Template talk:GANotice

Someone please revert my stupid mistake!!!!

I tried to remove this template from somebody's talk page, and ended up blanking it! I'm not completely sure how to revert it. I really hope I didn't cause too much damage, it really wasn't intentional.--Grand Slam 7 16:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I tried to revert it by copying and pasting the old diff, but it came out differently than it used to be. Here's why this happened: I passed Platte Canyon High School shooting as a Good Article and tried to put this template on Webdinger's talk page, as he was the nominator. However, I used "GANotice" instead of "subst:GANotice|article=Platte Canyon High School shooting|result=pass". It came out with all three results there, and I decided to remove the section from his talk page and write a sentence saying it passed instead fo using a template. I clicked on the edit button next to the template, thinking this would edit the section, and instead blanked the template. I am not sure how to fix it, although I tried, and I hope someone else can. I'm sorry about this, I really didn't mean to.--Grand Slam 7 17:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

After reading Help:Revert, I learned that reverting pages is not done by copying the text of the version you wish to revert it to (I had tried this earlier) and I was able to sucessfully fix it.--Grand Slam 7 21:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI

I'm requesting a new version of the template, minus any hold, failed, or passed status. I generally like to introduce myself and inform users before I actually do the review, so a general intro template for GA reviewing would be nice. VanTucky ^(talk) 15:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Second Opinion Template

I think we need a template for letting nominators know that a second opinion has been requested, but the first review is up. Million_Moments (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Philroc (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Linking to the assessment subpage

It'd be nice if the basic form of this template linked to the subpage where the GA nomination is hosted. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I came here to request the same thing. It seems really goofy that there's no link to the assessment page from this template. However, to actually make the edit, we'd need to make the Legobot source provide an assessment page number parameter, which I'm not entirely confident that it has when it's calling this function. jp×g 21:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Addition of "reviewlink" parameter, 2022 January 1

I messed around with the sandbox a little, and came up with a modification that allows the template to be used more helpfully without affecting existing usage in any way. It works perfectly fine on all of the test cases. Basically, you can add a reviewlink parameter and the message will include a link to the actual review page; if you don't, it will continue to function the way it always did. jp×g 22:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed changes to this template

I've opened a discussion to propose some changes to this template. I would welcome your feedback and suggestions! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 11:12, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

 Implemented —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 16:57, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Change to template

Can we use the pass template to encourage people to review someone else's nomination? I had already proposed this a while back at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations/Archive 37#Another opportunity to encourage people to review GANs, and nobody really objected. Normally I'd take this as silent consensus and boldly implement it, but it is an important template, so I'm not nearly confident enough for that, therefore I feel obliged to bring it up here too. Pinging @Mike Christie, who is probably the person to ask about this template, and @TechnoSquirrel69, who has previously been interested in maintaing this. JustARandomSquid (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

No objections from me. It doesn't impact ChristieBot at all unless there is a change to the parameters. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:09, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

@JustARandomSquid: Thanks for the ping! I'm a little lukewarm about this myself, but don't formally oppose it by any means. Would you be able to make the changes you're proposing in the sandbox so we can take a look at them? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't have any particular wording in mind, but I've added a sentence in the sandbox. Possible changes might be to be a bit pushier, eg. add the wording to the under review notice too (saying something like "while you wait"), or maybe better emphasise the fact that we kind of need this ("to help keep the backlog down", or "one of X other nominations awaiting review"). The link might also be better off leading to Wikipedia:Good article instructions#Reviewing. I don't think this is going to be any sort of major change, but if we get even one other person interested in reviewing I'd say that's worth the extra sentence. JustARandomSquid (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

I added the help keep the backlog down thing because it sounds stylistically better imo. Again, I'm just doing stuff, I have no particular attachment to any specific wording. JustARandomSquid (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

That looks fine to me; as Mike said, it doesn't affect the parameters and so shouldn't interfere with ChristieBot. I'd say go ahead and implement it, noting at WT:GAN that you did so. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:33, 21 February 2026 (UTC)