Forum:CT:Re-FAs on the main page

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 was that former featured articles that achieved featured status before 29 January 2007 (the date the Inquisitorius were created) will be added to the queue to appear on the Main Page when, and if, their status is restored. Greyman@wikia^(Talk) 01:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently, our FA policy dictates that articles which have already been featured on the main page cannot go on the main page again if they are re-FAed after having their status revoked. I'd like to change this so that an article can go on the main page more than once if it is restored, for several reasons. Firstly, every restored FA so far (and likely every one to come) has been almost entirely rewritten so that it is a completely different article. Also, it's not like we have a shortage of FAs at the minute, and "the more, the merrier" seems to be the general attitude. Having reformed FAs on the main page would provide added incentive for users to try to restore former FAs, and, since most of the main characters of the saga are former FAs, would allow viewers to see some more familiar faces showcased on the main page.

This would also apply to all the current restored FAs (Mara Jade Skywalker, Talon Karrde, Gilad Pellaeon, Grievous, Battle of Coruscant (Clone Wars), and Darth Bane). If this passes, then they'll be added to the end of the featured article queue and moved around as the Inq sees fit.

Voting on pre-Inq articles only

Since it seems obvious that a decent amount of users are leery only of re-FAing articles after the inception of the Inquisitorius, I'd like to propose a vote on whether pre-Inq featured articles should be eligible for reappearance on the Main Page. As there was not much of a concrete system in place for the promotion of featured articles before the Inquisitorius came to be, and it is well over a year since any of them have been approved, it seems logical that anyone seeking their promotion is starting virtually from scratch. Therefore I ask whether or not the user base feels that pre-Inq featured articles are worthy of reappearing on the Main Page.

Support

1. Graestan^(Talk) 01:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
2. This is what I voted for earlier. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 03:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Toprawa and Ralltiir 03:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Havac 03:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
5. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 08:32, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 20:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
7. I'm guessing that this is in addition to the presumably successful vote to put restored FAs back onto the queue.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 22:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
   • That vote was not successful, as the 16-6-6 vote can be broken down into a 16 in favor, 12 opposed of the full measure. Therefore, I leveled the playing field with this. Graestan^(Talk) 11:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Greyman ^(Talk) 23:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
9. —Xwing328^(Talk) 01:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 12:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Unit 8311 13:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Now that I know what's up. jSarek 17:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
13. Master Aban Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 00:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
14. --Eyrezer 05:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
15. Yrfeloran 23:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Suppose so. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 23:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
17. Because of the old vote/new vote, I'm not entirely sure what I'm voting on. But I'm in support of re-featuring anything that could questionably be re-featured, so I think I support this. Wildyoda 23:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Think I've got it now, but just making sure: Are we calling the whole last vote "no consensus" and this new vote means approving as policy the re-featuring only the pre-Inq articles, and also (by default) still not re-featuring post-Inq articles? Wildyoda 23:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Yes, exactly the hollow victory you describe. Graestan^(Talk) 23:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
18. I think an article should only be able to be FA-ed once a year, though.DarthDragon164 01:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Like I said before. I see where this is coming from, but I just think it is missing the point. -- Ozzel 19:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
2. A little bit is better than nothing I suppose. :-( Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 21:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Actually...yeah. Still don't want this. Thefourdotelipsis 22:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Imperialles 23:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

New Comments

• Goodwood's comment brings up a good point; I'm assuming this means that the earlier vote to re-feature all restored FAs was approved, and this vote is limiting it to pre-Inq articles. ^Jorrel_Fraajic 03:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Is that really what it is? Limiting it to just those select few? If so, I'm in support...but I'm a touch confused. Thefourdotelipsis 05:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit confused too... if the re-featuring of all restored FAs was approved... why put this vote up?... is it just me or does that seem not logical? --Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 06:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
    • The 16-6-6 vote to approve all was not consensus, as I determine consensus to be an overwhelming number completely in favor of the full measure. This would only allow those articles approved before the inception of the Inq to reappear on the Main Page. Graestan^(Talk) 11:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Which, by my reading of Wookieepedia:Consensus, he was right to do. jSarek 17:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
        • And by the same math, we don't really need this vote, as we had 22-5 voting to allow pre-Inq re-FAs on the main page; it was just that most of the 22 also wanted more articles to be allowed. Havac 18:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
          • I was a bit confused by the new vote in what seemed an old, and maybe approved, vote. Thank you for explaining Graestan, it all makes sense to me now.
            Also, wanting more articles to be allowed does not mean that those people wouldn't support this... Supporting the re-featuring of all restored FAs can, in my mind, be seen as supporting pre-Inq re-FAs too. Which is why it could be assumed that this was already approved by the previous vote because pre-Inq FAs are also part of all FAs… Because there are more ways to view the result of the previous vote, I feel this new vote is a good idea. There was no consensus, the only thing that was clear after the previous vote is the fact that most of us don't want all of those articles to be re-featured. --Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 06:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Previous Vote

Support

1. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 21:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
2. I simply don't see what harm it would be to re-feature an article on the Main Page. Per my comment below, just because there are quite a few FAs in the queue doesn't mean that there are far too many FAs and that the restored ones would just slow it all down. Also, the restoration of previously featured articles is less than occasional, so it isn't as though we'll be displaying every featured article several times or anything ridiculous like that. In all honesty, I don't feel that this would be such a negative thing. Graestan^(Talk) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
3. Wasn't there some policy or discussion (too lazy to look for it and I'm sure someone will point me in the right direction) about eventually changing FAs on the main page to a different one each day? In that case, making a few more articles re-admissable would be a good thing (or at least not a bad one). And even if I'm mistaken, I agree with all of Graestan's statements (above and below). Wildyoda 01:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
   • There was indeed, and the queue has switched to using a one a day format from 1 January 2009. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 01:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
4. --Eyrezer 01:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
5. I also see no harm. It also gives everyone a chance to see the new pages at their best. --Shryne 02:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
6. Greyman^(Talk) 03:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
7. Like everyone else I don't see how this could harm anything or anyone, I think it's "good" to have our best articles on the main page, it does not matter if it's a "new" FA or a re-featured article... if an article has been re-featured it should be on the main page again. --Jedimca0^{(Do or Do Not, There is No Try)} 10:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Per above, no harm in this. Unit 8311 10:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Chack Jadson ^(Talk) 12:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
10. The bit that sold me was "Having reformed FAs on the main page would provide added incentive for users to try to restore former FAs," because that needs to happen. Our main character articles need all the love they can get. And per everyone else, this is not so drastic a change as to irrevocably harm the FA process. Gonk ^(Gonk!) 18:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
11. I also don't see the harm, though, I would think having some kind of time frame in place would also be advisable ... like "articles that have not been FA for at least 12 months" or something like that. - JMAS ^{Hey, it's me!} 18:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
12. Per Gonk. Also, some of the articles that would be affected by this (i.e., getting on the main page again) haven't been there for as much as two or even three years now. This will go a ways toward our goal of "FA-a-Day" for 2009.--Goodwood ^{(Alliance Intelligence)} 01:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
13. I was tempted to add another option like "put them in the queue if they haven't been featured for a year", per JMAS. —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Given the length of the queue, and assuming the Inq catches most substandard articles on the queue before they go on the main page (as they have been doing recently), it's very unlikely there would be a gap of less than a year, anyway. -- AdmirableAckbar ^(Talk) 18:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
14. Yrfeloran 05:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
15. Seems fair enough. At least a lot of people (not me though) have made lots of efforts in improving the articles. KEJ 10:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Jasca Ducato _{Sith Council} 20:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Correct, we don't have a shortage, so I don't see why we shouldn't purely showcase new content. Yes, I buy the idea that these articles have been essentially re-written, but we've already featured that "subject" if you will. We have a steady supply of totally new topics and subjects to inform readers about, so I don't see the need to fall back on repetition. Main Pageage shouldn't really be a carrot on a stick. If we do start to run out of new topics, I'd consider, but as is, no. Thefourdotelipsis 21:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
2. I have to agree. My hat goes off to anyone who re-FAs an article, but that subject has already been put on the Main Page for all to see. Main Page time isn't what it's all about—the article will permanently (unless revoked) be recognized as an FA, and that's what counts. -- Ozzel 00:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
3. I can't say that I agree with this. I know full-well the difference that a re-featuring has on an article, and I support anyone who re-features them, but I think we should avoid repetition. It's not sound practice, IMO, and it might even lead to cycles of re-featuring and de-featuring by tacitly recognizing the practice. And the volume of re-featured FAs is and will always be vastly inferior to the production of new FAs, simply due to the large scope of most former FAs. Palpatine, anyone? Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 03:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
   • "cycles of re-featuring and de-featuring". Cycles??? Do you mean someone doing this purposely or it just naturally occuring? I think we would notice and discipline someone if they were working the system so much as to vandalize a page out of featured status and re-write it back to quality again. And if it just happened naturally, then so be it. Re-written each time, it would be a pretty much totally different article than it was the last time it was featured.
     • You don't need to vandalize an article, or let it degrade to the point that it needs a total rewrite, to get it de-featured. All you need to do is not implement a new requirement, or not update it with new information, and it's out. And, our writers have no obligation to keep their articles good, so slacking off is not punishable. So yeah, it could lead to cycles. -LtNOWIS 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
       • Point taken. But again I point you to the quote below about relative volume of new and re-featured FAs. By the time one came around on the queue again, I don't think it would be noticeable to the point of causing a problem. Using Ataru's other example, it's not like you're going to be seeing Palpatine on the main page every 3 weeks. Wildyoda 18:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
   • "the volume of re-featured FAs is and will always be vastly inferior to the production of new FAs". Yeah. Which is exactly why it wouldn't hurt for them to be added to the queue. Wildyoda 03:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
     • • • Yes, but why recycle a topic that's already been featured? Either way, the addition of re-featured FAs to the queue is statistically negligent to the overall number of articles on the queue. It comes down to the issue of seeing the same thing twice, which might give-and I'm not saying myself or most editors around the site have this viewpoint-re-featured articles more eye-candy time on the Main Page, but I know that this perspective does exist. Atarumaster88 ^{(Talk page)} 18:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Ugh. --Imperialles 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Going with Ozzel here. Cull Tremayne 02:04, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Support for pre-Inq articles only

1. While I agree with those who don't want to see widespread re-Featuring of previous FAs, I think we ought to make exception for articles that were Featured prior to the creation of the Inquisitorius and the associated methodology of vetting candidate articles. These articles never underwent any sort of rigorous examination, and thus really aren't in the same league as the later Inq-approved FAs - indeed, when it comes to article quality, they aren't in ANY league, since their tryouts were nothing more than a popularity contest. jSarek 07:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
2. I can get down with this. Havac 17:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
3. This seems about right, especially the bit with "pre-Inq noms were popularity contests". ^Jorrel_Fraajic 01:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
4. Decent compromise. Green Tentacle ^(Talk) 11:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
   • My argument against any "pre-Inq only" provision is that in the year since the Inquisitorius came into being, a number of rules have changed—even involving the thoroughness of sourcing, for instance in the infobox or any succession box—whether through consensus or precedent, and with the addition of new Inquisitors and the changed involvement of existing ones, our standards have simply gone up quite a bit. Who's to say that in a year's time, because we all know that it will be a year before any changes made here will be visible, the early FAs of the Inq period won't be viewed much as we look at pre-Inq FAs. Graestan^(Talk) 12:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
     • The essential difference here is that all post-Inq articles underwent SOME kind of systematic critique; any further changes to the FA standards have been differences of degree, not differences of kind, whereas that first step from the anarchic pre-Inq system to the current quality-based system WAS such a difference in kind. Basically, all post-Inq FAs have met a standard, even if it's not the current standard. Pre-Inq FAs haven't. jSarek 10:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Pre-Inq articles are also the ones most in need of improvement. -LtNOWIS 18:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Master Aban Fiolli ^{{Alpheridies University ComNet}} 05:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)