Forums > Consensus track archive > CT Archive/Re-FAs on the main page


  • 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 Redstarbird (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. JorrelWiki-shrinkableFraajic 14:34, 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)
    • As an environmentalist, I'd have to say there's nothing wrong with recycling, and that it does actually serve a purpose. That said, this seems to be a pretty small hang-up on an issue this large and pertinent; in other words, while the topic may be "recycled", the article and its content most certainly aren't.--Goodwood Redstarbird (Alliance Intelligence) 11:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)