Template talk:FailedGA/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rewording proposal

As part of a group of related potential changes, I have suggested rewording this to:

FailedGA/Archive 1 is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Good articles for more details. TheGrappler 03:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Date feature

I just reverted a revision because it adds ugly subst messages and ignores inputted dates that have been applying the new date feature. Not to mention it makes it harder to editors to change the GA date for those many articles that didn't have the date stamp on it.

However, can someone more familiar with the code change it so that the current date feature remains the same (i.e. no hard typing) and hides the error message? Since there are still plenty of older Failed GAs that have this template from before it had the feature. --SevereTireDamage 23:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, someone tried that sort of thing before (see Template talk:GAnominee). Are there any example templates we could steal code from?  -- Run!  13:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Take a look at Template:Nsd, coupled with Template:No source. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 14:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Those templates still require input in the calling code though, don't they? That's not exactly the 'automatic' I was thinking of.  -- Run!  16:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that if you don't name the variable specifically, i.e. ({{if:{{date}}}}) you can't make an if statement on a general variable ({{if:{{1}}}}), if I understand it right. It's unfortunate, but the date capability is so useful, I'd live with the ugly error message to keep it. --SevereTireDamage 04:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Awkward wording?

I'm usually bold but a change in this template would affect many pages, so I thought I'd post here first. The first sentence is awkward; a better phrasing would be "FailedGA was once a good article candidate." Does anyone else agree? Xiner (talk, email) 03:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm proposing the following replacement text for the template.

FailedGA/Archive 1 was a good article candidate, but did not to meet the good article criteria at the time. Once the objections listed below are addressed, the article can be renominated. You may also seek a review of the decision.

Please provide feedback. Thanks.

Xiner (talk, email) 20:44, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm editing the template since there's been no opposition to the idea. Xiner (talk, email) 19:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a typo in that proposed wording. It's been corrected now. Carcharoth 01:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions below

The template reads "There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria."

Could this template be modified so that these can be linked to by adding a field to link to the suggestions section on the talk page? Richard001 09:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Image

At Template:DelistedGA it has been suggested to use a different image from here. On the other hand, unvote seems a more appropriate image for delisting than for an unsuccessful GAC. Should the image here be changed instead? One possibility is the neutral vote, but there may be better options. Geometry guy 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing this template

Is it okay to remove this template if the nomination was long ago, not really warranted in the first place, and the template is cluttering up the page? The only problem is the category - though this could be added in manually somewhere instead. Another template that comes to mind is the 'this was x collaboration of the month three years ago', which is much more annoying. Richard001 04:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Old collaboration of the month information can certainly be removed, in my view. As for this template, why not replace it by Template:ArticleHistory? This will be useful as the article progresses. Geometry guy 10:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Subst

Is there any preference on whether or not this template should or shouldn't be used with "Subst"? --Elonka 21:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This template should not be substituted in my opinion, because it is a banner, and any changes to the template should be made across all instances for uniformity. This is in contrast to templates which are used to add to the talk itself, such as {{GAList}}. These should be substituted, because they are a shorthand used to say something at a particular point in time. Geometry guy 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dates

Can we make the template stop accepting "any date format". Talk:Korea currently claims that the article was a good article nominee 16.sep 2008. I presume this is because the template is added to the talkpage as {{FailedGA|September 16}}, i.e. with no year provided so it defaults to the current year. Taemyr (talk) 01:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Awkward grammar

When the article category is included, the word order seems awkward to me: Benjamin Franklin was nominated as a History good article "History good article"? What about "good History article" or "good article in History"?

Moving the discussion here: wikipedia_talk:Good_articles#Awkward_wording WanderingWanda (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2019 (UTC)