Forum:SH:Good Article Nomination Limit

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. TanDivoInsignia-SenateMurders Anıl Şerifoğlu (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Good Article Nomination Limit

A relatively brief Senate Hall prompt, but I noticed earlier that users are still limited to four Good Article Nominations at a time.

Presently, for non-board members (Edited, said "admins"), the limits for Comprehensive Article Nominations and Featured Article Nominations (assuming the user has already passed enough articles to be allowed to nominate that many at once) are eight and four, respectively.

I know the CAN limit was upped only recently. With that limit being upped and the limits of the other two nomination types, it only seems fair to me that the limit for the number of GANs be upped to six per user; still less than the CAN limit, but it follows up the change of the CAN limit and it seems like a fair mid-line between the CAN and FAN limits. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 22:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Discuss

  • No comment on the proposal yet, but, just to be clear, its review board members of the respective panels with no limits, not admins. NBDani TeamFireballLogo-Collider(they/them)Yeager's Repairs 22:36, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • The exception to the limits are for the respective review boards' members, rather than admins (I'm an admin but not a review board member anymore so I'm subject to the same limits as everybody else), but yeah, the numbers of nominations seem to be pretty steady and not unmanageable at present, compared to the slow and bloated numbers of the past. As long as we all keep up reviewing, a median limit of six sounds sensible. OOM 224 (he/him) 22:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the clarification on the limits to both Dani and OOM. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a good idea. Rsand 30 (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
  • After consulting with some other board members, should be fine at six.—spookywillowwtalk 03:27, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Per Spooky. 4, 6, 8 seems like the perfect amount to settle on for the forseeable future, as it scales upward nicely. And as the numbers of GANs being nominated and passed is going at a great rate it is managable for the board Lewisr (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, this just makes sense. It will also likely encourage more people to join the process. Master FredceriqueCommerce Guild(talk) (he/him) 03:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC)