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 Articles that have been re-promoted to Featured status will now be added to the Main page queue like new FAs, instead of the old limit of "articles promoted before 11 February 2009". This debate also supported the idea of retroactively applying the aforementioned consensus to the Glurrg article.—Tommy 9281 Friday, November 25, 2011, 23:23 UTC (Edited by 1358 ^(Talk) on 00:22, November 26, 2011 (UTC))

Contents 1 Number One: No gap! 1.1 Support 1.2 Oppose 1.3 Discussion 2 Number two: Glurrg 2.1 Support 2.2 Oppose 2.3 Discussion

Number One: No gap!Edit

Hey everyone,

Forum:CT:Re-featuring restored Featured Articles looks like a snowball, so I figured that I'd go ahead and start this one.

Wookieepedia:Inq/FA queue checklist currently says: Note: If the article is a restored FA that was first featured on the main page before 29 January 2007, then the article will be added to the queue as per this CT.

The snowballing CT, if it passes, will change it to: Note: If the article is a restored FA that was first featured on the main page before 11 February 2009, then the article will be added to the queue as per this CT.

This CT proposes the killing of that line altogether. So, any former Featured Article, if restored to Featured status, can appear again on the main page at any time. There was some talk in Forum:CT:Re-featuring restored Featured Articles about instituting a general one- or two-year gap (eg, "A former FA can only appear on the main page again if it previously appeared on the main page at least one/two years ago"), but there was also some support for no gap. As Grunny put it: ... 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.

So, let's give no gap a try. If you don't like it, that's cool. Definitely indicate in the Discussion what kind of gap you'd prefer, though (six months? One year? Two years?). If this CT fails, I'll create a new one with a gap proposed.

So: Voting "Support" will be a vote for:

1. Removing the line "Note: If the article is a restored FA that was first featured on the main page before (whatever date), then the article will be added to the queue as per this CT." from Wookieepedia:Inq/FA queue checklist.
2. Supporting the idea that any former Featured Article can again be featured on the Main Page at any time, regardless of when it previously appeared on the main page.

Let me know what ya think.

SupportEdit

1. Menkooroo 11:52, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
2. Always seemed like common sense to me. QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 11:55, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
3. Sounds alot better. :) --Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 15:48, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
4. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 15:50, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
5. I had previously indicated a preference for a two-year gap, but after thinking about it some more, Grunny has a point. Master Jonathan — ^{Jedi Council Chambers} _{Saturday, November 12, 2011, 16:59 UTC}
6. Per what was said on the other CT. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 02:02, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
7. CC7567 ^(talk) 04:12, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
8. Bella'Mia 04:54, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
9. Imperialles 08:11, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
10. ~Savage 00:03, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
11. Just making my usual voting round. MasterFred^(Whatever) 23:14, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
12. What Master Jonathan said. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 03:50, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
13. Clone Commander Lee ^Talk 15:35, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
14. ...although if someone manages to successfully nominate, lose status and renominate within 6 months with this new rule, I'm going to hunt down that poor little. –Tm_T ^(Talk) 06:06, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

DiscussionEdit

Number two: GlurrgEdit

The second part of this CT proposes retroactively applying this to Glurrg. Glurrg is a restored FA that regained its status less than two months ago (and is, as far as I know, the only restored FA of 2011). Nothing wrong with a little retroactivity, is there? The original CT had some.

Supporting this part of the CT is supporting:

1. Adding Glurrg to Wookieepedia:Featured article queue (it last appeared on the main page on 17 February 2009, so even if it's a two-year gap that ultimately passes, Glurrg will fit the bill).

SupportEdit

1. Menkooroo 11:52, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
2. QuiGonJinn ^(Talk) 11:55, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
3. --Cal Jedi ^{(Personal Comm Channel)} 15:48, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
4. grunny@wookieepedia:~$ 15:50, November 12, 2011 (UTC)
5. Of course. Master Jonathan — ^{Jedi Council Chambers} _{Saturday, November 12, 2011, 16:59 UTC}
6. Per what was said on the other CT. Jonjedigrandmaster ^(Talk) 02:02, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
7. CC7567 ^(talk) 04:12, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
8. Bella'Mia 04:54, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
9. I am against retroactively applying rules in general, but excluding this one article just seems cruel and unusual. --Imperialles 08:14, November 13, 2011 (UTC)
10. Mesa agree! ~Savage 00:03, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
11. Voting round continued. MasterFred^(Whatever) 23:15, November 14, 2011 (UTC)
12. Definitely. Corellian Premier^{All along the watchtower} 20:14, November 15, 2011 (UTC)
13. Sure. (: –Tm_T ^(Talk) 06:06, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

OpposeEdit

DiscussionEdit

If I'm mistaken, and there were any other restored FAs this year that didn't make it to the queue, let me know. Menkooroo 11:52, November 12, 2011 (UTC)