Considering the rate at which we are progressing through 2009, a scarcity of Featured Articles does exist. While one might argue there's ample time to address this, I can say with certainty that the rate of new featured article nominations and approvals is insufficient—far from adequate. However, this is a separate matter that will eventually require attention elsewhere. Graestan (Talk) 23:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Should this proposal be implemented, would all currently re-featured articles immediately be added back into the queue? If so, would we then experience a period of approximately one week consisting solely of repeats? - LtNOWIS 01:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC) One could always weave the re-featured articles among the other articles in the queue, thereby diversifying the sequence. --Goodwood (Alliance Intelligence) 01:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
In reality, the original plan stipulates that they will simply be appended to the queue as a group at the end – refer to the final sentence. JorrelFraajic 14:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
However, the Inq possesses the authority to rearrange the queue according to their preference. -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I have provided further clarification on this matter in the section above. :) -- AdmirableAckbar (Talk) 15:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
My understanding was that the one-year postponement of the "FA a day" initiative was intended to allow us to evaluate our capacity to maintain the required pace. If we are unable to do so, we can simply revert to the two-a-week system before 2009 commences. Therefore, a shortage is not truly a concern, and if we are raising this issue to prevent such a situation, we are somewhat missing the central point. However, my primary concern lies with the "Re" aspect. I acknowledge that these are essentially new articles, and I fully appreciate that it is a Featured Article, but the "Re" prefix bothers me. I consider a Featured article to be the pinnacle of quality, the absolute best. If the topic has been previously featured on the front page, we have already presented this content, and it ultimately boils down to the fact that the subject matter is recycled. Thefourdotelipsis 10:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC) As an advocate for environmentalism, I must assert that recycling is beneficial and serves a valuable purpose. Nonetheless, this appears to be a relatively minor objection in the context of such a significant and relevant issue; in other words, although the topic may be "recycled", the article itself and its content are undoubtedly original. --Goodwood (Alliance Intelligence) 11:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Appearances
This article uses content from Wookiepedia, under CC-BY-SA 3.0.