The following discussion is an archived discussion of the WikiProject Former countries. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was consensus to pass the motion. This proposal has open to comment for more than seven months, with only three editors taking part (all of whom supported the proposal). After such a long perod of time and such little editor involvement, three votes of support appears to be clear consensus in support of the proposal. Thus, it passes. Laurinavicius (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd just like to point out to everyone that if C-class is introduced (the way I hope it would), there would be no reassessment of any articles. How?

Well, we all know that an article is currently rated and categorized as 'Start' even if something like this happens:

|class=B |B1=n |B2=y |B3=y |B4=y |b5=n

Therefore, I think that Template:WPFC could be coded so that (for example) the above article would automatically be changed to C-class, with no manual edits involved. I'm hoping that the ruling could be adopted that if one/two B-class criterion are failed, then the article is a C. If it has three or more criterion failed, then it will remain as Start. I also hope that it is possible to code in that any article failing B-2 (comprehensiveness) is automatically start or below. --Laurinavicius (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

C-Class Referendum[edit]

Background: WikiProject Former Countries does not currently have an "official" C-class, one that is recognized by the entire community, although some editors and bots have classified approximately 139 (at this moment) articles as C-Class. The argument for creating a C-Class is that it will make Start-Class more manageable by identifying articles that are close to B-Class and this can be achieved effortlessly by modifying the existing template. The arguments against are that it is "class creep", an unnecessary additional layer and an administrative overhead.

Motion: That template changes be made to implement a C-Class via an automated process.

Support C-Class[edit]

1. Support Personally, I feel that we definitely need an additional level between our high B-class criteria and our Start-Class level. With an automatic reappraisal of articles, this would be virtually painless! I don't think that any other levels would be added after this; there will be and is no need for D–Z-class, as have been discussed by other WikiProjects. Besides, seeing as we already have A-Class in the relatively large gap between GA-Class and FA-Class, wouldn't it make perfect sense to have a C-Class to fill the large gap between Start-Class and B-Class? --Laurinavicius (talk) 01:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. Support I've recently seen a number of articles in this project that are not quality B class, although they have been rated as such, but are beyond start class. If it can be automatic, with one attribute of the B class not met, so much the better.--Auntieruth55 (talk) 22:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. Support The gap, if anything, is misrepresenting articles. This should put us on par with the other Wiki-projects; they all have a C-class, why shouldn't we? -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose C-Class[edit]

Neutral/Other[edit]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the WikiProject Former countries C-Class proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.