Forum:CT:Reusing FAs on the main page

Forums > Consensus track archive > CT:Reusing FAs on the main page

his 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 Adopt system for reusing old Featured articles on the Main Page queue. Toprawa and Ralltiir 18:41, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

Following a rather lengthy discussion on the Senate Hall, there seems to be general consensus to reuse existing featured articles to fill gaps in the featured article queue, rather than having to abandon our current policy of showing a different FA on the main page each day. After discussing it at the last Inquisitorius meeting we've settled on what should hopefully be a workable way of doing this.

We set up a page on which existing FAs are subjected to a review before being allowed back on the main page. We would need to make sure that there were enough ready to fill gaps when needed so the Inqs would stick up a batch of articles in the order they were originally featured on the main page (skipping those which are no longer FAs) and replace them as they're taken off. This way, we keep the page to 30 nominations at any one time. The rules would be as follows:

  • No article featured on the main page within the last two years can be put up for a vote. Some pre-Inq articles have already been up twice and might fall into this category.
  • Former FAs are not eligible and must go through the normal FAN process.
  • An FA would require four supporting votes, of which two must be from Inquisitors in order to pass.
  • Objections would be left as on the FAN page and struck when resolved. However, this would not require a full review. FAs should be generally assumed to still be at the same quality they were before, but we would need to have a quick look through and either raise or fix any obvious problems, such as:
    • Missing or inaccurate references.
    • Missing information from sources.
    • Failure to comply with manual of style, layout guide, etc.
    • Major changes since passing FAN. For example, if an article has been massively expanded (more than just a couple of paragraphs).
  • If issues are raised about an article then it cannot be put back on the queue until they are resolved. One benefit of this is that it would help with the existing featured article maintenance system; outstanding issues would be looked at by the Inquisitors who may then decide to place an article on probation and potentially remove its status.
  • The Inquisitors would periodically remove articles that have reached the required number of votes and put them back on the queue. The number would be determined by how many new FAs were added to the queue that month. If we create 20 new FAs, then we'll only need to take 10 existing ones to maintain the length of the queue. In this way, the old FAs are used to regulate the length of the queue and to keep featuring a different one each day.

The vote is simply whether to adopt the system outlined above. If it passes, the Inqs can monitor it for a few months and tweaks can be made later if needed. If there's no agreement to adopt this system, we'll continue featuring only new FAs on the main page, but will have to drop down to less than one a day in order to maintain the queue. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:02, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Reuse old FAs on the main page?

Support

  1. Green Tentacle (Talk) 18:02, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
  2. I think the one-a-day system helps get people to come back to the site out of curiosity for what will be up next, so I'm for this. —Xwing328(Talk) 01:48, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
  3. IFYLOFD (Floyd's crib) 01:50, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
  4. And I really hope we won't find more reason to dicker over this. GT's fast, easy fix will work wonders until that day that perchance we can crank FAs out at a seven-per-week rate. Graestan(Talk) 02:07, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
  5. Let's do it. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 02:09, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
  6. Grunny (talk) 02:25, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
  7. Menkooroo 02:41, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
  8. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 03:12, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
  9. Holocron Greatholocron (Complain) 05:58, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
  10. Grand Moff Tranner Imperial Department of Military Research (Comlink) 12:31, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
  11. Cavalier OneFarStar(Squadron channel) 13:04, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
  12. Per Grae even though, if I remember correctly, there has never been over seven nominations per week, so it might be a bit hard to promote more articles than are written. 1358 (Talk) 13:28, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
  13. MasterFredCommerce Guild(Whatever) 18:03, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
  14. Master Jonathan (Council Chambers) Tuesday, March 8, 2011, 00:29 UTC
  15. NaruHina Talk Anakinsolo 00:38, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
  16. Toprawa and Ralltiir 00:45, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
  17. Sounds good. Corellian PremierRobotechAll along the watchtower 04:06, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
  18. JangFett (Talk) 04:09, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
  19. Snowball. Gotta keep the quality up on FAs though. -- Riffsyphon1024 05:14, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
  20. After the work I put into Zuckuss and 4-LOM, I'd be happy to see them on the main page again, now that they're all nice and shiny. Trak Nar Ramble on 05:15, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
  21. This absolutely needed my vote, so I'm glad I came by. ~ SavageBob 05:37, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
  22. CC7567 (talk) 07:23, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
  23. Per Bob. NAYAYEN—it appears to be a frammistat 09:40, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
  24. Perfect. As I've explained in the original SH discussion, this is exactly what I was looking for. QuiGonJinn Senate seal(Talk) 10:01, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
  25. Sure! (: –Tm_T (Talk) 10:49, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
  26. Snowball! OLIOSTER (talk) 18:07, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
  27. Chillin in my B-boy stance…—Tommy 9281 Wednesday, March 9, 2011, 01:35 UTC

Oppose

Comments

  • Full support. A couple of questions, though:
  1. Is there a minimum time requirement for noms to be on the page? Maybe forty-eight hours minimum, even if it receives the required number of votes right away?
    • We're re-promoting these articles based on the number we need to fill the queue. Creating a time limit up would totally defeat the purpose of this page, because it's not based on time; it's being done on a basis of however many we need to fulfill the queue. Jonjedigrandmaster (Talk) 18:06, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
      • Ah, I see. They stay on the page until they're needed to fill the queue. My bad. Menkooroo 23:52, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
  2. I feel kinda bad asking this one, as it leans toward making what should be a rather informal and collective process into something more rigid, but... if there are major objections to an article (ie, anything larger than a sofixit), then is everyone cool with an unwritten agreement that they be left to the user who originally nommed the article, assuming that said user is still active on the site? There are definite advantages to this, as the original nominator is likely more familiar with both the subject and the article and could give insight into why they made some of the decisions they did (eg, "Context was already provided earlier, see here," "I chose to do it that way because of this this and this," etc). As far as I know, this is basically already standard practice for the Featured Article Review process. I don't think that this needs to be formally added to any rulebook, but if we all kinda agree on it, it could prove valuable in heading off edit-warring, good-faith edits being reverted, and general hard feelings. Proactivity in solving potential problems is always good. Thoughts? Menkooroo 02:55, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
    • I would assume that as always. Ofcourse, if after asking from the nominator and there isn't any answer in some time (like in a week) I see no reason why not to allow others to act too. But meh, it's all common sense and unwritten rule I believe. –Tm_T (Talk) 10:49, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
      • An unwritten rule would make sense. Any major problems are likely to go to FA review anyway. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:22, March 8, 2011 (UTC)
  • Also, as far as I can see this makes no changes to the rule that states that former featured articles that are re-nommed and regain their status cannot be re-featured. Unless I'm mistaken, this rule would bar, for instance, Palpatine from ever being on the front page, even if someone were to miraculously bring it back to featured quality. So my question is: are former featured articles that have not been on the main page for at least two years, but regain their status, eligible to be on the main page once more? Would that be considered an extension of this or a separate issue altogether? That being said, I'm still in full support. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 03:18, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
    • Is that rule still in effect? I thought it had been abolished when I saw Caedus featured again. Menkooroo 04:09, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
      • The rule only applies to articles taken to FA status after 29 January, 2007 per Forum:CT Archive/Re-FAs on the main page. Caedus was first featured in '06, so was eligible to be featured again. Grunny (talk) 05:06, March 7, 2011 (UTC)
        • As it stands, they wouldn't be put back on the queue upon passing for the second time (pre-Inq FAs being the exception to this). However, they would be eligible to be re-featured in order like all the others. Anything else would require another CT. Green Tentacle (Talk) 22:22, March 8, 2011 (UTC)