Forum:CT Archive/Renomination of featured articles

Wookieepedia &gt; Consensus track &gt; 

Lately there has been some discussion on the issue of renominating past featured articles to be refeatured. While personally I am wary of the potential for abuse, I would like to know the feelings of the community on the matter. Should we be allowed to renominate past featured articles, and if so, how long of a time frame should we wait for it to be eligible? StarNeptune 06:41, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) SFH 15:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Silly Dan 15:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Alpha Fire 22:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) DannyBoy7783 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC) (see comments below)
 * 5) Erl 23:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC) EDIT: MarcK does have a point
 * 6) Palpy 15:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) MandalorianWarriortalk [[Image:Mandskull.jpg|25px]] 01:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) jSarek 03:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) MyNz 04:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC) If we don't renominate older featured articles, we'll run out of featured articles.
 * 10) EAGLES610 03:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC) But it should have a different picture displayed.

Oppose

 * 1) --MarcK [talk] 05:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Featured should be more of a status than an award. --MarcK [talk] 05:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Azizlight 05:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Encourages people to write better articles, knowing that they have more chance of becoming featured.
 * 3) Cull Tremayne 04:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC) I like the thought of more obscure articles being featured instead of Yoda on the front page every couple months.
 * 4) Cato Neimoidia 00:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC) We need more. If an article is already good enough to be a Featured Article, it's probably not going to get worse. Give it the title of a Featured Article forever unless it becomes worse or a gigantic amount of new information becomes available.
 * 5) KEJ 17:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC) If we start renominating articles, it might be construed as a signal that we've run out of good articles. KEJ 17:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) SFH 03:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Stake black 16:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Breathesgelatin 07:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC) I agree with MarcK.
 * 9) Adamwankenobi 14:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Lord Hydronium 03:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Six months

 * 1) DannyBoy7783 02:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; Silly Dan 15:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Alpha Fire 22:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Palpy 15:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) MandalorianWarriortalk [[Image:Mandskull.jpg|25px]] 01:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

One year

 * 1) SFH 15:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) jSarek 03:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments

 * I think a year would be a good time frame. Give other pages a chance to get up there. -- SFH 15:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Even though we have thousands of articles, I think the number of articles which could actually pass our nomination process are a smallish fraction of that. &mdash; Silly Dan 19:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think caution should be used when renominating an article but I think some articles can undergo a great deal of change after becoming a FA. Boba Fett for example has a large section on his weapons and gear that didn't exist when it was featured. The Palpatine article is always growing. I think everyone here would be a little hesitant to renominate an already FA or vote for it if it came up so why not let it be renominated after a period of time and let the community decide? I think non featured articles stand a better chance of winning anyway. All things being equal, why not let then be refnominated?--DannyBoy7783 02:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does the opposite; instead of re-featuring a FA that's improved, they revoke the Featured Article status for old featured articles that don't meet the increased qualifications. -LtNOWIS 23:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because they're evil. Jk, but seriously. We don't label all our previous featured articles. I think it is a good idea to allow renomination, and everyone will understand it should only be featured again if there is some sort of significant change in its content, or it's simply that good.--Erl 14:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Currently, all our previous FAs are labelled on their talk pages. I personally think there should be a tag near the bottom of the article (since not everyone checks talk pages), but that's a topic for another time. StarNeptune 14:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree StarNeptune. For me that would be enough to forgo renominating an article.--DannyBoy7783 15:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've changed my vote. I felt that a year would be okay, give 52 other articles a chance. But six months is too short. And no one else seems to agree with me on a year, so if you can't beat them, join them. -- SFH 03:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that it's fine to allow featured articles to be renominated, because nobody will want to. It'll be very embarassing, and if the renomination can be sold to the entire community (due to expansion or w/e), it clearly deserves to be up on the main page.--Erl 23:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it's a good idea to refeature articles so like what DannyBoy7783 said about some articles like Boba Fett, we're always expanding articles for more great information. I think 6 months would be a great period of time for a old featured article to become refeatured. Palpy 15:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be fine not renominating an article if the fact that it was featured already was more obvious on the article page.--DannyBoy7783 23:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * With the use of the "featured star," I think this has been accomplished. - Breathesgelatin 21:09, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Those stars are quite small.--DannyBoy7783 21:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Additionally, it tends to be obscured by the new era icons. jSarek 00:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)