Andrew Gray wrote:
Back when it was Good Articles, shurely? ;-)
Maybe it's time to turn the wheel full circle and have a *third* attempt at a lightweight rating structure...
A number of months back, there was a lengthy GA-listed article on a fictional device from a long-running science fiction series. It was heavily referenced, and of course due to the nature of the topic a lot of the citations were for particular episodes of the series. The template {{cite episode}} was used for these, and for convenience the templates were all wikilinked to the Wikipedia articles on those particular episodes.
An editor came along and saw what he thought were dozens of citations referencing _Wikipedia articles_ rather than referencing the episodes that those articles were about. Since referencing Wikipedia as a source is unacceptable and most of the article seemed to be doing that, he went over to GA and de-listed the article. A simple misunderstanding, should be easy to just explain what the citations actually referred to and revert the delisting, right?
No, had to take the article through the whole GA re-listing procedure all over again. The original de-lister recognized his mistake but by then it was too late, the gears of the process were grinding away.
Guh. Can we perhaps call it [[Wikipedia:Adequate Articles]] for our third attempt? Maybe just as how we called Bureaucrats "bureaucrats" to lessen the mystique, a name like that might stave off the standard creep for a while longer this time.
Or just implement version flagging and hopefully skip the process bloat entirely.