 | This category was nominated for deletion on 15 February 2017. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This category should be shown not only in the talk page but also shown on the article itself. The reason is that it is important to know for readers what kind of quality level an article has. The main problem with Wikipedia for readers is that articles have an unknown quality level, unless of course it is a featured article. In contrast, articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica always have a certain minimum quality level. Andries 08:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
- Article-space pages are only put into article-space categories, which relate to the article's content rather than to meta-concerns like "good articles". Putting the articles into the category would not only be incredibly redundant and wasteful, but would also be deeply misleading and biased, and 100% unhelpful. Noone is benefited by knowing that a certain article is good or not; people read articles based on what they're interested in learning about, and if a certain topic doesn't have a "good article", they should read it anyway if they want to, and if a certain topic that doesn't interest them is "good", they shouldn't necessarily read it, because most "good articles" are actually pretty mediocre.
- Even Featured Articles only put the talk-pages into categories. To put Good Articles' article-space pages there would be sufficient reason for me, at least, to give up on Wikipedia forever and find something else to spend time on. If we're concerned more with patting ourselves on the back than with actually improving our content, our motto is disingenuous and we should be "the free self-rating system", not "the free encyclopedia". -Silence 09:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)