Forum:CT Archive/Re-FAs on the main page

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.

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)
 * 4) *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)
 * 5) --Eyrezer 01:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) 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)
 * 7) Greyman ( Talk ) 03:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) Per above, no harm in this. Unit 8311 10:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 10)  Chack Jadson  (Talk)  12:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) 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)
 * 12) 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)
 * 13) 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 [[Image:Redstarbird.svg|20px]] ( Alliance Intelligence ) 01:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) I was tempted to add another option like "put them in the queue if they haven't been featured for a year", per JMAS. &mdash;Silly Dan (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) *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)
 * 16) Yrfeloran 05:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) 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)

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  [[Image:Jedi_Order.svg|20px]] ( Talk page ) 03:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) *"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.
 * 5) **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)
 * 6) ***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)
 * 7) *"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)
 * 8) Ugh. --Imperialles 22:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) 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[[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]]Fraajic  01:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Decent compromise. Green Tentacle (Talk) 11:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) *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&mdash;even involving the thoroughness of sourcing, for instance in the infobox or any succession box&mdash;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)
 * 6) **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)
 * 7) Pre-Inq articles are also the ones most in need of improvement. -LtNOWIS 18:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * We do have an FA shortage, if you look at the rate we're moving through 2009. You can say that we have plenty of time to fix that, but I can state rather confidently that new featured articles aren't being nominated and approved at a great enough rate; not even close. This isn't part of that issue, however, which will need to be handled elsewhere eventually. Graestan ( Talk ) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If this does go through, would all of the current batch of refeatured articles immediately re-enter the queue? In that case, wouldn't we have a week or so of nothing but repeats? -LtNOWIS 01:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you could always interlace the refeatured articles into the queue with the other articles there, mixing up the order.-- Goodwood [[Image:Redstarbird.svg|20px]] ( Alliance Intelligence ) 01:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, according to the original plan, they'll just be tacked on as a bunch at the end of the queue - last sentence. Jorrel[[Image:Wiki-shrinkable.png|20px]]Fraajic  14:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the Inq can reorder the queue as they wish. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've clarified it above, anyway. :) -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the whole point of delaying the whole "FA a day" thing by a year was to give us time to see whether or not we could keep the pace. If we can't, we simply change it to the two-a-week system before 2009 actually starts. So, shortage really isn't an issue, and if we're bringing this up to avoid such a thing, well, we're kinda missing the point. I think the biggest problem I have with this though is just the whole "Re" thing. I understand that they're basically new articles, and I fully understand that it's Featured Article, but it's the "Re". I like to think that Featured article is the premium product, the cat's whiskers, the dogs bollocks. If it's a recycled topic, you've seen it on the front page before, we've already given you this story, and it all boils down to the fact that the topic is recycled. Thefourdotelipsis 10:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)