Forum:CT:Ordering the queue

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Ordering the queue


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 support reordering the FA queue per Wikipedia:WP:SNOW. - Sikon 15:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's come up on IRC that the ability to order the Featured Article queue would be incredibly useful in order to keep numerous articles from the same source being featured in a row, such as the numerous current FA nominations from Ewoks, Marvel, and KOTOR, and being able to space it out and alternate articles for best effect. Wikipedia already does something similar. It would probably be best to put this power in the hands of the Inquisitorius, who are already the people putting them on the queue and going over the whole process.

Support

  1. Havac 21:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Imp ATATatarismall.png 21:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Wildyoda 21:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  4. Goodness gracious yes. Gonk (Gonk!) 21:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  5. Sounds good to me. - JMAS 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  6. Make it so. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 21:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  7. Atarumaster88 03:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  8. Azizlight 03:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
  9. Lord Hydronium 03:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  10. Ozzel 03:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  11. —Xwing328(Talk) 18:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  12. Green Tentacle (Talk) 08:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  13. .... 09:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

I'd actually been thinking about this lately as well. I'm for it, but I think the moving should be kept to as few weeks as possible. I'd hate to see a June article become a December, or vice versa, unless there was possibly a special date tie-in or something. And also, we HAVE to keep Mount Sorrow where it is right now. ;-) -- Ozzel 03:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah, limited moving only. Though I thought that the ability to replace Sorrow would be a huge selling point. :-P Havac 05:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
    • We'll miss the "April Showers..." jokes if we don't move Sorrow. :-P Cull Tremayne 16:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorrow MUST Stay. .... 09:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.