This 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 that featured articles that have appeared on the Main Page before February 11, 2009 can now be refeatured there if they are repromoted to FA status, instead of the date January 29, 2007. The RFAN benchwarmer page will also be deleted.1358(Talk) 00:14, November 26, 2011 (UTC)
Wookieepedia currently has a policy which states that former Featured Articles --- if restored to Featured Status --- can not be added to the Featured Article queue and featured again on the main page, unless they were previously featured on the main page prior to January 29, 2007. The original CT that enacted this can be found here.
This was put into effect more than three years ago. I think it's time that we updated it. The RFAN page has opened Wookieepedia up to the idea of post-January 2007 articles appearing on the main page again. Our standards for what makes a Featured Article have drastically improved since 2007, and any article which was granted Featured Status in 2007 but later had its FA status revoked would require major revisions in order to be granted FA status again in 2011. Tommy recently completely rewrote Arca Jeth, for example.
2008 seems to be when FA standards rose sharply. The first FAnom to pass in 2008 was Skirmish aboard the Leviathan, which was featured on the main page on February 11, 2009. As such, I propose that "January 29, 2007" be changed to "February 11, 2009." Any former FA that was featured on the Main Page prior to February 11, 2009, but which later lost its FA status, would thus become eligible to be re-featured if it were restored to FA status.
Maybe you think that we should push the date forward even further. If so, I encourage you to view this CT as a step in the right direction and support it. Further reform could be proposed at a later date.
This CT would also have the benefit of ridding us of the confusing RFAN Benchwarmers page (I can criticize it because I invented it!). The benchwarmers page keeps track of former FAs that, on account of having lost their status, were passed over when it would have otherwise been their turn to be added to the RFAN page. Any article on the Benchwarmers list currently can be added to the queue if it's restored (eg, Arca Jeth). If this CT passes, the Benchwarmers page will no longer be necessary, as all of the articles listed on it will be eligible to be re-featured anyway. At least not until the RFAN page reaches Skirmish aboard the Leviathan, but that won't be for a long time. Come that time, hopefully we can enact something less confusing than the Benchwarmers page.
So, supporting this CT is supporting the following changes:
I would hope that we could sustain additional FAs for years to come, maybe even as many to do one a day again, so I support extending the time restriction. -- Riffsyphon1024 00:58, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
Supporting as per the "step in the right direction" mentality, but I would also like to see the specific date abolished at some point and a time gap between re-features implemented, as mentioned below. Darth Trayus(Trayus Academy) 02:13, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
If I support, will 4-LOM get his moment to shine again on the front page? He's still sporting his FA status, courtesy of a thorough overhaul and refitting. But anyway, that benchwarmer page only confuses me. I agree that it should go, at the very least. Trak NarRamble on 02:17, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
Wait, so the benchwarmer thing never went through CT? If that is the case, it is unnecessary to create a CT to remove it. --Imperialles 03:19, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
It's changing the date from 2007 to 2009 that requires the CT, as the current date was set by CT. The elimination of the benchwarmers page is merely a side effect of the proposed change, as there would no longer be a need for it. Master Jonathan — Jedi Council ChambersSunday, November 6, 2011, 03:25 UTC
Isn't this just a band-aid solution? This is essentially just putting off the issue until a later date, and killing some Inq subpage in the process. Now, I am all for that, but wouldn't a blanket rule of something like "if an article has been stripped of Featured status and then subsequently has been re-Featured, it is again eligible for the Main Page" be better? That way, the work of our diligent re-Featurers is properly rewarded. You could even add a time caveat, to ensure that X amount of time would have to pass between Main Page spotlights. --Imperialles 01:07, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
As the proposal says, "Maybe you think that we should push the date forward even further. If so, I encourage you to view this CT as a step in the right direction and support it. Further reform could be proposed at a later date." Your idea is essentially pushing that date forward to eternity. I do agree with you, and I think your idea with a minimum two-year gap between appearances would be best, but to quote what I just quoted, this is "a step in the right direction", so I support it. We can deal with your idea later. Master Jonathan — Jedi Council ChambersSunday, November 6, 2011, 02:05 UTC
I read the proposal. I have no desire to champion through a CT regarding this at a later point, I am merely pointing out that this CT is somewhat pointless and only addresses a symptom. Not that I don't understand the "baby step" mentality, mind—Wookieepedia has historically favored that approach (for better or worse). I can't imagine most Wookieepedians would be opposed to what I outlined above, but I am certain there's someone lurking in a corner somewhere, ready to jump out and hiss at such a drastic attempt at change. So yes, I will support for now. But the issue will have to be revisited down the line. --Imperialles 03:07, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
I've always thought it would be better just to add re-featured articles to the queue regardless of when they were previously on the main page, maybe with some safeguard for if they were re-featured really soon after previously appearing. Though, by the time they've been demoted, renominated, passed and reached the top of the queue, a reasonable amount of time will probably have passed. I'm not sure a two year minimum is required, but I'm not fussy. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 07:44, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
MJ: The idea of the Benchwarmers page was good, but my implementation of it was just confusing. :P Imp: You're right, it should have gone through a CT before I created it. Full blame for unilaterally creating it goes to me, and I apologize. I also like the ideas you've given here, and if this CT passes, I'm definitely up for creating a new one. What sounds good, everyone --- a two-year minimum? One year? No minimum? No minimum might be best, per Grunny's reasoning above. Let me know what you all think. Also, Imp, great to see you back. Menkooroo 11:28, November 6, 2011 (UTC)
Well, of the four users who have expressed a preference in regard to a minimum gap, GT and myself support a two-year gap, Trayus supports "a time gap" (no length specified), and Grunny wants no minimum. Imp's position on the gap is unclear from my reading of his comments (I invite him to clarify what he prefers). So it seems like right now we have a plurality in favor of a two-year gap. I'd say start with a two-year gap, and we can shorten or eliminate the gap later per the "baby steps" mentality. Master Jonathan — Jedi Council ChambersSunday, November 6, 2011, 15:23 UTC
I have no preference, but would probably be in favor of a two-year gap simply because that has the best chance of actually passing CT. --Imperialles 01:21, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I'm a fan of not having a gap requirement, per Grunny above; but it's not a make-or-break issue for me. Jonjedigrandmaster(Talk) 23:12, November 7, 2011 (UTC)
I kind of want to propose no gap in the next CT. No harm in giving it a try. If the community doesn't like it, we can go for one-year or two-year. Menkooroo 10:17, November 9, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think a gap is really needed, as Grunny said. The time it takes to actually re-showcase an article is probably enough so that it won't occur too soon after the first showcase. But if there is a gap, I feel two years is way too long. This isn't really a huge concern for me though. I'll survive either way. MasterFred(Whatever) 17:47, November 11, 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.