User talk:SandyGeorgia/sandbox10

Talk pages deleted with G8-exempt

 * Talk:William A. Starrett,
 * Restored, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk:Alexander Purdie (publisher),
 * Restored, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk:Eureka Iron & Steel Works,
 * Restored, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk:Alexander S. Wolcott,
 * Restored, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  00:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Talk:Henry L. Haskell,
 * Talk:Louis Timothee,
 * Talk:Prospect House (Hamilton County, New York),
 * Talk:Wilhelm Victor Alfred Tepe,


 * Talk:Antoine Ephrem Cartier,

above is a list of talk pages already deleted by, and  following on the WP:DCGAR discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article reassessment/February 2023 and the later discussion at the Village pump (miscellaneous). I thought all had a G8-exempt tag, but some may have been missed, or the deleting admin may have missed the G8-exempt. It is up to you if you want to track the GAs on these separately or ask the admins for a WP:REFUND. A frustrating aspect of this discussion for me is the same thing it has been for over a decade; that is, if the GA pages were set up the same way as DYK, FAC, FAR, and PR, you would not have this problem. When an article is deleted, all of the other processes do not lose their data as those processes do not set up their reviews as sub-pages of the article talk page. No matter how many editors state in these discussions that FAC and FAR have the same problem, that is just not the case. This is a long-standing problem with the GA process that is shared by no other content review process, because every other review process sets their reviews up in pages that do not depend on the article talk page and are not lost when an article is deleted. But I know I'm repeating myself :) I'm willing to help in any way you need, but we just need to decide what that way is. I have added the suppress category template on the rest. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:56, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I got your other pings; thank you. I am planning to propose a change to the GA page system, but I think it has to wait a few months at least -- we just had the big proposal drive and there are still conversations going on resulting from that.  I agree that something like the FAC subpage approach is the best way.  I think the ones you list above were deleted before our conversation about G8-exempt -- I will go ahead and request those back at the refund page -- probably not today, as I'm working on some reviews.  Thank you again for making this so easy for me; I really appreciated your careful bookkeeping. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem, Mike; after you get the refunds, you can add this to those talk pages. Best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have restored all all the talk pages; two were not tagged as G8-exempt. The template looks similar to archive banners like automatic archive navigator, which I assume is the reason three separate admins missed the notice. Perhaps a different icon is in order to replace the current one on G8-exempt. ✗  plicit  23:50, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you ever so much,, and apologies for all this extra work. If you don't mind, a few of the subpages are still missing.  See the list above; the final five on the list are still missing the GA noms and reassessment pages, which were also deleted as subpages of the talk page (and they are what we most need :)  If you have time, might you restore them also? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅, please let me know if I've missed anything. ✗  plicit  00:11, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * looks good; thanks again! Are you brave enough to go change the icon on the G8-exempt template?  Or does that need a big formal discussion somewhere? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, ha, you did that already! Thanks again, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)