Wikipedia:Today's featured article/amendment proposal/archive2

Source Today's_featured_article/requests

Given the problem with the growing backlog, the main page FA process needs to be changed to
 * fairly accommodate an FA production rate of more than 30/month;
 * fairly accommodate a large backlog of promoted FAs;
 * fairly accommodate a continually increasing FA production rate;
 * fairly include a desirable pool of selectors for TFAs;
 * 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.);
 * appease those whose hard work in the FA promotion process does not result in a TFA.
 * retain the integrity of WP:FA, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR.
 * uphold the collaborative values of wikipedia (especially pursuit of betterment of the encyclopedia).
 * ratain the support of the majority of those involved in the process and not just a select few trying to WP:OWN the process.
 * maintain a TFA balance between the proportion of mainstream popular topics and specialized topics selected.
 * retain, if not augment, the prestige of TFA selection.

Summary
The chart above documents a problem that is resulting from extremely successful WP:FA production (data from WP:TFA/R). You can see FA production growth at the featured article log. The TFA/R backlog growth over the last 9 months points to this fact. I have been informed that the recent rate of FA promotion is about 1.85/day. This is a minor concern in comparison to the fact that this rate is accelerating. Two years ago the rate was about 1/day. Two years from now the new FA promotion rate could be 3.5-4/day. Solutions of slowing FA promotion and speeding TFA (multiple TFAs per day) have been mentioned. Both would delay the time when the promotion rate is too high, but not eliminate its likelihood in the future. I don't think either will be feasible with continued FA promotion rate growth. Suppose growth continues and FA promotion is 10 what it is today at some time in the future. At 18.5 promotions per day (500+/month) neither of those solutions will still solve the problem. A random selection would solve the problem, but if you believe some FAs are better than others (at least in terms of main page suitability) this is not an optimal solution. Therefore, I think a selective TFA process is a better alternative. I propose that as soon as May 1st this selective process be instituted. In short, the procedure would add two new statuses, TFAC and FTFAC. These are specifically for featured article class articles that have been nominated to become main page TFAs. FA, FAC, would remain the same as they are now. However, FAs could then attempt to become TFAs by going through a TFAC process.

More input is generally a better thing on wikipedia. My proposal would increase the input in the process. Personally, I believe the collective consensus of the authors of a the top 0.075% of all Wikipedia articles should be viewed somewhat like the collective decisions of a Law Review board for a law journal or an Editorial Board of a refereed science journal. There may be a mild popularity bias. However, I believe converting the TFA/R process to a competitive TFAC process will encourage editors to make their articles better relative to other TFACs and increase the caliber of the finest articles. Also, the attention given to carryover TFACs may bring them editorial assistance. Furthermore, there exists both a quality and a priority scale. (See for example the WP:BIO priority scale). Should low, mid, top, and high priority articles all have equal chance to become TFAs? I think in a selective system, higher priority articles would have a deserved advantage. I think this would serve to motivate people to spend more time cleaning up higher priority articles. It is my belief that in my proposed system a top priority article like Michael Jordan would have an advantage over say George Washington Dixon. I think we should want a system that places greater emphasis on higher priority articles if we truly believe they are higher priority articles. This will motivate people to improve the highest priority articles.

The current Featured Articles Director, Raul654, expresses concern over maintaining the hopes of aspiring contributors for selection. Three things should help protect the interests of some esoteric topics by members of smaller interest groups. 1.) Allowing each person only a few votes increases the possibility that a smaller interest group could successfully gain acknowledgment for an important and interesting editorial contribution. If we allow each voter many votes, block voting might crowd out the smaller interest groups.  2.) Listing carryovers  at the top will help articles build support over successive months. 3.) Exempting carryovers with the greatest tenure (exceeding 3 months, ties broken by total votes during the carryover tenure) in each month with 31 days as the 31st selection would provide another possibility for smaller interest groups.

Some say it is unfair to 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 would rather have constant TFA eligibility of all FAs regardless of whether there are hundreds or thousands of such articles at any given time and regardless of the collective consensus of all of those who are concerned about main page content. Some 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.

There is some concern about the policy of date requests, but I see little reason why a higher finishing article with no date preference should block a lower finishing TFA from a desired date. All articles with non-conflicting date preferences would get their preferred dates. Then date choice by quintile among the top 30 would occur. Conflicting date preferences would be decided by votes as first tie breaker. The newer selection would get the date as a second tie breaker (favoring articles that get a certain level of support in fewer attempts).

This process would add an additional element of prestige because we could assess the “best” TFA of the month (highest vote recipient) and possibly have year end TFA of the year elections among the 12 TFA of the months. Each month 1 of the 30 TFAs may be designated as TMFA and each year one TMFA could be promoted to TYFA. Currently there are 130 articles at TFA/R. An additional benefit of this process is that it would enable all but 30 candidates to know within 20 days whether their article will be on the main page in the next month.

Procedure
Any eligible FA may be nominated as a TFAC to become a main page TFAs. Nominate an FA for next month's election following the sample nomination edit below. TFACs should be added sequentially. The most recent nominations should be added at the bottom. With rare exceptions, images are limited to 100px. In any month TFAC nominations can only be made for the following month. Depending on the number of calendar days in the following month between 28 and 30 top vote getters will advance to main page FA status. A 31st exemption will be chosen as outline above for 31 day months. The next 30 top vote getters (and all those tied for 30th runner up) will retain TFAC status and again be eligible next month. -(late rule change) All other articles will become FTFACs and will not be eligible for renomination as a TFAC for another year.

All nominating users must vote for three articles (likely their own nominee and two other articles). Failing to cast a total of three unique votes will make a nominator's votes invalid. Any other registered user may also cast three unique votes. Vote in a manner similar to the sample vote edit below. Voting runs from the beginning of the month through the twentieth day of the month. Reciprocal voting (where 2 parties mutually agree to vote for each other’s nominees without considering the merits of other articles) is discouraged.

The successful TFACs 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.

Failed TFACs (FFTFACs) must wait one year from the close of voting to regain TFAC status. They must have retained FA class status. They must confirm support from the majority of those who supported their original FAC candidacy. All TFACs and FTFACs would be subject to FAR and FARC procedures.

For specific date requests up to 5 words could be added in parenthesis following the (more) parentheses. Any additional words would count against the word limit. Examples would be (June 24 subject Birthday), (May 5 War Start Date), (June 20 League Championship Date), (August 23 Movie/album release date), (Jan 16 Federal Holiday), (June 15 author Birthday), (May 12 author wikipedia anniversary), & (Feb is Black History Month).

Administrative oversight
Administrators will be involved in the following elements of this process


 * 1) Nomination procedure - Especially word count violations (For each word over the word limit a nominee will be penalized 1 vote), mid month nomination attempts
 * 2) Voting procedure - Espcecially monitoring vote changes, two part votes (voting for two today and a third next week)
 * 3) Reciprocal voting - 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).
 * 4) Canvassing - Also, canvassing as determined by an administrator will make a TFAC ineligible for promotion and cause its candidacy to be delayed by one month.  Friendly notices would generally be considered canvassing if they go to parties other than WikiProjects that were on an articles talk page prior to promotion to TFAC status.
 * 5) Block voting - Abusive incessant block voting (as determined by an administrator) will also be penalized.

Should I be elected at WP:RFA, I would volunteer to assist in a conversion to this process and in ongoing administration.

New Nominees (sample layout)
See a sample nomination edit.

Votes (sample layout)

 * Battle of Dien Bien Phu, Calvin Coolidge, Arctic Tern User:Foo 09:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Bill Russell, Charles Darwin, The Simpsons User:FooUTwice 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)
 * Celine Dion, Campbell's Soup Cans, Cell Nucleus TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Celine Dion, Campbell's Soup Cans, Bill Russell User:FoosGold 16:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See a sample voting edit.

Survey

 * 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

 * Nominators support as enumerated above. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would support a move to see Featured Articles that haven't, for whatever reason, made it to the Main Page, be featured in other places, such as on portals and suchlike. It is sometimes possible that a groups of featured or good articles builds up in a particular area, and one solution to get more coverage and people editing and reading is to create a portal, or pass them over to a WikiProject to handle with loving care. Also, the Featured Content portal could maybe take up some of the slack? Similarly, I would support a proposal to try and ensure that an article that is promoted to featured status get some sort of exposure within a set period of time (say, 2 months). Currently, the Featured Portal, other portals, and the Wikipedia Signpost, is about the limit of exposure, I think. Maybe more could be done in this area. A "Featured Content" wikireader anyone? Or is that being done already? Carcharoth 22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

 * Holy smokes, this is the proposal that just won't die. It is not substantially different than the one unanimously rejected before, and it still doens't address any of the issues brought up the last time. Specifically, it is an attempt to address a problem which does not in fact exist (that is, people becoming disgruntled over the fact that their articles take a while to get to the main page) and even if we were to assume that that problem is real (it's not), it doesn't actually address it. Articles will get to the main page no faster under this proposal than they do under any others. It adds a lot of bureacratic overhead to a process that by every measure works quite well, without improving it in any way. Raul654 18:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You miss the point.
 * It is not that it now takes a while. It is that it is becoming clear that not all who want TFA status for their articles will ever get it. Note that my initial proposal was filed before Campbell's Soup Cans even got promoted, which happened yesterday.  I would prefer to know within 20 days whether my article will be on the main page in the next month than just wait around with the other 130 articles in the queue ad infinitum. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not that my plan will get articles to the main page faster. It is that it will give the majority of articles (all except for 30 carryovers) a decision on whether they will be on the main within 20 days.  Most articles do not find this out within 20 days right now. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It was "unanimously" defeated before after you removed my notice from the WP:FC talk page and limited the poll to your coworkers at WP:FA. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What he said, but without quite as much vigor. This is much more clear than the first time. However, please, first, show substantial editor discontent with the current process, and then, second, please reduce the suggested bureaucracy. Multiple votes per person, penalties in votes by number of words in nomination, checking for reciprocal votes, new abbreviations, all that is something we can do without. I can see it now: "Hey, you're just voting for his article because he voted for yours! And you've got six words in your nomination, that's one over!" "No, we just think alike, prove otherwise! And that's not six words, that's four, one's a hyphenated word, and one's a contraction!" --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, let's stop at "first". Find several, more than one, discontented editors, and ask them if they are unhappy that they don't get a chance to vote, or are they unhappy that there are too many articles on the Today's FA queue, or are they unhappy because they didn't get a pony and a trip to Florida with their FA. Then address that issue. Until then, we're just assuming people are unhappy because the page is growing, that's not guaranteed to be an, or the main, issue. I know my FA isn't getting on the front page for a reason that doesn't have anything to do with the queue, for example. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I will be nominating myself for WP:RFA in April and this topic has been my biggest conflict topic I may get a chance to uncover other editors who would like a process that will probably tell them within 20 days whether their article will be on the main page. I may also uncover interest in democratic selection during the process. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Too much overhead. Frankly, the whole TFA/Requests page could be reduced to a mere list of articles for Raul to look over (no summary, no "support" votes, no overhead at all), and it would work just as well. (Hmmm...) Gimmetrow 19:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I volunteer to serve. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * See User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts Raul654 19:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I honestly appreciate the idea and vigor. But this continues to be unnecessary.  Do I wish the FA I wrote got on the main page faster?  Sure, who hasn't written an FA and feels differently?  Do I have complete faith that Raul is handling the job as well today as he has since I started editing?  Absolutely.  If it ain't broke... --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Did anyone other than Raul raise an issue about getting on the main page faster? The point is not getting on the main page faster.  The point is knowing within 20 days whether it will be on the Main page soon. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 21:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Basic queuing theory says if there's one TFA per day and more than one article per day promoted the length of the queue for TFA grows boundlessly. The only "fair" algorithm is something approximating FIFO (excepting some articles that should never go on the main page).  I trust Mark understands this.  IMO, this proposal attempts to introduce a ridiculously bureaucratic solution to a problem that exists only if we assume Mark is not picking "fairly".  WP:AGF applies to the FA editor no less than anyone else.  -- Rick Block (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * FIFO or a random process certainly works if all concerned about main page content feel all articles are equally deserving of main page status. Personally, I don't. I believe priority means something.TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 22:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I had some opposing comments here earlier, but I agreed to have them removed as the proposal wasn't ready yet. If anyone wants to see them, they should be in the page history. Carcharoth 22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Found them. See here. Tony removed them and I agreed to the removal, so that is fine. I'm just pointing out here and now what I said earlier. Carcharoth 22:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As the FA production rate continues to increase, the only long term solution I foresee is putting two TFA's on the main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your, um, enthusiasm, User:TonyTheTiger, but are there any other people who thinks a change is required? Why do you need to know whether your article will be on the Main Page within 20 days of it being promoted?  I have to say, from personal experience, that it is rather nice when Raul654 picks "your" FA without any agitation for or against. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I continue to oppose this intractable "solution" to a non-problem. And what is the deal about twenty days- don't understand that number at all. There is not a problem; we need a large pool of FAs to guarantee variety on the mainpage. Still ain't broke --> don't fix it. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 19:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose C'mon, haven't we already had this discussion at: SweeTFA proposition and at Today's featured article/amendment proposal/archive1 Based on the discussion there and here, there is no consensus for (even overwhelming consensus AGAINST could be claimed) ANY changes to the TFA process. Raul does a fine job.  Simply proposing a series of different changes to the process, where there is no perceived need in the community for ANY change smacks of WP:POINT making.  Let it drop already.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The first one you said we discussed seems to have a creation date of day before yesterday and only 2 people other than the author seemed to have participate. The 2nd as you point out was discussed.  I point that at the top.  I would not necessarily say it was an open forum because it involved all of Rauls friends. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect to the it aint broke philosophy, I am saying I see the w holes in the dam are starting to get noticeable and everyone keeps saying "If we aren't flooded don't worry about the dam." TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, if you look at the discussion page for the proposal, there are 13 people who have commented on the discussion, and of those 13, 11 were opposed and 2 were in favor (one of whom was the nominator). To open multiple pages over what is essentially the same topic is to fork the discussion unneccsarily, especially when each time consensus appears clear.  Also, the dam is NOT about to break.  There are no holes.  Even the premise that every featured article should at some time appear as a TFA is flawed... Why should they?  Simply because the FAs grow at a rate of more than 1 per day is not a big deal.  I have not seen the evidence that anyone really thinks that every featured article should some day be a TFA, or that they think Raul is handling the job incorrectly, or that he may someday in the future be overwhelmed.  We are faced with the situation that there is not any consensus that there is a problem with the way the process works.  On the contrary, consensus is clear in all 3 discussions on this matter that there IS NO PROBLEM.  It's more than a lack of consensus, it is a consensus in the opposition.  If there is a consensus that there isn't a problem, why would anyone want a solution?  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  17:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh so you agree with my theory that we should tell some people that their FAs should not be TFAs. Why keep peoples' hope up.  Why not tell them that your page is not competitive with other FAs for main page inclusion?  It seems you understand my point that not all 130+ articles requesting main page exposure are equally deserving.  I do understand that if everyone says a lone person identifying a whole does not matter because we all agree there is no flood nothing will get done.  The status quo will obtain.  I don't mind.  When we are producing 200 FAs a month and have a 1000 article long WP:TFA/R, I will come back to ask if anyone notices the flood. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What is this "their articles" stuff anyways, has no one read WP:OWN. The articles don't belong to anybody.  And where are all of these editors who are about to start a revolt unless the articles they think they own get on the main page?  The premise is faulty for several reasons:
 * It assumes the main reason people improve articles is to get them featured
 * It assumes that the main reason people nominate articles to be featured is to see them on the main page
 * It assumes that the TFA queue is unmanageable
 * It assumes that Raul is doing an inadequate job of managing TFA requests
 * Regarding 1. no such assumption TFA is a process regarding less than 0.075% of all articles. I am discussing motivation for TFA pursuit, not general article pursuit.
 * Yes.
 * Not necessarily is, but will be.
 * No. Raul has been doing an exemplary job. When a business grows things change.  The successful process for a modest number of TFA requests may not be succesful for an overflowing number. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 07:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You have not yet provided a shred of evidence that any of these situations is happening. All we have is wild speculation on how editors feel about articles they edit (are you psychic?  Do you know how they feel?) and even wilder speculation on the state of the TFA queue.  There is no evidence that either is happening, or that either will happen any time in the future.
 * When there is thunder and lightning rolling over the hills, it is not really a great argument to say 1. I don't feel any rain yet; 2. you haven't proved I should put the convertible roof up yet and 3. you aren't even a meteorologist with real data. However if the leadership is of the opinion that everyone should close their eyes and I should shut up and everyone wants to follow along, I will too.  I will come back when the queue is over 700 (approaching 2 years) or there are 3 consecutive months averaging over 100 promotions with at least 2 over 100.  These days are coming.  The thing is my solution to the problem that I have no evidence for is that it will help alleviate the flood before we are badly flooded.  It might not do so well afterwards.  TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 07:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And a second thing, "all of Raul's friends"... That's total bullshit. It shows a lack of WP:AGF.  When you bring up that point, it does not do your arguement any favors.  It simply looks like sour grapes; that all you are doing is simply saying that anyone who disagrees with you is doing so for disingenuous reasons, and thus should be discounted.  I see no evidence that the people involved in the discussion were Meatpuppets for Raul.  They all make good, evidenciary-based arguements against that proposal.  To close it and re-open it again is WP:POINT making, and again, we see that consensus has quickly shown that there is no support for this proposal.  For the record, I oppose the change despite the fact that a) I have never met Raul, b) I have never had any meaningful collaboration with Raul, and c) I had not even known how the TFA process worked before about 3-4 days ago until I spent some time doing research so I could decide how I felt about it.  Ad hominem attacks on the people who oppose your proposal does not win it any support, so please stop.  --Jayron32| talk | contribs  17:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Raul literally took my post of the WP:FC talk page and said try to convince so and so (who he works with on FA). I am a bit busy, but I will find the post if you like. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I said I was strongly opposed to this measure, and that it was a non-starter. I said I'd reconsider my position if he managed to convince Sandy or Aloan (see User:Raul654/archive12). Tony has not - both Sandy and Aloan have expressed opposition to this proposal. Raul654 20:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Even assuming that Raul mishandled the first situation (and I am Not conceding that, I am simply going to stop trying to convince Tony otherwise), there seems to be little consensus that the problem exists now. So, ignoring any perceptions about the previous proposal, where are all of these upset editors ready to leave wikipedia because their favorite article has not made TFA yet?  Are there hundreds of editors sitting around wringing their hands just waiting for their favorite article to make TFA?  Where is the problem?  I am most concerned about statements Tony made earlier, such as: "Since I will be nominating myself for WP:RFA in April and this topic has been my biggest conflict topic I may get a chance to uncover other editors who would like a process that will probably tell them within 20 days whether their article will be on the main page. I may also uncover interest in democratic selection during the process."  Tony, would you care to elaborate?  Why does your Request for Adminship in any way relate to how well the TFA process is handled?--Jayron32| talk | contribs  04:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A required RFA question is a discussion of your biggest conflict. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 07:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't follow? Are you intentionally generating a conflict just so you can solve it and thus improve your chances of an adminship?  I'm not sure that's what they are looking for... --Jayron32| talk | contribs  05:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This does seem like a well thought out idea and if FA on the main page was a new thing I’d be in support of it. But I don’t see the point of the proposal when there is already a perfectly good system in place.
 * My Jan 2003 Win XP computer still works. I still bought a Feb 2007 Win Vista machine.  It works better. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 07:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * A rarther poor analogy. The Vista can do everything the XP can do and more. This is an entirely diffrent system from the one currently in place. Buc 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Plus if you a relying on votes from pretty much random and likely unestablished wikipens, then one of three things could happen: It will be all pop culture articles and nothing from history or religion est, small groups will form to campaign to get there article on to the main page and there will be really trivial articles chosen, the newly promoted FA will get all the votes and older FA will be forgotten.
 * Read my proposal and you will note that I am relying on established editors who have had FAs promoted. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 07:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough Buc 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Another thing I don't like "TFACs and will not be eligible for renomination as a TFAC for another year" I just don't get that at all.
 * Basically, it says if your FA is not successful you have to wait at least a year. This keeps the number of contenders at any given time manageable, but does not eliminate any successful FA from contention. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 07:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting the current number of contenders is not manageable?
 * Finally the whole reason for this proposal seems to be that there are a lot of FA that have not been on the main page. Aside from the fact that I fail to see how that is a problem surly the only way to solve that problem is to put more than one FA on the main page per day? And there is no way they are going to do that. Buc 21:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am against this as it is stop gap. When we have 10 times the production rate we have now do we put 20 on instead of 2?
 * No I wasn't suggesting that Buc 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We need a solution like mine or a better one that will handle inordinate future growth. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 07:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Buc 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I have offered an ounce of prevention. If you want me to prove you need a pound of cure, I will come back in about 2 years. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Consenus check
Checking the discussion above, I see the following apparent statistics (this is decidedly unscientific, and anyone can feel free to disagree with my results as you see fit): Did I miss anyone? --Jayron32| talk | contribs 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1 user, the nominator, is in complete support of the proposal (tony)
 * 2 users feel that a new TFA system may be a good idea, but show no specific support for this proposal(Carcharoth, Zzyzx11)
 * 8 9 users feel that there is no need to change the current system. (Jayron, Raul, Sandy, Aloan, AnonE, badlydrawn, Buc, Gimmeetrow, +Rick Block)
 * Missed me (I added myself). Zzyxx11 expresses opposition to this proposal (stronger than lack of support).  -- Rick Block (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
To see the original proposal and discussion see the archive