The tricky question with this situation is - with a split of the FA status, how do we determine which "child" article keeps the FA status? Or do both retain FA status? I don't know what the answer is here but my gut instinct leans toward the latter. Hog FarmTalk16:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, that is a good point. In my view, it would be unusual for an article to remain as an FA without first having gone through an FAC/FAR. My opinion is that FARs should be opened for both articles, even though 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) is not currently an FA. However, the FAR rules state that no editor may open more than one FAR per week, and I can't open an FAC for the 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) article because I already have one open FAC. In addition, I don't think 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) is actually FA quality - it is missing a lot of information about its architecture and development, so it would probably both fail an FAC and be delisted at an FAR. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with that is that the focus of the original 2007 FAC seems to be the original version - the new structure had only opened in 2006, and a lot of the content in this article is for events that occurred after the original FAC promotion. So personally, I feel like if we're only going to pick one to keep as FA, it should be the one for the original structure, which was the primary content of the original FAC-promoted version. As a disclosure: I've invited SandyGeorgia to weigh in on this matter. Hog FarmTalk17:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On the core question, we cannot "promote" an article at FAR (that is, we can't get two FAs where one existed). I feel like that is skirting FAC. We can delist both one. Or we can pick one of the two which we consider to be the closest representation of the original FA, and where we want to attempt to save that one star, but we can't confer a new star. Or viewed another way, FAR is not empowered to increment the FA tally, and if we succeeded at saving both, that's what we'd be doing. Pinging all the Coords to see if I've got that wrong, because this may indeed be a new/first: @FAC coordinators: , @FAR coordinators: , @TFA coordinators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or thinking of it in terms of how the technical processing works, if we hypothetically reviewed and passed both, we would have a FAR Coord adding an entry to the FAC promoted archive, and adding an article to WP:FA. That's not what FAR is empowered to do, FAR Coords can keep an FA (no effect at WP:FA), or remove an entry from WP:FA, but they can't add an entry to WP:FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Epidgenius, we can't open FARs both articles, because we only have one FA. FAR is tasked with evaluating whether an FA is still at status. As I look at the two articles, the fact that we have only one FA is reflected accurately, and the FAR is in the right place. The content split off would need to go through FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wearing my FAC coordinator hat, I agree with Sandy's thoughts and conclusions. Depending on what FAR decides we may see one or both of the new articles at FAC down the road, I assume just one. (Wearing my TFA hat, I have no opinion.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input @SandyGeorgia. Regarding "The content split off would need to go through FAC", that was my initial impression as well, but Hog Farm's comment indicated that both of the split articles might perhaps retain the bronze star. I opened an FAR for this article just to determine whether it was still up to FA standards after the split. As for the other article (7 World Trade Center (1987–2001)), I may nominate that at FAC once I improve that article, but as I said earlier, I do think the split article needs some expansion first. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what matters now, Epicgenius, is that from your perspective, the current star in question is in the right place. If we (hypothetically) had the opposite situation (you thought the 1987 to 2001 article actually best represented the original FA), I could make that happen in archives, and in articlehistory-- that is, I could get all the pieces in the right place to end up with one FA-- but doing that would task my pea brain! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Taking now my turn to wear the FAC coordinator hat, I think since 7 World Trade Center currently is the one with the FA star, this is the one that should go through FAR process. If we forget about the split for a second, 7 World Trade Center (1987–2001) is not an FA so there's nothing to "save" in the first place. For the latter article, the proper course would be to undergo the FAC process. FrB.TG (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So what would happen if 7 World Trade Center was made a dab page as the result of the split and each article had a parenthetical in the title? Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be the same; we'd still have to pick one that still best represents the original star, and then evaluate that one at FAR, and the other one at FAC. Maybe I'm being too bureaucratic about this (what if we had a hypothetical situation where both of them truly were FA quality), but I resort to the days (pre-bot) when I had to process manually, and think of it in terms of the technical processing, and that is influencing how I see it. FAR can't increment the tally at FA, no matter where the pieces of content landed. (Also, I feel like that scenario has happened before, but memory isn't pulling it up.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Hog Farm's question was non-trivial, because if we had two FA-quality articles after the split, we're forced (perhaps by bureaucracy) to make a choice. One could envision a scenario whereby we reject the technicalities and save them both, but I think the probabilities of one becoming two compliant FAs is so low that we should stick to a precedent of separating a FAC and a FAR. Not necessarily a big deal, as each would have to be processed anyway, just a matter of which page does the procesing. We only have to decide which goes where, and if we've landed at the wrong extant FA, Epicgenius, I can fix that by fiddling with with the technical stuff. But it does sound like you're saying the closest to FA is at this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
it does sound like you're saying the closest to FA Yes, that is correct. I think the 1987-2001 article has some gaps in coverage that would make it unlikely to pass an FAC if it were nominated today. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that only one of the two could "inherit" FA status, but I think we might be conflating the question of which one is now closest to FA quality to which one is closest to what went through FAC. In this particular case sticking with the "base" article makes sense, so we don't need to spend too much time counting angels here, but Wehwalt's hypothetical would be a different case.
I think we move forward with an FAR on this article, and the other can go to FAC if/when that might be warranted. And then the other meta-issues can be taken up at FAR talk if appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A separate question is whether everyone is happy with the two names; was that covered during the Move request, or is there a need to discuss that here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We may be thinking along the same lines, Sandy. The first thing that comes to mind when I think "7 World Trade Center" is the building that fell in 2001. I'm a bit dubious that the new building is the primary topic. Wehwalt (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And a separate separate question is whether the split activates the 1e stability criterion. To that, I have an emphatic, no. We expect articles to change slowly over time, and that's what happened here; it's not a 1e scenario. We can almost view this as a procedural FAR-- just making sure what's left is still up to snuff, particularly since it's a very old FA anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. What I was going for, in any case, was to ensure that the current article still met all the FA criteria other than 1e.(In addition, I wouldn't have any problem with moving 7 World Trade Center to a less ambiguous title, then converting the page at "7 World Trade Center" into a dab page. There has been precedent for this with the World Trade Center article itself.) – Epicgenius (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me that we may want to have a rule for this, rather than scratch our heads for remembered precedent each time this happens. Wehwalt (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt are you referring to 1e, or the split issue in general? A rule on 1e has proven hard to nail down-- it seems like a "you know it when you see it" thing, and there's little institutional memory anymore of how it came about and what it originally meant. And I sure wouldn't want to launch that discussion at FAC in the midst of <what's happening now>. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt the broader answer to that is that FAR probably needs a page similar to that page somewhere in the TFA process about exceptions that have come up over the years. In the case of FAR, that would include this issue, as well as other situations like various procedural FARs that have come up when an FA is deleted or merged, or when copyvio is found from one nominator, and multiple FAs need to be processed. Maybe one of us will time to tackle this ... for now, we'll have to remember where to find this discussion! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
