Forum:CT:Queue know the problem.

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Queue know the problem.

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The result of the debate was superseded by CT Archive/FA-a-Day for 2009.

It has become increasingly apparent that our FA queue has become slightly too long. I know that some will be saying, "What's the problem? It's time to get 200 articles on the queue!", but this is obviously detrimental to having quality articles on the Main Page. The articles that are being placed on the queue now won't be on the main page until almost a year later. The fact is that a lot can happen in a year, and it may be hard to ensure the quality of articles that remain on the main page for an entire year. We need a new system to regulate the FA queue, but before we do that, we need to get rid of our huge queue right now, as any system that we adopt will still have trouble regulating so many articles.

In the meantime, I propose that we change the system we have now to one FA per day just like Wikipedia. Keep in mind that this is only a temporary fix. We're certainly not creating one FA per day, so this will hopefully dwindle the queue down after about three months (or maybe a little longer). The purpose of this is to give a fair playing ground for alternate options of the queue, so after the queue has gone down to a reasonable length, we can adopt a new system that will ensure that articles aren't stagnating while waiting for their turn on the main page.

Support moving to a one FA a day system

  1. Cull Tremayne 19:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per Cull's argument above -- AckbarSigdmirableAckbar (It's A Trap!) 19:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. As long as we don't revert back to the two-per-week system after the daily FA run. --Imperialles 21:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per the numbers below. - Lord Hydronium 22:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. We can do it. Thefourdotelipsis 04:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. I support this as a temporary solution, but we can't expect this to be permanent. Even if the SW universe is so vast with many well-developed elements like characters or organizations, sooner or later we will run out of Featured Articles. Our articles may be good, void of fanon, irrelevant speculation, and everything that is needed for an FA, but they won't be long enough after a while. - TopAce (Talk) 21:01, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. I believe we can support such a system indefinitely. I think it will motivate the promotion of more articles to FA status. Sure when the wiki was started there wasn't enough to have a different FA every day. And there aren't enough of them coming at a substantial enough rate at the moment. But as the 'pedia continues to grow, so should our list of FAs and FA-level contributors. In fact, I'll even begin proving my theory by picking a couple of pet projects and getting them to FA status starting tonight. (And quite frankly, I get sick of the same article being on the main page for a week.) Total support, even as a temporary solution, but optimistically as a permanent solution as well. Wildyoda 02:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oh, hell no. Two a week is bad enough. -- Darth Culator (Talk) 22:09, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  2. Per Havac. Chack Jadson Talk 22:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • No. I want to see a larger number of articles on the queue and a bit more long-term stability before we try something more ambitious. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 04:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  3. It's a hell of a lot faster than you realize. Don't find out the hard way. I'm looking at the big picture here, not just our current preponderance of FAs.—Graestan Jedi Order (This party's over) 05:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  4. Per Havac's arguments. I also don't think we have quite a high enough FA output to keep up the pace forever. I mean, unless we get new blood in here, we could run out pretty fast. Although I'd like this to happen at some point, I think we're fine with the current system for now. Hobbes15(Tiger Headquarters) 03:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  5. As per Havac. Commander Daal Imperial Emblem 09:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. We shouldn't be trying to rush through our Featured Articles. The whole point is to *feature* them, not get them out of the way so we can do something different. If we want to switch to a one-a-day system, it should be because we honestly believe we can support such a system indefinitely, not to "get rid of our huge queue." jSarek 00:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  7. Oppose in favor of my proposed system. We can bring that up in another CT, though. Havac 02:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  8. JMAS 05:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  9. Unit 8311 15:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
  10. Per Hobbes15. Also, at the last Inq meeting we decided to have more regular meetings, which means review of all upcoming FAs. I'd actually not be averse to going back to one a week, solely for clarity's sake... Gonk (Gonk!) 14:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
  11. It'd only be fair for every article to get their specified amount of time. Afterall, the articles that came before got the same time. And plus, the article is being highlighted, not looked at for a day and tossed aside. What jSarek said. Jedi Master Chief 05:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

I would like every FA to at least have one day on the Main Page, so if your idea is to just boot some of the articles off the queue, forget it. Cull Tremayne 19:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, there are a handful that arguably shouldn't be FAs, period, and the next meeting has some agenda items to that effect, so that is an option that should be considered. But if you're referring to the idea of not all FAs actually being featured on the main page, then I agree that that is unacceptable. Currently, there are 86 articles on the queue. I wouldn't be opposed to the notion of one-a-day FAs if I didn't feel that A) that's not a lot of recognition for what is often a lot of work, and B) the current queue consists almost entirely of articles that the writers wrote and had featured with an understanding they would be on for a week. We've already cut that in half. I'm not opposed to disappointing people if it's something that has to be done, but be aware there may be a lot of disgruntled FA writers. Also, this begs the question of when it will end and we'll look at the next step. When there are ten left on the queue? It'll take longer than ten days to debate, I bet. What happens when articles keep getting added? I think we need to set a firm deadline by which we'll either have decided to continue the one-a-days (unlikely, given the volume), go back to the two-a-week setup, or go even farther back to one-a-week. I've not decided exactly where I stand on this, but there are a few points to consider. Havac 22:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • We could always adopt a selective queue with week-long main page featuring… --Imperialles 22:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
      • If I understand the concept of selective queue right, it might work for us after we've shrunk our FA queue down to manageable levels. It would only complicate things even more if we implemented it now, though. Gonk (Gonk!) 01:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

So I decided to crunch some numbers on how fast we make FAs. We put out a new FA approximately every 1.2 days. That's somewhere between 5 and 6 a week, closer to 6. Assuming we did go to one a day, that means our queue would get shorter by one article every six days. At the current queue size and assuming the rate is kept up, we wouldn't run out for 1.4 years. - Lord Hydronium 22:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • ...and if we drop off the current rate, where are we left? Do we then revert back to the old system of 2 per week? Then back to one, until some genius decides to FA Black Cavern and reboot the trend? I'm also in agreement largely with Havac's point A. From someone who has written only 1 at the moment (working on another), having a week, or even half a week, of your article up on the front page with the subtitle "best Wookieepedia has to offer" really is pretty cool. Jorrel Wiki-shrinkable Fraajic 23:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I realize that you might have some disgruntled FA writers, but those people are just going to have to suck it up, but you like you said, "I'm not opposed to disappointing people if it's something that has to be done". I think it's something that is necessary. You're also concerned about when we're going to debate about a new system. My thought is that if this passes and we go to one FA a day, then we'll immediately start debating on a new system so that it's ready when the time comes. Cull Tremayne 01:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I want us to move to one a day permanently, kriff it. And stay there. Not dwindle down and then go back. That's silly. Atarumaster88 Jedi Order (Talk page) 05:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • This thought came to me last night: what if, instead of accelerating the rate at which we put FAs on the main page, we simply put more on the main page? Keep the current system, but instead put three articles up for half a week instead of just one (we could put four to go even faster, but three allows us to put two up across from each other and one where it regularly is and not have to shuffle the main page's layout too severely). It will still chew through our queue, but it will do so in a vastly more equitable way by maintaining the same display length for all noms and not seriously shortchanging a select few which happened merely to be in the queue at the wrong time. Havac 18:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
    • No, no, no, no, no. The silly two-per-week system is bad enough. --Imperialles 18:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
      • I fail to see the silliness. -- Ozzel 20:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)