Forum:A matter regarding FGA and FFA re-promotion

I suppose this could have been included as another vote in the CT that I started yesterday about GA and FA icons, but I forgot to do it then, despite the fact that I’ve wanted to propose this for awhile. As many of you know, we have quite an extensive number of former GAs (FGAs) and former FAs (FFAs). Some of these are both former GAs and former FAs. A number of users, including me, have FGAs and FFAs (mine is Journal of the Whills (ASWS), formerly titled “Prophecies of The Skywalker”). I would hope that the goal of these users is to re-promote them back up to FA standards. I for one plan to do that with mine.

So essentially, here is the question I’m asking: should articles that are both FGAs and FFAs be allowed to just go through the FA nomination process and, if successful, receive both its GA and FA status back? We don’t require an article to be GA first anymore, so it seems silly to me to make the article go through both processes when, if it becomes an FA, it’s also clearly of GA standards, because FAs are far and away higher quality than GAs. Therefore, why should it go through both when one is superior to the other?

To break it down, the choice is between these two (these coordinate with the choices in the voting section): 1) require articles that are both FGAs and FFAs to go through both the GAN and FAN process again in order to receive both distinctions back; 2) allow the article to skip right to the FAN process and, if successful, let it gain both its GA and FA status back.

Voting will last at least one week, until Wednesday, October 14, unless more or less time is required. All matters of the voting policy apply. Please be civil. - Brandon Rhea  (talk) 22:34, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Option 2: Skip to FAN

 * 1) Requiring an article that’s both an FGA and an FFA to go through both the GAN and FAN process when its goal is the FAN is a bit ridiculous. It only makes sense that the article could skip right to the FAN and get its GA and FA distinction back because of it, considering FAs are of superior standards. This would also prevent the article from being an FA yet, somehow, also being an FGA at the same time. That just wouldn’t make any sense. This is the only option that makes sense to me. - Brandon Rhea Rebel symbol Blue.png (talk) 22:34, October 7, 2009 (UTC)