did a quick database scan and found that 16 pages contain the "List_example" parameter with this template. Note that only 6 of those articles use List_cat (and none have List_cat = yes), so there might be some problems. You may want to ensure that those pages are not negatively effected with your change. Here's the 16 pages using List_example (with a note on which ones use List_cat, too)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway/Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Assessment (uses List_cat too)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment (uses List_cat too)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Chaotic/Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains/Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience/Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Constructed languages/Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio/Article Classification (uses List_cat too)
• Wikipedia:Wikiproject High School Musical/Assessment (uses List_cat too)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject University of California/Assessment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who/Assessment (uses List_cat too)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject 24/Assessment (uses List_cat too)
• User:Jamesontai/Sandbox14

Let me know if you need any help with it. --CapitalR (talk) 12:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I knew it wasn't protected, but no one was was answering, so thanks. I think I can handle it, I just did not know how to find those pages like you did. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the template, but now I was wondering why other classes, such as Portal & Redirect, are not listed? MrKIA11 (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering that too. I think I'll add Portal to the template (specifically because my main project of focus, Aviation, uses it), but I'll leave Redirect for someone else to add. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 01:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} After a lengthy discussion about colours here, we have determined new colours for the assessment scheme and there is strong consensus for the yellow currently being used for B-Class to be used on C-Class instead (this change has been made) and for B-Class to be changed to yellow-green (#c8fb7b), naturally we need an administrator to make the change. --.:Alex:. 12:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm missing something, this page isn't fully-protected. D.M.N. (talk) 12:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The {{B-Class}} template is and it's talk page redirects here for some reason. --.:Alex:. 12:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. Sorry, I never realised. D.M.N. (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Nice. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that c-class has been added to the assessment scheme, is there any reason why the c-class section in the template is still wrapped in <noinclude> so it does not show when transcluded? --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 10:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because we haven't come up with a proper descrition yet. All of it is currently placeholder text. --.:Alex:.

That just about drove one of my fellow editors nuts yesterday because it would not show. That should have been done in a sandbox subpage or a least a note in the documentation. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 13:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Currently the template links to Category:NA-Class articles, but this is problematic for many WikiProjects which use alternative category names such as Category:Non-article Foo pages or Category:NA-class Foo pages. Although in the long term it would be ideal to standardise the naming of these categories, would it be possible in the short term to have this template link to such named categories? PC78 (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Template talk page redirects here) {{editprotected}} By default this template should link to Category:Redirect-Class articles, not Wikipedia:Redirect, per other class templates and template documentation. PC78 (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Though I'm still not sure why we have a redirect class.... Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The grey currently used for this class makes it difficult to see the "Portal" link once visited. I propose that the colour be changed to a lighter one. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 15:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I think the colours for all of the non-standard classes could do to be revised. The orange used for Category-Class is too similar to the colour of Start-Class, IMO. PC78 (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree. However, my main concern is that horrible grey, as it obscures the view of the link in the visited form. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 18:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about red? bsrboy (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would collide with Start-Class, unfortunately... :( Not really much I can suggest... How about pink? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to say that! I think you meant Stub-class, not Start-class there. It should be a bright pink and possibly changing the colour of template to a darker pink. bsrboy (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it would clash with the colors for the importance scale. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that pink is used for Template-Class. PC78 (talk) 08:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He suggested that Template class be bumped down to a darker pink. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 08:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just use the darker pink for Portal-Class? Why mess around with Template-Class just for the sake of it? But as noted, conflict with the importance scale colours makes this a bad idea anyway. PC78 (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried out some shades of gold and violet. bsrboy (talk) 12:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's good! I think the second one is probably the best for usability; the others are still making it difficult to read the purple link. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes. I forgot about the purple link. If I think back to my art classes yellow is the opposite of purple, so I'll try the gold with even more yellow. bsrboy (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's much better :P Just watch that it doesn't clash with start-, C- or category- classes. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 12:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd quite like some admin input, because the template is protected. bsrboy (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still cant understand why Good-Article is worse than A-article. This goes against any logic. A-B-C classes should be next to each other. FA>GA>A>B>C... goes logical to me.--Kozuch (talk) 21:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right in saying that it is logical, but how would we assess it? We would have to make GA criteria stricter; A criteria a lot less stricter and B-class criteria less strict too. When the new C-class arrived, B-class got stricter, so changing it all again would mess everything up. Not to mention the GA reviewers... bsrboy (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]