Wikipedia talk:Featured article removal candidates/Poll

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POLL: "Recently Promoted"[edit]

Ahoy everyone. In my time closing Farcs there have been a couple of instances where there has been some disagreement about the amount of time that needs to pass between the closing of a successful Fac and the inception of a Farc. The language of the Farc policy in this regards is... interpretive: Do not list articles that have recently been promoted—such complaints should have been brought up during the candidacy period. Do not list articles that have recently survived removal attempts. Either listing is likely to be summarily removed.

The purpose of this poll is to define a specific time for "recently promoted/survived."

There are certain considerations to be made as we come to consensus. Too short a time period, and Farc may become just a FAC-redux for an article's detractors. Too long a time period, and an article that has noticeably devolved to a point where it no longer meets the criteria may not get the review it deserves.

That said, we take it to the community. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current standard is fine - no specific time is needed[edit]

  • Support; leave it to discussion and consensus. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but why are we doing this as a poll? Fieari 04:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support BUT, ... No specific time means that it is all relative and subjective. This and the option below amount to the same. For this reason I will vote for both. Anagnorisis 06:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Recently" defines this "standard", but "recently" is undefined, so I'm not sure what this standard means. --Tsavage 06:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's working fine now. I'm particularly sympathetic to rapid FARCs when they surround an issue that was brought up in the FAC, or in a previous FAC or PR, but not addressed or corrected. Overall, however, I don't think time since FAC is the big concern; I'm more interested in how much the article has changed since those who commented on FAC read it. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is either obvious when it is "too recent" (a few days or weeks) or not (a few months or more), and we can decide on borderline cases by consensus. I think there was consensus (above) for the This Charming Man FARC to continue, even if it was promoted only 7 weeks ago. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, and agree with Aloan and Johnlee's comments above. The mischief rule works perfectly here, and leaving the guideline against recent discourages mischief. In cases of serious problems the nomination can be discussed here on the talk page just as recently happened, and that worked perfectly well. - Taxman Talk 13:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no time limit - allow immediate Farcs[edit]

  • Support, since there is no mechanism to deal with controvertial promotions this would be prefferable to unsuitable articles being untouchable until they have appeared on the main page.--nixie 03:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Farc should not be turned in to re-FAC. If an article passes, it passed for a reason. If immidiate renomination was permited, Farc would devolve rather quickly, and an article can in theory remain in constant Farc. Really. Bad. Idea. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - I have to agree with Mr. Gustafson here. Better to let a bad article get through once in a while (Wikipedia survives it pretty well, from what I can tell) than to promote the sort of endless rancor this would lead to. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, if it is limited to cases where significant new issues are raised. --Carnildo
  • Strong oppose per Jeffrey. Raul654 04:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, oh come on. Just as it says, if you had problems with it, why didn't you bring it up while it was being discussed for promotion? Fieari 04:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Support BUT, ... This and the option above amount to the same. For this reason I will vote for both. Anagnorisis 06:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Limiting the scope of FARC only as protection against potential abuse by disgruntled FAC objectors doesn't make sense. (And are there hordes of editors angry about promotions?) --Tsavage 06:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. See above. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support so long as the one making the reference back raises completely new and verifiable significant issues as to the status of the page. David91 12:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a specific time limit[edit]

Comments[edit]

  • It would be useful to know the average time from becoming a FA, to being featured on the front page, if it's not entirely arbitary depending on the article. We could then pick a timeframe that would either allow a FARC before front page featuring in order to catch any that shouldn't have made FA before they appear on the front page, or one that makes sure an article can have it's 'day in the sun' before anyone tries to delist it. exolon 04:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The time is pretty much arbitrary. It's common for people to try for dates that are significant for the subject of the article. My general impression from watching FAC is that it's rarely less than a month, with no definite upper limit. --Carnildo 04:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I see it, there are two situations where an article should be considered for immeditate de-featuring: (1) If changes made to the article as part of the FAC process are un-done shortly after the article is featured, or (2) if a significant issue, either technical (image copyrights, references) or content-related (missing significant points of view or areas of coverage entirely) was not raised during the FAC nomination. --Carnildo 04:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The wording of the policy seems problematic because the use of the words "should have been" assumes that the one making the reference to FARC "could have" made objections earlier. Whether the objections should or should not have been made earlier is irrelevant. Suppose that the one making the reference to FARC is completely new to Wikipedia or was not previously aware of the article. If this person has relevant expertise and raises issues of genuine substance not considered during the FAC, a refusal to allow a listing in FARC is to allow material of a potentially poor quality to remain as a featured page. Such a course of action for form's sake cannot be justified if Wikipedia wishes to build a reputation for quality. Thus, no matter what the outcome to this poll, the policy should be redrafted. David91 05:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the current set-up, what is "Recently"? If someone comes to this page and wants to know, where do they go, who do they ask? And what is the answer? It's one thing to be flexible, but being completely vague in instructions is just confusing and unhelpful. As I read it now — "Do not...", "Do not..." — it sounds like a pretty stern warning off of...whom? And, what is "recently"...? Very unclear, particularly to someone who doesn't have a clue what FARC is about. Whatever the decision on "recently", it needs to be presented more clearly. --Tsavage 05:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come to think of it, what is the concern about FARC becoming re-FAC? I thought it was failed FAC nominators who renominated to FAC without making changes. Are there lots of FAC objectors who feel so cheated by a promotion, they'd turn around and nominate here? FAC would have to be quite dysfunctional if that were the case... --Tsavage 06:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that FARC's should be determined to be "too early" on a case-by-case basis. If some candidate is widely considered to be too early by commenters, well than consensus says that it too early and it should be closed. But if lots of people agree that the article should be removed, well then the FARC should be allowed to proceed. Of course, in places where there is no clear consensus, a judgement call is required and it gets iffy. I'm not sure what to do in that case. Perhaps they should default to keep the nomination open. Also, summarily removing a nomination that has no comments yet because it is "too early", while certainly well-intentioned and in good faith, could be seen as being to worshipful of following "rules" to the letter. Also, I think that once an article is featured on the Main Page, it immediately becomes FARCable no matter how recently it was promoted. Today's featured article is supposed to show off what we all have done best. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 22:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I agree. From the looks of it, I think everyone on this thread essentially agrees. I'm not even sure what this poll was intended to accomplish... ("Recently", however, is useless and confusing, as is what David91 pointed out above.) --Tsavage 03:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Poll&oldid=1137412567"