Forum:CT:FA-a-Day for 2009

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:FA-a-Day for 2009

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record.
The result of the debate was the FA queue will be changed to a daily system on January 1, 2009 if the FA production rate surpasses or equals an average of one successful nom per day. However, preparations for the daily system will begin as soon as the queue reaches 2009. --Imperialles 18:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

So, here's a possible Queue reform idea that might please [almost] everybody: we start featuring FAs for one day each beginning January 1, 2009.

This means:

  • No article will be written under the idea that they will be feature for 1 week, or 0.5 weeks, only to get [Redacted by administration]. Everything in the queue now will still get a half-week.
  • The queue will grow in 2008, but hopefully after that it will steadily decrease and, ideally, level out.
  • We will go through with this in 2009 if and only if we have finally reached an average of one successful nom per day (which, if our output increases at all by then, we should have no problem achieving).

So we keep going as we are for the next several weeks. As of this writing, we need 19 more FAs to fill out 2008. We would make it clear that all noms after that would be for single-day featuring. (This would mean that the last FA of next year would lose 12 hours of its half-week, but that's really no biggie; just consider it the transitionary FA.)

Shall we start planning on this? -- Ozzel 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes

  1. Ozzel 07:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. Barring unforseen mishap. Thefourdotelipsis 07:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  3. This seems a good balance between not wanting to take away the half-week that people were told they'd be given and not letting ourselves get trapped with an ever-growing backlog. - Lord Hydronium 07:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  4. I suppose we can always revert it to the previous system if it doesn't work. Unit 8311 09:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  5. --Dark Lord Xander (Embrace The Dark Side!)Neo-Crusader emblem 11:15, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  6. The future of Wookieepedia begins now. :-P Cull Tremayne 11:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  7. Per LH. Finally, a method of switching to a one-a-day without alienating the existing half-week noms! Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 20:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  8. —Xwing328(Talk) 20:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  9. Changed my vote out of fear that Havac's idea will be adopted. --Imperialles 11:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  10. -- AdmirableAckbar [Talk] 11:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  11. Per 4dot. Green Tentacle (Talk) 13:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  12. I voted for one a day last time this was discussed and would still be all for implementing it now. But if this will convince other people that nobody is writing FAs under false pretenses of featured time, then fine. At least eventually we'll be cycling through them faster. (I get bored with the same one on the main page for a week or even half a week at at time). Wildyoda 14:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  13. Greyman(Paratus) 15:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
  14. For the first time, I see a proposal that both shifts us to one-a-day and has a realistic timetable/means of doing so. Full support. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 04:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  15. —Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 18:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  16. It appears we have a winning solution. Though if it looks like we can push up that timetable a little, we should do so. jSarek 05:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  17. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 06:07, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. LtNOWIS 07:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  19. And I also favor doing this sooner than 2009 if the rate of FA creation supports it. Gonk (Gonk!) 11:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  20. JMAS 03:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  21. --Eyrezer 00:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No

Earlier, please. --Imperialles 11:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  1. No. I still think my proposal of three FAs on the main page at once, each for half a week, is better and provides a solution which can be reversed once we run through the queue instead of cycling through FAs way too fast. Havac 06:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments

  • I'm not opposed to this proposal per se, however I do find some issues with it, and was wondering if wording could be changed, provisions made, or perhaps infrastructure laid out to prevent such issues from becoming a problem. Just some things to consider:
    1. I find the idea of Featured Articles being written with the amount of Main Page time they'll receive in mind to be somewhat repugnant. I'd like to point out that most of the people who regularly write FAs are doing so with overall article improvement in mind. Whether an article is up for a week, half a week, or a day shouldn't matter; the article should be complete and of higher-than-standard quality.
    2. The fact that articles will be sitting for a year or more on the Queue before 2009 rolls around unsettles me greatly. The maintenance of these articles must be a continuous thing until then, and, frankly, I don't know who will still be around in a year or more. Perhaps, if this is the adopted plan, a small group of users could be appointed to make sure articles are being updated and maintained.
    3. Once the one-a-day system is initiated, I fear that we will run out of Featured Articles rather quickly. Odd as it may sound, there's only so much Star Wars material to be had, and at any rate, I'm not sure if articles are being nominated and/or approved on a daily basis. Further rationale for such a dramatic pace would help.
    • These are just some things to consider.—Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 16:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
    • 1) Perhaps you're right, but this has been mentioned before. Anyway, going through with this would make it a non-issue, since we wouldn't have to worry about it any more. 2) Aren't the Inqs discussing this already or something? I don't know; maybe an FA Upkeep Team or something would be nice. 3) I really don't see this ever becoming a problem. We have thousands and thousands of FA-able articles here, and the EU just keeps expanding. -- Ozzel 18:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • So does this stop after our queue gets down to reasonable size? Chack Jadson (Talk) 19:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm assuming not. Once the process is enacted, (at least in my observation), it'll continue until we encounter an "issue" in which the amount of FAs drops dramatically, to the point of scrambling to get the next one up. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 21:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Right. The idea is that we're doing this because we are aspiring to be adding a successful nom every day by 2009. If we ever reach a point in which we are not, and the queue starts running low, then we can do whatever we need to. But really, even if that happened, it would be years from now. -- Ozzel 04:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems to me that having a FA on the main page for only a single day isn't very "Featured" at all. Since it looks like this will pass regardless, would it be possible to have a list of the featured articles for the past three days listed below the current day's FA so that it is at least visibly displayed on the main page for more than a single day? Does that make sense? So lets say you've got the present day's FA up there with it's image and summary paragraph. Right below it could there be a "Previous featured articles:" and list the previous 2 or 3 days' featured articles? - JMAS 01:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Like Wikipedia's "Recently featured"? Yeah, that would probably be a good idea. -- Ozzel 01:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)