Requests for Comment/Remove the "Good article" template

{{ClosedRfC|Not only no support for the idea, but a case for oppose. So, not something we will do as QP bureaucrats. Feel free to try out this discussion on a local wiki and see how it works. --Raidarr (talk) 13:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC) | Honestly, I don't think this template really has a place on any of the Reception Wikis considering that the "Featured" template already exists, and if a page is good, then yes, it is good, so why use the "Good article" template? Also, if you wanna improve that page, a "Cleanup" template already exists, making this one completely redundant. Not to mention that this template can clutter the wikis, since 99% of them will have it, and it can not only be tiring, but also a total eyesore to most people. Hell, what if users start abusing this template by adding to pages that aren't even all that good, let alone finished? If anything, I propose we do away with this template. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 6:14 November 17 2021 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Since I made this RfC, I obviously support it. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 6:17 November 17 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) the good article template is used for exceptionally good articles. They don't have to be featured or nominated to be featured. Articles without a template are average or decent articles, which doesn't mean improvement is too necessary, and in some cases can't really be improved to qualify as a good article. And cleanup means it really needs to be improved. Also, saying that "99% of them will have it" isn't really true. Atomicstar (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that every single page has the template now; I'm just saying that it might in the future. SuperStreetKombat (talk) 6:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Currently, it is not an issue. If that happens, then the standards required to qualify as a good article would increase. Atomicstar (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) It would be fine for it to stay, as it showcases pages with the possibility of becoming featured in the future if a little improvement is given. I just think there needs to be some guidelines for when and where it can be used. Wing Commander confed star.pngTigerBlazer  23:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree with TigerBlazer. FatBurn0000 (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Abstain
}}
 * 1) I've noticed this before, and what I'd say is that mainly, the issue is that there aren't objective measures for what a good article is that are consistently applied. It's something done on Wikipedia, but it doesn't necessarily need to happen on Qualitipedia. I don't buy the hypothetical '99% of them will have it!', that strikes me as slippery slope fallacy. If we can actually define standards depending on the wiki for how to apply it I'm sure it could work fine, but removing it would be one less thing to worry about. If users start abusing it, use the newly founded standards to undo it and point them to said standards. That is what needs to happen most, since you don't want a situation where people are arguing with equal validity how to classify the article as good. I have no stake in it either way, so this is just food for thought. --Raidarr (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm not sure about this one since I agree with both sides of the debate. On one hand, it does feel somewhat pointless to have the template, especially considering the name. Just like the featured template in the past, this template could get abused as well. It's easier to abuse than the featured template since it won't need an additional template to be featured on the main page either. And on the other hand, it feels necessary to keep considering how high the standards for featured pages are nowadays. I do think that saying that the template will clutter 99% of the pages is exaggerated, especially when the fact that most new users barely have any idea how to make a good page is taken into consideration. Here's two solutions I think could work: Either rename the template to something better to make it feel more valuable. Or remove the template and rework the requirements for the featured criteria. The main thing about the criteria that needs to be added is to not overdo a page, since some featured pages nowadays jam as much verbose stuff as they can into pages just to pad out the size instead of being straight to the point. --Blazikeye535 (talk) 19:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 3) per what Blazikeye said above. While the template could potentially be abused by users and may be redundant due to the featured template, it is also necessary that users are directed towards good quality pages so that they grasp the caliber of what kind of pages the admins would like to see on the wikis. Marxo Grouch  (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't care if they are gone of stay. We rarely use them, but it can help a lot of people too. King Dice (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)