Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list proposal/Proposal 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New Proposal

[edit]

I have more or less rebooted this proposal, and moved the old one to Wikipedia:Today's featured list/First proposal. There was no consensus to the methods being put forth in the proposal, although the general vibe was that Featured Lists should be on the Main Page is some form. This proposal is to get FLs on the Main Page, and to do so in the simplest way possible. Discussion should be either in support or in opposition of getting the Lists on the Main Page in the first place. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Carried over from first proposal. Lara❤Love 14:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object - I support FLs on the main page, but I object to a non-selective method for such inclusion. The process seems simple until you have more lists trying to get on the calendar in a month than there are days in a month. There are at times FLs bordering on WP:FLRC that are of lower quality. I think main page FLs should be selected. I previously proposed a democratic process. I would also support a representative democracy where a committee is chosen to select the FLs, but would prefer a direct process where all interested parties have a say.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Chronological order is the fairest and least bureaucratic of all. To address Tony's concern above, if an FL that's due to be featured on the Main Page is of such low quality as to border on WP:FLRC, such a list can always actually be skipped and nominated to be de-featured. If the de-featuring process is unsuccessful, the list simply goes back to the queue and eventually shows up on the Main Page. This way we'll have the FLs on the main page, won't need to breed committees and waste rolls upon rolls of the red tape, and will utilize procedures already in place.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Same as first proposal, but this is a better selection method in my opinion. Chwech 15:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was skeptical of the voting process last time, but I still supported. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 17:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think Tony has a point that 14+ months is a long time to wait without any chance of a MainPage appearance. Another drawback is that starting from the beginning will tend to pick lists that are no longer actively maintained, were promoted under less strict rules and were nominated by editors who are no longer active. [Perhaps we should go through the old promotion log and create some FLRCs for those that have fallen into disrepair, or are no longer considered up-to-the-job.] What we don't want is for the first month or two of MainPage lists to be a failure due to a high number of sub-standard lists (whose editors are no longer around to defend or polish them).
I'd prefer if the mechanism for allocating MainPage slots was discussed rather than proposed and immediately voted on. The key factor in the failure of the previous scheme was complexity and bureaucracy. We want something simpler this time. But I think it is also important to give current, active editors a realistic chance of seeing their work appear in the near future. I also think that by moving slightly away from a fully automated choice, it allows some possibility for avoiding abandoned lists and sequences (e.g., of cricket lists).
My suggestion, made on the previous proposal, is a simple calendar one or two months ahead, where editors may nominate lists. We can restrict this to one nomination per editor but should there be slots left empty by the start of that calendar month, then the restriction is lifted for the remainder of the month. Add a bit of informal guidance on ensuring variety and fairness. This is, I believe, similar to the mechanism that Commons uses for its pictures. I'm not wedded to this particular scheme if someone wants to suggest something different or alter it. But I think it does avoid some of the drawbacks I outlined above with a fully automatic chronological scheme. Colin°Talk 18:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Why is it an issue that it's a "long time to wait"? Ostensibly, this proposal is about adding valuable content to the Main Page. If reading a particular list is entertaining or interesting then it should still be so in 14 months.--APL 03:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per my comments last time. I just don't think including lists on the main page is necessary. Also, selecting lists based on when they were promoted is a bad idea, because it could mean less variety. For example, in August and September of 2007, around 20 FLs about NHL Trophies were promoted, so if the "by date of promotion" proposal were accepted and we reached as far as August 2007, there would be 20 NHL related FLs on the main page within 2 months. -- Scorpion0422 20:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support. Voting is not needed, and is too complex. There is not voting process for FAs or FPs, so there should not be one for FLs. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 21:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - carried over from the last proposal, but I still favour a calendar system. J 01:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose for the reasons I stated in the first one and I"m not going to keep relisting them every time someone feels like doing another debate on this. We need to stop everything. Wait and redo the whole thing.Ridernyc 03:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (copied from User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson) I call this statement "Voting for a daily TFL is illogical, cumbersome, and completely unnecessary, and trying to institute some sort of stupid process will not expedite getting our well deserved FLs on the Main Page. This proposal, as written, is an utter waste of time. Process Is Evil." a preconception. Anyone who beleives this should not be involved in objectively assessing the proposal. It was irresponsible for you to close the debate. As for your statement that it will never get consensus this is a rework of a TFA idea that has gone from near unanimous opposition to majority support. A few more changes and we probably could get this done.
I could present a theoretical argument: In case you missed it this week, the Nobel Prize in Economics was for mechanism design. I have studied both Maskin and Myerson. I am likely among the few here who have studied mechanism design and I am quite certain that in the end this process will be the best mechanism, especially with 60 or more voters. I just have to quell a few concerns. Assuming we can get the proper set of voters (those concerned about quality wikipedia content), this design will work. The only concern is whether we can keep those interested in a popularity contest from taking over. This is a voluntary operation so we should assume that the vast majority of voters will have the proper goal in voting (to optimize main page content). The best threats are that each month on the 20th the system be reevaluated and changed to an alternate method if the wrong results obtain.
However, I think the best thing to do is to look at the results: of the original:
Support - 18 clear, 2 would probably prefer a TFA mehtod but supported, 1 would prefer a POTD method but supported, 4 skeptical of voting in general.
Oppose - 6 would prefer a TFA method or combining with TFA, 3 voting would not work, 3 concerned about formatting or space usage, 2 concerned about FL quality and 4 with various concerns including voting.
In all, 4 skeptical supports, 9 specific opposes and 4 various opposes would probably be mollified if we could show voting would work. The system gives 10 days to set the calendar after the conclusion of voting each month. If in any month the results are unsatisfactory (I.E., voting did not work), we would have 10 days to switch over to another method and scrap the plan. We should run with the plan and use the first in line system as a backup. Since this process takes 2 months to run you can not do it the other way where you go with the first in line plan and switch to this if you don't like what you get.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where the idea that the previous proposal got "majority support" comes from. Both the previous discussion and this one show why polls are evil. Both discussions confuse the "Featured Lists on Main Page" concept with the process. IMO the vast majority of the support "votes" in the previous discussion were for the concept but not the process. In fact, nobody explicitly said they liked the process and there were lots of downright hostile comments about the process. An independent party would, I believe, come the the conclusions that any support for the process was ambiguous at best. As for majority support for the concept, this too is flawed since editors who nominated featured lists were invited en mass to comment on the proposal. This cannot be a fair representation of WP editors.
I don't believe we should be discussing the process at all at this stage. The first task is to persuade WP to display featured lists on the main page. If that is not achieved, the discussions on process are just a waste of time. Colin°Talk 19:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - am I the only one who likes how TFA is done? Like one guy chooses what should appear (with consent and comments from others)? I haven't seen TFA fail miserably and if it does screw up, we can always point to one person as the culprit (hehehe), not to mention it's not like it's really one guy who controls everything, right? --Howard the Duck 15:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Some featured lists definitely belong on the main page. Garion96 (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ben Finn 12:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion - featured lists are already at the featured content portal. The system there is (I think) random. I suggest a system to select featured lists for the main page be sorted out before a decision is made whether they can go on the main page. My view is that the main page should not be overloaded or radically changed (some change is OK), and that we should promote alternative pages to display our featured content. We shouldn't try and funnel all our featured content through one single page. Once the other pages are up and running, create a portal page to provide quick access to all pages, and prominently link to all the pages using tabs at the top of the page. We could triple or quadruple our featured content exposure this way. Carcharoth 19:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Lists are inherently, just not our best work, even if they are featured. In general, I think, lists are boring, and cumbersome, not too mention generally long. The Main Page is fine without adding more processes to its layout. No matter where this TFL thing starts it will end in more process and bureaucracy, something that I just cannot allow without stating my piece. That is all. IvoShandor 03:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional Support - I believe that it probably would be a good idea to place FLs on the main page, but due to their being lists rather than paragraphs of prose, I would only support it if it were to be done in a more subdued and minimalized manner (relative to TFA). In essence, maybe a single line purely with the link - no lead or pictures. It is a list, after all - the page title should be enough description for the curious. Basically, I'd like to see the main page layout changed as little as possible, if this is done. Best luck, Girolamo Savonarola 03:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think this is a good idea. I strongly believe that while high quality lists are an essential reference tool, they don't have the same general interest as an article. The mainpage is for readers, not to advertise or reward hard working editors. I would propose that very, very few readers would be interested in reading a list of the counties in the state of Kentucky unless they were actively trying to look something up on that topic. It would be wasteful to consume space on the already crowded main-page to attempt to summarize a list of county names, regardless of how well the list is written and sourced. And it would be sad if other main page content was reduced in size to accommodate such an attempt. --APL 15:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, high schoolers wouldn't need info about John Mayer on a project, but they would certainly need List of Presidents of the United States. --Howard the Duck 06:24, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a silly argument. We're still talking about the Main Page, right? No one is denying that lists are useful reference tools. Readers find what they need by using search features and lists, or even by browsing a category. No one reasonably expects that the Main Page will predictively provide them with exactly the information they need on that particular day to finish their report.
It's my understanding that Featured Articles are on the Main Page to interest and entertain readers and as an intentional side effect show off how great Wikipedia is. (Let me know if I'm wrong.) For all its hard work and polish List of Presidents of the United States is little more than a list of names, dates, and political parties, the likes of which can be found almost anywhere. George_Washington is far more engaging than a list could ever be. (or SHOULD ever be.) APL 14:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC) (P.S. Note that George Washington is only a GA, but the comparison still holds up fine.)[reply]
Of course, it's a list, what are you expecting, prose? With that said, lists can give as much info as articles - even more. For example, you won't see the pics of other presidents on the George Washington article. You'd argue that's trivial, but it is just as trivial as DYK entries are. Lists are basic encyclopedic information. Heck even Encarta.com and Britannica.com have lists linked from their "Main Page." Which brings me to... at least a link would be enough for FLs. If we give each DYK at most two rows of space on the Main Page then we can at least give FLs a link once a week. --Howard the Duck 15:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're argument is a good one for including lists in the encyclopedia, but this doesn't necessarily make it a good argument for including lists on the main page. IvoShandor 23:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's like saying some FAs are inappropriate since they're not "encyclopedic" or FPics are too "shocking"; those arguments are silly in objecting appearances of FAs/FPics. As long as it's featured, it may be "featured" (heh) in the Main Page. --Howard the Duck 08:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent)You lost me there. I didn't say they are unencyclopedic, but I have yet to see a good reason to include them on the main page, they're just lists, if someone is looking for a list of U.S. Presidents its one day on the main page isn't going to help them unless they happen to be looking on that day or week or whatever. If an FA is not encyclopedic, it should be sent to AfD, like all content that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. How you equate my stance with the one on censoring FPs I will never know. Please try to make sensible comments. IvoShandor 09:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the idea, though I agree that we wouldn't want to change the main page too much. I think that 2nd example page, where FPofD is squished to one side makes sense. We don't need a sample of the list itself. Even if it were reduced to a box smaller than half a page, it would be better than nothing. Lists are a very useful part of Wikipedia, and they should have a bit of recognition. Also, I would agree with some above users who say that having them go in order of promotion would be a problem since FLs tend to come in clumps. I suggest that we have a system that is mostly by promotion date, but has some mechanism to cycle through the fields so we don't have, say, a bunch of sports-related lists in a row. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 22:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support lists are a very important part of the encyclopedia because they serve as both informative and as a link to numerous other articles. Today's featured list should therefore be on the main page.--Southern Texas 05:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - What about lists that are currently Featured list removal candidates? Will they be kept out of the queue? Speciate 05:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support lists going on the main page. I entirely agree that we need to keep this as simple as possible, but it would be good if appropriate lists could be MP'd on appropriate days e.g. a hockey list on a big hockey cup day, a US Presidents list on election day, etc (maybe even matching up with a relevant FA on the MP), and / or to break up any monotonous stretches of similar lists if the "by date" is the default option. I would have no objection to it being run on similar lines to FA MP, i.e. one person takes charge, rather than getting too complicated with discussions and bureaucracy. BencherliteTalk 23:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examples subsection

[edit]

This section is for someone more talented than I to write and format a couple of example entries. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 09:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_list_proposal/Proposal_2&oldid=1137400977"