Wikipedia:Today's featured article/amendment proposal/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Month End TFA/R candidates
28-Feb-07 101
31-Jan-07 97
31-Dec-06 101
30-Nov-06 103
31-Oct-06 85
30-Sep-06 81
31-Aug-06 78
31-Jul-06 67
30-Jun-06 51
31-May-06 38

Source Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests

Given the problem with the growing backlog, the main page FA process needs to be changed to

  1. fairly accommodate an FA production rate of more than 30/month;
  2. fairly accommodate a large backlog of promoted FAs;
  3. fairly accommodate a continually increasing FA production rate;
  4. fairly include a desirable pool of selectors for main page FAs;
  5. be a positive experience for as many participants as possible (by introducing them to other articles, introducing them to new techniques such as wikitables, etc.);
  6. appease those whose hard work in the FA promotion process does not result in a main page FA.
  7. retain the integrity of WP:FA, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR.
  8. uphold the collaborative values of wikipedia (especially pursuit of betterment of the encyclopedia).
  9. ratain the support of the majority of those involved in the process and not just a select few trying to WP:OWN the process.


The chart above using data from Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests documents a problem that is resulting from extremely successful WP:FA production. Statistics at Wikipedia:Featured article statistics are deceptive because ΔFA = new FA promotions - FAR demotions. Thus FA promotion growth which is causing the backlog is not shown. Obviously as the number of FAs grows the number of articles eligible for WP:FAR grows. Similarly, as wikipedia grows FA production grows. However, the difference may seem constant. The backlog growth over the last 9 months points to this fact.

Furthermore, currently, more distributed and democratic processes seem to dominate wikipedia through vote, comment, and administrative duty at WP:AFD, WP:CFD, WP:TFD, WP:RFD, WP:UCFD, WP:RM, WP:FLC ,WP:FAC, WP:FPC, etc. Much main page content process has less voting involvment, but does have comment and administrative judgement such as WP:ITN, WP:DYK, WP:SA and WP:TFA. With less voting much of the burden (possibly pleasurable) falls on the administrators. More input is generally a better thing on wikipedia. I have a proposal to increase the input in the process.

Below is my proposal to refine the main page FA selection procedure to account for the huge backlog of FA class articles at Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests and for the continuing growth of Wikipedia which is likely to lead to a regular pattern of more articles being promoted to FA class status than there are days in the month. I propose that as soon as April 1st this policy be instituted. In short, the procedure would be to have 4 FA statuses (WP:FAC, FAN, FFAN or FA) in addition to FFAC. The two new statuses, FAN and FFAN, are specifically for featured article class articles that have not become main page FAs. This class will eventually be a large proportion of successful FAs as wikipedia grows. These statuses do not affect statuses associated with WP:FAR. The current FAC status would be a status where articles are evaluated based on general policy guidelines for worthiness just as it is now. From there candidates either become FFACs or FANs. FANs could then attempt to become FAs or become FFANs.

There will be some detractors who say it is unfair designate any article promoted to WP:FA as ineligible for WP:TFA for a year based solely on the collective consensus of all of those who are concerned about main page content. Many of those would rather all FAs that have never become TFAs always be eligible to become so regardless of whether there are hundreds or thousands of such articles at any given time. Many of those detractors would prefer not to give TFA selection power to the people and retain it for a select few (possibly themselves). Some do not trust the judgment of authors who have produced FAs to judge good desirable articles for TFA fearing such authors may turn the selection into a popularity contest. Also, there is concern for those whose articles are considered less desirable to the collective consensus of all of those who are concerned about main page content. They argue that it would be better to consider those articles deemed less desirable for main page inclusion by the collective consensus of all of those who are concerned about main page content as seriously for main page inclusion as those articles deemed more desirable because they are all perfectly fine FAs. These are problems with my proposal and I admit that.

Proposed format[edit]


Any eligible FAN may be nominated below to become main page FAs. Add the proper information following the format below. FANs should be listed in reverse seniority order with the most recently promoted articles listed first. With rare exceptions, images are limited to 100px. Depending on the number of calendar days in the following month between 28 and 31 top vote getters will advance to main page FA status. The next 30 top vote getters (and all those tied for 30th runner up) will retain FAN status and again be eligible next month. All articles promoted during the current month will retain FAN status and again be eligible next month. All other articles will become FFANs and will not be eligible for renomination for another year. An article must receive at least one vote from someone other than its nominator to retain its FAN status in any full month of eligibility.

All nominating users must vote for three articles (likely their own nominee and two other articles). Any other registered user may also cast three votes. Voting runs from the beginning of the month through the twentieth day of the month. Simply type your nominee votes in the Votes section below. Then increase the vote count for each of the articles in the nominees section that you have voted for by 1. Reciprocal voting (where 2 parties mutually agree to vote for each other’s nominees without considering the merits of other articles) is discouraged. Any indication of reciprocal voting (as determined by an administrator) especially from user talk pages will cancel both votes. However, coincidental identical votes naturally occur (especially from members of the same WikiProjects). Also, canvassing will make a FAN ineligible for promotion and cause its candidacy to be delayed by one month. Friendly notices beyond those to WikiProjects on an articles talk page prior to promotion to FAN status would generally be considered canvassing.

The successful FANs will select their own main page dates in the following month’s queue based on their finish in the voting. The top 6 places choose their dates during the first 2 days after voting ends. The next 6 the following 2 days and so on until the end of the month.

FFANs are must wait to regain FAN status. They must wait one year from the close of voting. They must have retained FA class status. They must confirm support from the majority of those who supported their original FAN status. All FANs would be subject to FAR procedures.

Nominees (sample layout)[edit]

Image Featured Article Nominee Nominating User Date of FAC closure Nomination (50 words or less) Vote Count
Diagram human cell nucleus.svg Cell nucleus FooYu2 Date tagged {{FAN}} In cell biology, the nucleus is a membrane-enclosed organelle found in most eukaryotic cells. It contains most of the cell's genetic material, organized as multiple long linear DNA molecules in complex with various proteins such as histones to form chromosomes. The nucleus was the first cellular organelle to be discovered. ((More...)) 11
NonFreeImageRemoved.svg Battle of Dien Bien Phu FooYu Date tagged {{FAN}} Battle of Dien Bien Phu was the last major battle in the First Indochina War between the military forces of France and the Vietnamese revolutionary forces called, Viet Minh. The battle culminated in a massive French defeat that effectively ended the war.

It is an amazing part of Military History. (more...)

Lt. Isaias Garcia.jpg Military brat (U.S. subculture) Balloonman Date tagged {{FAN}} A "military brat" is a person whose parent(s) served full-time in the armed forces during the person's childhood. Conventionally, the word "brat" is derogatory; in a military context, however, it is neither a subjective nor a judgmental term. It is a term in which the military community takes pride. (more...) 8
NonFreeImageRemoved.svg Bill Russell FooFoo Date tagged {{FAN}} William Felton "Bill" Russell is a retired American professional basketball player who played center for the Boston Celtics of the NBA. A five-time NBA Most Valuable Player Awardee and a twelve-time All-Star, Russell was the centerpiece of the Celtics dynasty that won eleven NBA Championships during Russell's thirteen-year career. (more...) 9

See a sample nomination edit.

Votes (sample layout)[edit]

Battle of Dien Bien Phu, Calvin Coolidge, Arctic Tern User:Foo 09:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Bill Russell, Charles Darwin, The Simpsons TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Battle of Dien Bien Phu, Bill Russell, Military brat (U.S. subculture) User:FooBoo 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

See a sample voting edit.


Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move[edit]

  1. Support I believe that the current backlog of FA class articles vying for FA is getting unwieldy. Furthermore, as Wikipedia grows the number of days in a month or year does not. A procedure needs to be instituted to enable the FA promotion process to accommodate the growth in Wikipedia. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move[edit]


Add any additional comments:
  • It's snowing out; the proposal doesn't show an understanding of the FA or mainpage FA selection process, including but not limited to the terminology used (making it hard to understand the gist of the proposal). Ain't broke, don't fix it. Having more FAs than we can feature on the mainpage would be a good problem to have; we can cross that bridge if we reach that (desired) critical mass. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I think a neutral bipartisan friendly notice to all persons involved at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests might have a chance at passing given frustration among some authors of being passed over for so long and the continuing growth of the queue. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I see no evidence of any frustration. Articles' authors are smart enough to understand that we have a large stock of featured articles and that because only one occupies the main page at a time, it will take a while to get to their article. Raul654 23:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe I'm just tired, but I don't understand this proposal. — Brian (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • What they all said: confusing; it's not proven current process is broken. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Question for Tony. Can you please look at the change in FAs per month here (over the last six months, averaging 29 per month increase in FA count), and explain where this phenomenal growth and backlog you are concerned about is demonstrated? We need to have a large pool of FAs to choose from, to achieve variety on the main page. Again, it seems that several of us are struggling to see where the problem lies. Further, a significant number of FA authors have no interest whatsoever in having their articles be subject to mainpage vandalization, and never request a mainpage date, so the total number promoted doesn't reflect any "backlog" on main page requests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There seems to be a disconnect on my part on the growing numbers at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests and the ΔFAs statistics here. Someone more involved in the process might better be able to explain the difference to me. It may have something to do with WP:FAR, but I am not sure. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Your statistics seem to say that for last 4 months, the TFA/R page has remained fairly steady at about 100 articles. That seems remarkably consistent with the other information that approximately 1 new FA has been promoted per day, and approximately 1 FA has been displayed per day, if you consider that most FA authors are interested in seeing their article displayed. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Currently there are 112 items in the TFA/R queue. Yesterday there were 114. This does not mean that the TFA/R queue is shrinking. The longer trend is more important because for short periods the changes will be meaningless. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        • It is likely that ΔFA = new FA promotions - FAR demotions. The problem is that the majority of FA promotions will seek main page FA status. If we get to a point where there are 100 new FA promotions and 70 FAR demotions then although there would only be a ΔFA of 30, the main page backlog would increase significantly. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Back to the "hard to understand" part, I guess. How will your plan reduce the backlog of articles waiting to be displayed on the main page? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Each month the process will select 30 new mainpage FAs and reduce the backlog to 30 holdovers plus all midmonth promotions. All other articles would be ineligible for mainpage FA status for a year. For example, if the process were enacted today with the 112 candidates vying for the mainpage, 30 would be chosen, 30 would be held over for reconsideration for next month and the remaining 52 would be deemed not of sufficient interest to those concerned about main page content. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Wow. No offense, but that's a really bad idea. A lot of effort with the end result that 50 perfectly fine articles are banned from even asking to appear on the main page merely because they were in line at a time when the line was long? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Perfectly fine is one term that could be used, but FAs that are below average in interest to those concerned with main page content would be another. I don't have the stats, but the FA production is only going to grow. It will probably not be long before 100 new FAs a month are promoted. There will continue to only be 30 days in a month. My proposal does not ban FAs forever. Unsuccessful FANs are given a fair judgement that given the current backlog, the constant production of new FAs and distribution of interests of those concerned with main page content, their articles are not likely to reach the main page for some time. As a result they should not trouble themselves with attempting to get on the main page for a year. This will lessen the hassle that Raul has to deal with of choosing FAs. It also distributes the responsibility more in keeping with wikipedia philosophy. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
          • So let me get this straight - you want to address the "frustration" that you claim users feel by being left in limbo about when their articles appear, and you want to do this by declaring that vast numbers of their articles will not appear on the main page for at least a year. That is kill-the-patient-to-cure-the-disease logic if I have ever heard it. Raul654 01:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
            • In truth the problem is this equation: ΔFA = new FA promotions - FAR demotions. If any of you understands it please help the others because I am beating my head against the wall trying to get people to understand it. Does any of you understand it? As far as the one year wait. An author should take it as a sign if his article does not finish in the top 60 of his month that the general populous of people concerned about main page content does not consider his article appropriate after all the work that has been put into an article. That author should step away from his article for a while and then see what can be done to make it more interesting/appropriate to those who care about main page content. Furthermore, participation in this process will make it clear to those whose articles are unsuccessful how many other great articles there are under consideration. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 06:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
          • The stats were given above, and I think you even claimed to have looked at them: Wikipedia:Featured_article_statistics. They say there have been consistently between 15 and 45 new FAs per month for the last 3 years. Most ever was in 2004. No sign of exponential growth yet, unfortunate as that may seem. If you have a way to improve that, we're all listening. As for Raul being overworked, you specifically asked him as much on his talk page, User_talk:Raul654#General_FA_procedure and he was not in agreement. I'm not going to drop my mop on this proposal after just one day, but I clearly see where Sandy is coming from in wanting this to be marked a failed proposal. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
            • Did you understand this equation: ΔFA = new FA promotions - FAR demotions? You are calling ΔFA "new FAs" for some reason. Is the equation confusing to you? TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
            • P.S. It would be easy to co-manage the FAC and FAR processes so that ΔFA appears constant.
            • P.S.S. I don't recall asking Raul about being overworked. Please point me to the edit. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
              • It would be easy to co-manage the FAC and FAR processes so that ΔFA appears constant. What does that mean? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
                • It means that articles are removed at a pace to counter growth in FA production so as to make ΔFA appear constant.
                  • I see. In other words, there's a conspiracy to keep ΔFA constant. Well, since I'm somewhat active at both places, I'm hoping you can fill me in on who's running this "co-managing" thingie that's going on between the two rooms; I'd like to know who I'm working for, and what the goal is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
                    • I may have overstated a bit. It is entirely possible (as now represented above in the summary) that the growth in FAR demotions and new FA promotions is coincidental. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
          • This will lessen the hassle that Raul has to deal with of choosing FAs. Is Raul hassled ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
            • As I recently stated on my talk page, it's just the opposite - scheduling someone's article for the main page - an event that 99.9% of them greatly desire - gives me vicarious pleasure. Raul654 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
              • I should be more clear. There are numerous authors who I can only imagine are getting impatient with the process. The hassle I am referencing (by supposition) is from people who must be wondering if they will ever be placed on the main page. I.E., it is in dealing with those in limbo not those being successful accorded main page FA status. Raul has not stated that anyone does hassle him, but I imagine it might happen. Even if it does not, there must be some guilt knowing that so many hard working editors are being frustrated by being in limbo for so long. Raul, of course, has not acknowledged any guilt that he has so many people in a state of frustration awaiting his decisions. I am just supposing that these are additional hassles resolved by my proposed process. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 23:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Yikes, that's also worse than I thought. How do we speedy end this thing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Also, the current FAC column is misleading. If at the end of the month there are 50 FACs, there may have been 200 over the course of the month. (I think my Masters in Statistics is kicking in here). TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am struggling to work out what problem this proposal is seeking to address, let alone how it would solve it.

PROBLEM We are producing new FAs faster than we can put them on the main page and the rate of new FA production is growing (do not be fooled by the net ΔFA) The problem is the gross new production of FAs before netting out FARs. Thus, there is a long and growing backlog of articles. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There are lots of featured articles, and the number increases month by month. This is a good thing, not a problem.
  • There are lots of featured articles that have not appeared on the Main Page. Since all Main Page featured articles have to come from the stock of featured articles that have not been on the Main Page, a sizeable stock is required to ensure variety on the Main Page. This is a good thing, not a problem.
  • There is a backlong of requests at TFA. Is this a problem? Perhaps they will one day appear on the Main Page; perhaps they won't. To be honest, I suspect this page is more a way of allowing the authors of a new featured article some sort of outlet, and preventing them from hassling Raul654, than a mechanism for choosing the Main Page featured article.
    • I am suggesting that my proposal may be better than the TFA/R as the FA production rate ramps up. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Raul654 decides which FACs to promote, and which featured articles will appear on the Main Page. Clearly it makes sense for someone to make those decisions, but it need not necessarily be the same person for both tasks, nor need it necessarily be just one person for either of them. More distributed and democratic processes seem to dominate at ITN, DYK, SA, FLC, FPC, etc., and FAC and TFA are clearly unusual in having a "tsar". But is it a problem? -- ALoan (Talk) 20:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
    • My proposal does not affect the FAC promotion process, which probably should be more decentralized as well, but I won't approach that. I am not saying the procedure is not operating pretty well. I am saying that in time there will be growing frustration with the current process. I am proposing an institutional change which will give nominators feedback on the general desirability to a wide electorate of wikipedians of their articles for prompt main page inclusion. It will also take much of the mystery out of the selection process. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand.

  • You say that is it a "problem" that (i) we are producing new FAs faster than we can put them on the Main Page, and (ii) there is a long and growing backlog of featured articles to appear on the Main Page.
  • But you agree that it is a good thing that (a) there are lots of featured articles, and the number increases month by month, and (b) there is a sizeable stock of featured articles that have not appeared on the Main Page.

Surely these two positions are mutually incompatible?

You are also concerned that the writers of featured articles are (or will be) "frustrated" when their articles do not appear on the Main Page (I see no evidence for this, by the way - and, given the slew of vandalism that almost inevitably results, some editors would rather not see their articles on the Main Page). So you would solve this perceived "problem", you propose a voting mechanism, to ensure that only "popular" featured articles appear in the Main Page, and which would ensure that "unpopular" featured articles would never appear on the Main Page?

Does anyone else support this proposal? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Not I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Much like you claim (and I believe pretend) not to understand the difference between ΔFA & new FA promotions in the equation ΔFA = new FA promotions - FAR demotions (You do still claim not to understand the equation, at last indication if I am correct), I believe you are pretending not to understand the difference in your two bulletpoints above. It is not incongruous to believe that we are
  1. producing many FAs
  2. producing FAs at a growing rate
  3. producing FAs at a rate causing a growing backlog
  4. experiencing a large backlog
  5. experiencing a backlog growing beyond an optimal and manageable size
  6. experiencing a new FA production growth that will in the not so distant future see hundreds of new FAs per month
Suppose for example you like ice cream. Two scoops is more enjoyable than one. In fact, it is good to have some in the freezer at all times. However, consuming a whole ice cream truck may not be so enjoyable. When you are on the verge of having an ice cream truck dumped on your lap you should take some precautions. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
As for popularity. Keep in mind the electorate. It would be somewhat like questioning whether the law review board or a journals board of editors could not collectively select an appropriate set of items for publication. I believe relying on those editors who have produced FAs to choose articles would be more than a popularity contest. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but where do I claim (or pretend) not to understand that "a=b-c" means that "b" is greater than "a" (if "c" is positive)? "c" (the number of former featured articles demoted via FAR) can only be positive or zero, and "a" (the change in the absolute number featured articles each month) has been uniformly positive, so "b" (the number of new featured articles promoted via FAC) must have always been greater than both "a" and "c". If we continue to have one Main Page featured article per day, and "a" (or indeed "b") exceeds 365 per year, then we always are going to have an ever increasing number of featured articles that never make the Main Page. And...?

Featured articles are not ice cream.

Although TFA is anomolous in the way that it currently works, I am not aware that the content of any of the changeable sections of the Main Page is determined by any "voting" process. Why do we need to introduce one for the daily featured article?

Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes, but I just don't see what your proposal is intended to achieve (I am not pretending - I just don't - perhaps my understanding is faulty; perhaps the explanation is faulty; perhaps there is just no meeting of minds). Can we start again with first principles: what do you perceive as being the problem? And how would you propose to address that problem? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Problem 1: TFAs backlog is growing in a way that makes it increasingly difficult to administer given the amount of current input. (For example, how many people involved in the process actually go to the WP:TFA/R page and hit the related changes button with any regularity.) As such it is being managed with a "You can't make a bad choice among our FAs" policy. I argue that there are good choices and better choices. I am proposing a better choice method. There is no "problem" with good choices. There are better choices methods.
Problem 2: TFA backlog is growing in a way that makes it impossible to believe we will be able to continue to fulfill all TFA/R requests in an expedient and equitable way. I believe I have an answer for the iniquity. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation.

  • What makes you say that TFA is difficult to administer? Raul654 does not seem to be overly concerned with his workload in this regards.
  • You seem to be conflating methods for making choices with the choices. I think Raul654 does a fine job; a "better" method may be preferable, for other reasons, but it would have a hard time doing the job as well. If "good" choices are being made, why change to a "better" method that may not make any better - and indeed may make poorer - choices?
  • Why should we be concerned to fulfill all TFA/R requests? There is only one article in the main page each day, so it is impossible to satisfy all of them, and perhaps some requests should not be granted. Where is the "iniquity"? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Difficult is a relative term. My term was increasingly difficult. The reason it is becoming increasingly difficult to administer is because the backlog is growing exponentially and will continue to do so.
    • The collective consensus of those concerned about main page content may choose articles with a different emphasis. I do concede Star Wars articles would have an advantage under consideration by the collective consensus. However, do you believe one individual truly makes better decisions for the collective welfare of wikipedia than the collective consensus? I believe that collectively we (I am way ahead of myself because I am not a member of the FA fraternity) know what we collectively would prefer on the main page more than any individual does.
    • We can not fulfill all TFA/R request. I believe a method should be undertaken to discourage pursuit of TFA/R that represents collective consensus. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
      • One of the main motivators for people to write spend the time and energy is to see their work featured on the main page. In computer science and engineering, we have a concept called Resource starvation - it occurs when a program is perpetually denied a necessary resource.
      • The selection for main page FAs should be done in such a way as to avoid starvation. That is, nobody should feel prepetually denied the chance to have their work on the main page. It's one thing that it might take a while for their work to appear on the main page; it's a very different thing to know their work will never go there (which is why I am extremely reluctant to say I won't feature such-and-such an article or class of articles on the main page; it's a sure-fire way to de-motivate people from writing about that subject)
      • But starvation is EXACTLY what this proposal is going to do. That, in turn, will discourage people from writing FAs in general. In short, this proposal is awful. Raul654 00:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


And I think that about settles it. No one has shown any support for the proposal, the objections are multiple and strong, no one has proposed any amendments intended to resolve the objections, and the arguments on all sides seem to be fairly well fixed and not changing. Tony, thanks for the attempt, and don't get discouraged. We appreciate the effort. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)