Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Testing a solution

Rather than letting things drift on any longer, I'm proposing we go ahead with a system to put Featured Lists on the Main Page.

is a modified version of the Main Page that displays a Featured List whenever the date matches an existing page of the form Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/Prot-YYYY-MM-DD.

For example, to have a list displayed today, we have to make a page called:

I've made the following pages:

to see how it works, by taking the contents from User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates.

I used the image like this: File:Name-of-image.jpg|75px|left|alt=blah... with the width set to make the height 100px for a portrait image.

I'd encourage others to make a page or two, you can click on a red-link at Upcoming Lists at Wikipedia:Today's featured list or just make a page from the search box. There's another 10 candidates on User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates to experiment with. Remember, you're just making the inside bit. There are two other parts that "wrap around" the page you make called:

I'll repeat below the simple instructions that I originally suggested. Any suggestions for amendments welcome.

STEP 1
Create a page called something like Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/Cont-2011-05-20, but use the target date for the TFL as the date in the page's title. Create content there and work on it until you're satisfied. Use the ones we already have as templates. Set the larger dimension of the image to 100px as other featured content does. If the picture is portrait, work out (100*current-width/current-height) to get the width needed.
STEP 2
When you've finished, create a new page called something like Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/Prot-2011-05-20, but use the target date for the TFL as the date in the page's title. Copy the contents of the first page into it and protect it.
STEP 3
Make a local copy of the image used on en:wikipedia and protect it.

That's it. You're done. Finished.

For the moment, you can look at your efforts at Wikipedia:Featured lists/Main Page preview which will display content if there is a "Prot" page matching today's date.

Other stuff
You can play with the colours at Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/Prot and you can alter the "Archive/Recently featured stuff" at Wikipedia:Featured lists/Prot-bottom

For the moment, you can look at Wikipedia:Today's featured list and see what days have candidates made for them, as well as the TFL if the day has one. We need to work out a procedure for moving lists to archives (see Wikipedia:Picture of the day/May 2011 for Featured Pics' scheme), and a more automated way of setting the 'recently featured' items (but I have some ideas for that).

I'd like to think we could agree on the layout, colours, etc. quite quickly as we promised the community we would take a layout proposal to RfC for approval before we go live. Would TRM be willing to co-ordinate an RfC at a time of his choosing? I'm happy to answer any technical questions, and make modifications to the code/system on request, so I don't foresee any difficulties on that front, but I'm not an admin, so I can't protect, delete pages, etc. and we will need some admins who can learn how to make the process work - volunteers welcome. Any other thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to be one of those admins. Someone will just need to prod me if something needs to be done (and no offense please if I can't get there right away, I'm not nearly as active as I was during the workday once). — KV5 • Talk • 00:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The layout is pretty much along the lines of the most popular solution coming out of the original proposal. But I'm not sure about the orange in between the green, light blue and purple. Seems a little out of place. I ultimately don't care (anything that gets the list section noticed being a good thing), but I raise that as a potential issue in the knowledge that if I don't, someone else probably will at the RfC. —WFC— 00:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I actually think the color is a nice contrast, but if the orange is a problem, there's always all these color schemes to consider. — KV5 • Talk • 00:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I made a version that's a bit more red than orange (Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/ProtR) and looks nice on its own but not really with the Main Page, and a sort of yellowy one that strikes me nicely (Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/ProtY) in both locations. Feel free to pop them in and see how they look in a preview or something. — KV5 • Talk • 00:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I like them both. Alternatively, I think a slightly fainter pink than the one used on the Portuguese and Spanish main pages would work pretty well as a header colour, with a lighter shade as background. (I know this is all pretty trivial, but after the drama during the initial proposal, I think it's best to anticipate as many possible bones of contention before the RfC, however minor) —WFC— 01:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps Prot R would work with a lighter, slightly more "pinkish" pink in the title, such as #FFD0FF? —WFC— 01:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
  • There is a concurrent discussion for FS going on here, it might be a good idea to get back in sync with them? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 01:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
I chose the colour because (1) it's similar to that used for Featured Lists at Portal:Featured content; and (2) the principal colour is a cyclic change of RGB from that used by TFA and TFP. It can easily be altered though at Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/Prot – please edit it (this is a wiki and we lose nothing because the page history keeps everything). --RexxS (talk) 02:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Now with added templates

As nobody has created a page from the candidates at User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates, I've made a template to help {{TFLcontent}}. The following wikitext can be pasted into Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/Prot-2011-05-14 (or whatever date you pick) and you just need to fill in:

  • the filename of the picture (without 'File:');
  • its size (try 100px);
  • the alt text;
  • the blurb (without the 'more' bit);
  • and the link for the Featured List article (without '[[ ]]').
{{TFLcontent
|picture=
|picsize=
|alttext=
|blurb=
|link=
}}

Please experiment with the process by making a page for next week's dates, so that we have stuff to demo to the community every day. Or even edit today's article: Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/Prot-2024-05-01 – then you can see the results at Wikipedia:Featured lists/Main Page preview (may need to purge cache). --RexxS (talk) 18:02, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Nice work on the template. I wish though that all templates and pages had a little more descriptive names; it will make the life of (new) admins/directors much easier. — Edokter (talk) — 18:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Oops sorry - I was expecting these to be used really for getting the FL regulars some experience in using a system. Adam had already made a start in the WP:Today's featured list/... space and I was expecting all the trial stuff I was making in the Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/... to be deleted eventually in favour of the finished versions that Adam was developing. Please, please, feel free to rename and edit mercilessly anything you can improve on.
It may help if I say that I set up the testing system to use the following sequence:
  1. Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/Cont-YYYY-MM-DD (this would be a 'content' page that any user could set up - template would be useful here)
  2. Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/Prot-YYYY-MM-DD (this would be a protected version of the above, which would become the content file transcluded in the next page)
  3. Wikipedia:Featured lists/TFL/Prot (this transcludes the 'daily' file and wraps colours and a heading around it - protected)
  4. Wikipedia:Featured lists/Main Page preview (which is a test-bed for how it would look on Main Page)
I kept the colours, etc. separate from the content so that folks could alter them to find something we could all agree on. I expected that eventually steps 2 and 3 would be combined as we could move the colouring and header stuff into a template (like POTD does).
The FL regulars could do a lot of the archiving, etc. manually to start with, but I hope that a bot would eventually deal with that. The only question outstanding, I think, is if we can automate the 'Recently featured' section, but because of the possibility of variable time differences between consecutive TFLs (assuming we'll move to 2 days per week soon), it's not so simple to code. I made a page that has 7 nested #ifexist calls to look for the next existing page, but that's no real solution because of the number of expensive calls. There's also the fact that we will need to make blank protected pages for days when there's no TFL because of the opportunity for vandalism of the Main page if vandals were able to create pages which would automatically transclude. That's the reason you need to test for PAGESIZE>150 bytes of course, rather than use #ifexist.
Anyway, thanks for all your efforts, they are much appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 12:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah well, there is enough to play with. I was already planning to 'steal' a lot of code from POTD. I'm only just now gathering the necessary code. As for protecting blank pages; there is no need for that. The main page (or the main transcluded template) will check for {{CURRENTDAYNAME}} (now Wednesday) and and only transclude Saturday and Sunday. — Edokter (talk) — 14:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Featured List Medal

The Featured List Medal
Sorry if this page is the wrong location to place a recognition, but I wanted to thank and congratulate all involved in the success and construction of the TFL proposal! Well done! Looking forward to seeing featured lists on the Main Page. Another Believer (Talk) 17:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Backend for TFL is done!

In the past week, I have been building the backend for TFL, based on code from WP:TFA. Sorry RexxS, most of your code didn't survive, except for {{TFLcontent}}. I tried to keep things as simple as possible. Here is the template structure (using June 6 as example):

The main page (test page here) simply transcludes Wikipedia:Today's featured list/June 6, 2011 on mondays, or Template:TFLempty when missing. The active TFL and the templates it uses are automatically protected by way of cascading protection from the main page (but it can't hurt to protect the templates anyway).

This may look more complicated then it is. All that is needed to make Today's Featured List is:

  1. Go to this months archive.
  2. Click on Edit for the choosen day. {{TFLcontent}} will be pre-loaded.
  3. Fill in all the fields.
  4. Enter the links for the three previous TFLs from the archive. There is no way to automate this.
  5. Preview and Save. The archive should now show the newly created TFL for that day.
  6. Go to the article's talk page and add the |maindate= parameter, with the date (in the form June 6, 2011) that the list will be featured, to the {{ArticleHistory}} template.
  7. Go to {{TFL title}} and paste the article's title in the appropriate subpage. This causes {{TFL-editnotice}} to be automatically applied on the day the list appears the main page.

Wikipedia:Today's featured list shows (last) Monday's FL and next Monday's FL. Comments welcome. Ping me if there are questions or problems. — Edokter (talk) — 20:38, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Looks great! I think we're about ready to get this going live soon (I hope). — KV5 • Talk • 22:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
How exciting! I am confused, though. Have any lists actually been featured on the Main Page yet? Hopefully I will understand the system and process more once everything gets up and running. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:40, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
No, Today's featured list is not live yet, but it is now ready to go. It is up to the TFL director(s) to say the word. Meanwhile, I still have to work on Today's featured sound, and I don't know if both are to be launched at the same time or not. — Edokter (talk) — 15:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, one FL has appeared on the Main Page, though not as part of TFL. Moons of Saturn was featured earlier this year as part of the 10th anniversary of Wikipedia. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Deployment

As I understand it, discussion on the Main Page already resulted in consensus to add TFL and TFS to the main page. Now that the technical part of TFL is done, and not being dependent on TFS (which I'm working on now), I can't see a reason not to deploy beginning with next monday. Of course this is up to the directors. I just need to copy the relevant part to the Main Page. — Edokter (talk) — 13:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

TRM is away right now, but I'm more than ready to get TFL going. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:47, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Just say the word (I'm just the technical guy). A note on the Main Page talk page may be appropriate though. — Edokter (talk) — 14:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Congrats, Dabomb, on your new appointment with TFA – having a bridge between both topics will be most welcome. If I recall correctly, the debate on Talk:Main Page implied that the implementation would be taken back to Main Page for confirmation before going live. It may be only a formality, but I'd suggest that a post letting the editors at Talk:Main Page know that we're ready would be a courtesy. --RexxS (talk) 14:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Of course. I've asked Giants2008 to comment here first in case there are any other details we need to work out. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
P.S. I've manually archived a couple of the previous threads as Edokter's system supersedes the old structure I used for practice, and it will be less confusing to just have the proper instructions here. Hope that's OK. --RexxS (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Getting formal approval will in all probability delay the launch by another week, but that's nothing in the scheme of things. Huge thanks to Edokter, RexxS, Adam (I know he has now left) and everyone else who has worked on the technical side of this. —WFC— 14:55, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Quick question: the recently featured lists is fundamentally the same as what is on TFA, but the difference here is that we currently don't have any lists for a recently featured section, unless you count the one from January 15. Is the recently featured space going to have empty portions for the first few lists we do? On the main TFL page, the space is currently showing lists to be featured later, which I find terribly confusing. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
It's a good point. If I had it my way, for the first few weeks would have some sort of encouragement to get involved with FLC and/or TFL, but non-standard self-referential content tends to be strongly frowned upon. Assuming that it doesn't cause a major technical problem, I guess we just leave it blank for the first week, and let the recently featured line grow over the following few weeks? —WFC— 17:17, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
(←) Those are just there or testing (and could be removed from the individual test TFLs). — Edokter (talk) — 17:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Just to confirm, the recently featured issue has now been resolved. —WFC— 15:51, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edokter, can you create a template similar to {{FA/BeenOnMainPage}} that changes the link color of WP:FLs that have been on the Main Page (I believe it works in conjunction with CSS)? Dabomb87 (talk) 00:51, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Here it is: Template:FL/BeenOnMainPage. You have to put the associated CSS in your own skin though, like so: span.featured_list_metadata.has_been_on_main_page a { color: #006400; } (or whatever color you like). — Edokter (talk) — 09:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, works like a charm. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

New blurbs

Where are new blurbs being written and proposed? Here? Or still elsewhere? — KV5 • Talk • 18:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

They appear in the archive. Request can be made at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/requests, As soon as it's been set up (or just start the page yourself). — Edokter (talk) — 18:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, so should all of the preparatory blurbs just be copied to that page? The ones that were already created previously, I mean? — KV5 • Talk • 18:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I have begun (a very rough version) of Wikipedia:Today's featured list/requests. Please fiddle around with it and add examples of the point-gaining criteria. Adabow (talk · contribs) 22:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Made a slight change to the criteria for related lists appearing as TFL. As we're starting off weekly and not daily, I think penalising a list three points for a related list having been on in the past two weeks is a bit much. Please feel free to change it back if you disagree. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
No, definitely don't hold yourself back. I copied-and-pasted the content from WP:TFAR and made slight modifications. The current wording is by no means "ready". Adabow (talk · contribs) 02:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
A points system of sorts is fine by me. But we shouldn't make the one big mistake that TFA makes. There is no real reason why lists couldn't sustain a more regular slot in the long term. My take on why TRM was so against this idea when we made the initial proposal is that he (or Raul, Dabomb or Giants) would spend every other day having to find an acceptable list, get any cleanup done, and write the blurb. Early on, demand is going to dramatically outstrip supply. We should capitalise on this, and continue to build up a pool of blurbs. That should also help with longer term participation levels. —WFC— 11:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Well said. — KV5 • Talk • 11:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Short term selection process

Right. Priority number one is to organise ourselves, so that we can finally get lists onto the main page. Here's my proposal on how to do it efficiently.

I would suggest that we leave Wikipedia:Today's featured list/requests alone until The Rambling Man gets back. The basic premise is good, but I don't like the idea of starting with a points system that we know will be radically altered in a matter of weeks. It seems silly to attempt to reach consensus without any sort of input from The Rambling Man, although at the same time I'm sure he wouldn't want to put back the entire launch by a couple of weeks just to give him time to have his say.

Assuming a 13 June launch, my suggestion would be to use List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders, List of female United States Cabinet Secretaries and Bodley's Librarian on the 13th, 20th and 27th respectively, with the intention of having the points system up and running for the first week of July. As an interim measure, and to capitalize on the anticipated initial interest, we should encourage nominators to draft blurbs, and submit them to User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions, which TRM or Dabomb can later move over to User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates when they're main-page ready. In turn, hopefully a people making submissions be interested in helping out around TFL, and in time contribute to the points/article selection discussion. In my opinion we should move TRM's userpage to the project space, but that should probably be left to him to decide.

Any thoughts? —WFC— 23:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Modified —WFC— 15:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Two quick driveby queries

  1. Is there any process in place to compare this list against the TFA queue to prevent the mainpage being swamped with coverage of a particular topic (running a list of world heavyweight champions on the same day Raul schedules a bio of a boxer as TFA, say)? If such a situation does arise—and I can easily see requests for List of hurricanes as TFL and Hurricane Norbert as TFA on International Hurricane Day (or whatever)—which request takes precedence if it's decided only to run one or the other?
  2. Is there a mechanism for warning primary contributors when one of their lists is scheduled? As you know, unexpected TFAs have caused—er—potential breaches of the civility policy on occasion, both from people who were holding an article back for an anniversary and didn't notice it had been scheduled until it was already on the main page, and from people who come home from work and find that the article they spent three months working on has degenerated into a slurry of vandalism and POV-warring. (I have no dog in this race—I've only ever written one FL—but based on both TFA and the (awesomely irritating) recent development of driveby DYK nominations, I can pretty much guarantee someone will complain.) – iridescent 20:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
1. We would normally schedule a week or even two in advance, which is further ahead than TFA. Another fail-safe is that Dabomb is involved in both processes. In the event that there is a clash, I think TFA should move if its article is not date-specific, and we should move if it is. If by any chance they both are, we'll play it by ear.
2. There isn't yet, but we have done so for the initial batch, and are conscious that one way or another it is desirable to do so going forward. The Rambling Man has a pool of roughly 13-15 lists that several of us looked over, and every significant contributor to those was informed. As of the time of this post, of all the TFL blurbs we have, the only significant contributor that hasn't been informed is the FL nominator of the Doctor Who list, and I'll get onto that now. —WFC— 20:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

So, when are we going to have a discussion on the creation of the point system?—Chris!c/t 21:54, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

They'll start very soon after the first couple of lists go onto the main page I imagine. But how long the discussions will take is like asking how long a piece of string is. Judging by my general Wikipedia experience, I reckon a points system could conceivably be up and running as early as July, or as late as October. The system of TRM, Dabomb and Giants choosing lists won't be universally popular, but it will most certainly get the job done, so the emphasis should be on getting the new selection criteria right, rather than getting it quickly. —WFC— 23:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Odds and ends to sort out

Here is a list of things that I believe need to be done between now and Sunday, with reasons for why they can't be done immediately where appropriate. This is a wiki, so feel free to edit, add to or strike through these as appropriate.

  • Edit Talk:Main Page/HelpBox to incorporate Today's featured list – can't be done until the proposal is accepted.
  • Edit {{Main Page toolbox}} to incorporate Today's featured list – can't be implemented until the proposal is accepted, but should be started ASAP as it may require a redesign.
  • Edit Main Page, Main Page/Tomorrow and Main Page/Yesterday (and others) after proposal is accepted.
  • Fill the 6 June slot with a generic, welcome to Today's featured list type blurb – would be a nice touch, would help ensure that people know that the 13 June list was the first list, and make sure that Dickin Medal is not incorrectly kept in the archive.
  • Delete Wikipedia:Today's featured list/May 2011 and associated subpages – can't be done until 7 June in UTC.

—WFC— 15:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't do a point system. Try something else!

Why not do something different from how Raul does it? Maybe you will find a better way.

As it is now, he makes the call in any case, so the point system seems overly beaurocratic for something that ends with a gut call anyhow.

Instead of that, why not just have submitters make a plea (in words) for their topic and why it is special. Maybe give them a few topics to adress (importance, diversity, quality, etc.) Then let people discuss and support/oppose the running of the TFL. Realisitcally, your number of slots is much less than your inventory...so you really ought to be running stuff that is the best of the best (on multiple dimensions). A list of left-handed Albanian goalies from 2006 is <<< List of Bodleyian Librarians in terms of taking up space on the page, showing the project favorably, etc.

TCO (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

P.s. Yes, people will differ in how much they value anniverserie-ness versus notability. Or sports/pop-topics versus "Great Books". But so what. Letting them at least discuss things in words, will benefit you by fleshing out ideas and inform you better as you make choices. Oh...and that page gets very little traffic and has only a couple regulars. I think the community would be more energized and participate more, with a bit more free-form discussion.

TCO (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that we shouldn't necessarily be a clone of TFA, and that we need to be mindful of not ending up as a fortnightly sports section. That said, I think this discussion is best left until lists have been on the main page for a couple of weeks. Any discussion at the moment is proposing a solution before we know what the problems are. —WFC— 17:17, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, absolutely. Get the thing on the page. Run with the inital picked stuff. Figure out how you want to do requests, later. I am sooooo on your side and appreciate your diplomatic approach. TCO (talk) 17:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

In preparation...

I've moved Wikipedia:Today's featured list/June 13, 2011 to Wikipedia:Today's featured list/June 13, 2011 (temp), and moved Wikipedia:Today's featured list/June 6, 2011 to Wikipedia:Today's featured list/June 13, 2011 (leaving a redirect), so both spots now display the welcome blurb. I also uploaded local copies for both image and protected them... something that needs to be added to the task list as well (although manual protection is not really necessary because of cascading protection). — Edokter (talk) — 13:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

All odds and ends are tied. To put the original June 13 back in place, move June 13, 2011 back to June 6, 2011 (without leaving a redidect), then move June 13, 2011 (temp) back to June 13, 2011 (also without redirect). — Edokter (talk) — 00:39, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
That's sorted. — KV5 • Talk • 00:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Except, WFC did plan to do so about 2 hours before it hit the main page (sunday 22:00 UTC). — Edokter (talk) — 00:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh. I thought that was a "someone needs to do this" thing. I'll put it back. — KV5 • Talk • 00:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Already done. — Edokter (talk) — 00:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Cheers. Just trying to help out. — KV5 • Talk • 01:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I was going along with your idea Edokter [1]. Although having thought about it, it might be best to put it in the archive now. It'd be incredibly embarrassing if Wikipedia went down later today, and the welcome ended up on the main page. Such things have happened before. And someone is bound to complain while we're asleep! —WFC— 01:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Whatever you say. Moving it back. — Edokter (talk) — 01:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
And everything is back in place. No more manual intervention required. — Edokter (talk) — 01:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Back, just in time?

Hello TFL folks (that sounds cool!) and a pleasure it's been to come back from holiday and see all this! I'll do my best to catch up with the last two weeks of discussion; if anyone can give me a summary so much the better. Well done on keeping the ball rolling!! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

The text of the formal proposal on the main page is pretty good summary to be honest.
I took a little bit of licence in scheduling the first three lists – List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders, List of female United States Cabinet Secretaries and Bodley's Librarian are lined up for the 13th, 20th and 27th respectively – I figured that would be fine because you OK'd all the lists at User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates. Other than that, we're very much working with a blank canvass. The submissions page is already live, with no instructions whatsoever other than that the blurb should be roughly 1000 characters plus a guide on how to use the template.
Possibly our first priority should be to work out the list selection mechanics. FWIW, my vision is that we should accept all blurbs once they have been checked for grammar and a freely licenced image, and that any points system/alternative selection criteria should only apply once blurbs reach User:The Rambling Man/Main page FL candidates. That way, nobody is wasting their time drafting a blurb, and we are building up "stock" for future use. That said, waiting until the launch before having a proper discussion on this would probably make more sense. I'm sure there are several future regulars that don't even know that TFL exists yet. —WFC— 20:54, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks. I'll do some more proper reading when I feel less tired tomorrow, but that all seems good and dandy to me. Yes, those lists in my userspace were fine and good to go, so no worries there. Will have a think more about submission instructions and selection processes in due course... The Rambling Man (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Selection system

I believe the FL directors are picking a few FLs to start us off just so we can all find our feet (I say we, but I've been very much a passenger in the process) and then we'll move to a more TFA/R-type system. Can I suggest we do things a little differently to TFA (when we get there, of course)?

My suggestion would be to take nominations of FLs at "TFL/R" (which I think is where we're going). If there's no competition for the date and the list is up to scratch, then it should just be scheduled without the need for pointless, drive-by supports like we we get at TFA/R. If a nomination is contentious for any reason, then we should have a discussion (not a vote or a !vote), but we should explicitly not have voting or !voting, because that rarely achieves anything, and a presumption that the nominated FL will be scheduled unless it's contentious. We should also be very wary of introducing a points system, which is inevitably going to be a substitute for meaningful discussion, and runs the risk of trying to evaluate subjective values (like importance) using objective criteria, which just doesn't work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:24, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I think HJ has a point here, TFAs are not consulted with editors because they are published daily, unlike TFLs. Those lists can be requested with some advance time. ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 02:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I probably overstated the "need" for a points system at the proposal; my intention was merely to make clear that community input will be sought going forward. What is certain is that the directors are not going to unliaterally select forever, but there's no hard date for when that will stop. If it takes us six months to devise something that works, they'll no doubt do it for six months.

In principle I agree with every word of that HJ. My only concern in practise is that around 35% FLs are sports lists. That percentage does not bother me. Our most prolific editors are great at writing lists on topics that interest them, and that's fantastic. But we need to very carefully find a balance between showcasing the fine work that these people produce, and ensuring that other fields receive regular main page exposure. —WFC— 11:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've no problem at all with the directors selecting FLs until we have a community-based selection system in place. It's necessary to stop the whole thing grinding to a halt before it's even started.

You may have a point on over-representation of particular topics (though one could argue that TFL should accurately represent the FLs we have), but I think the risk is that we inflate the importance of The Rules™ and don't focus enough on the question of whether there's any reason a nomination shouldn't be TFL. I think people will be quick to spot that we have two similar FLs in a row scheduled without the need for points or the TFA/R-style rule creep. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

A sports list every 3–4 weeks wouldn't be that big deal, and hopefully the percentage will fall back slightly, as TFL draws in a new and diverse group of list-writers. It's if/when we look to expand to a more regular slot that we might start to struggle on the diversity front. —WFC— 23:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
  1. HJ has the DYK attitude. The purpose of the main page is to highlight whatever got produced. I think instead, given it is a limited resource, you should highlight the best stuff. And this means implicitly not keeping over-represetnation of sports. Instead of thinking of the main page serving the lists. Think of the main page being read by readers...and then put our best stuff there to serve the readers. Market back, more than product forward.
  2. I thought it was outrageous that Raul ran that list without consulting you all and that he routinely runs stuff without the creator awareness (and so last minute in terms of queue). Given your huge supply demand mismatch, certainly selecting for ones that someone will watch over makes sense. Either that or just protect all the main page content...
  3. I'd be happy with the directors picking stuff forever. Really that is how it works at TFA anyway at the end of the day. Let people come here and write their blurbs and make their cases, sure. But the whole voting, pointing thing seems stupid.TCO (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

What should I do?

When an article is scheduled to be the TFA of the day, I notify main editors about it, to avoid any kind of problems and confusions. When Wikipedia celebrated its 10 anniversary, the blurb of that day (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 15, 2011) included three non-FA articles, including Moons of Saturn as the featured list of the day. Due the {{ArticleHistory}} only includes the "|maindate=" to be used on the TFA, I improvised an {{imbox}}, which is used by the TF Picture, as this:

I'd like to know if the TFL will have an space on the {{ArticleHistory}} or if I should use the {{imbox}} I improvised, (either temporary or indefinitely). ۞ Tbhotch™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 02:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I have made a request for the code to be added to {{ArticleHistory}}, but no-one has responded. If someone understands the template's code, could they please paste changes on the template talk page and add {{editprotected}}. Tbhotch, using {{imbox}} seems like the best idea for now. Adabow (talk · contribs) 05:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
The proposed addition to ArticleHistory is something I would support (haven't looked at the code as I'd doubtless not understand it).
As far as notifying the significant contributor, for the 15 or so lists we have touched thus far, the significant contributor was notified at an early stage, when not the nominator. Ideally we should aim for a double-check: one (informal) notification at the submission stage, another ({{imbox}} looks great) to let them know when it has been scheduled. Because supply will doubtless outstrip demand, those two notifications could well be weeks or even months apart. —WFC— 11:08, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I adapted {{ArticleHistory}} to display, link to and categorize "Today's featured list" when maindate= is added. Category:Featured lists that have appeared on the main page needs to be created though. — Edokter (talk) — 12:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Done. —WFC— 12:19, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
And it now also fills Category:Featured lists that have not appeared on the main page. — Edokter (talk) — 12:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Edokter. Unfortunately, I think your changes introduced some bugs; see Template talk:ArticleHistory#New cat. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
It is possible to reuse existing parameters for a second purpose, but doing so tends to involve unexpected bugs. As coded in [2], a FL with a mainpage appearance won't have some details shown right if it becomes FFL. There are likely to be other problems. It is likely to be simpler to duplicate the maindate code and call it flmaindate or something. That's fairly safe and will handle unusual cases like pages that have been both FA and FL. Gimmetoo (talk) 15:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I've changed it to account for FFLs. As for 'unusual' cases; I've never seen an FL being featured before (except for our 10th anniversary), and I don't forsee any list making FA anytime soon. — Edokter (talk) — 15:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
At least one FFA became FL, and it had a mainpage appearance while FA as I recall. This is why conditionals on currentstatus can be problematic. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Do you know which one so I can have a look? — Edokter (talk) — 16:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Provinces of Thailand. Might also want to look at €2 commemorative coins. Gimmetoo (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, I see the problem. I'll see what i can do. — Edokter (talk) — 16:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
(←) The template now treats any old FA before 2011-06-13 as it always has, and handles newer entries as either FA or FL (in the presumption that from now on, an article cannot be FA and FL at the same time). — Edokter (talk) — 17:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick editnotice request

Please could an admin add {{TFL-editnotice}} to Template:Editnotices/Page/List of signs and symptoms of diving disorders (the list is question is scheduled to go on the main page in 25 minutes). When I created the editnotice template, I forgot to set up an automatic process along the lines of TFA. I'll try to make sure that today is the only time we need to add/remove the editnotice manually. Thanks in advance, —WFC— 23:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. — KV5 • Talk • 23:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Cheers. Sorry about the confusion in the preparation section above by the way. —WFC— 23:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
No big. I'm as anxious for this to go live as anyone, so I'm just trying to help out any way I can. — KV5 • Talk • 23:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Same here, although as a non-admin there's little I can do other than reporting and (worst case scenario) anti-vandal work. Still pinching myself that this is finally happening. —WFC— 23:55, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Well if you ever need an admin task for this and don't want to bother a director, you can ping me. I'm usually somewhere near the computer when it's not work time around here. — KV5 • Talk • 23:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
And we are now live. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Aaand we're live! — Edokter (talk) — 00:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
A beer
For all of legal age, in celebration, from my favorite brewery of all!
This is very exciting. I believe a beer is in order! — KV5 • Talk • 00:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Who of the directors are admins? As it is required to place editnotices and protect locally uploaded images. — Edokter (talk) — 00:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Both The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and I are sysops. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. I updated the instructions in the first section. They should probably get a permanent spot. — Edokter (talk) — 00:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations to all!

Today's featured list is now live! So let me be the first to congratulate you all on a job well done. — Edokter (talk) — 00:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

We couldn't have done it without your help. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, it was fun doing it and I learned a thing or two in the process. — Edokter (talk) — 00:13, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Yay! Props to all, especially Edokter and WFC. StrPby (talk) 00:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Well done, all! --Another Believer (Talk) 01:58, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, well done everyone involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
This was a marathon, and very much a team effort. All I did was cheer for 24 miles, and help keep the pace going in the home straight. —WFC— 15:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

A good start

21 and a bit hours in, I'd say it has been a reasonably successful launch. 100% of edits up until the time of this post were constructive. The main page looks good. We didn't break anything. The main complaint at Talk:Main Page is that we're only running once a week. And we managed to give a little bit of exposure to WikiProject Cuba. [3].

These are the things that have sprung to my mind through the course of the day:

  • We should set up an automated process for the editnotice, along the lines of {{TFA title}}. Looks a bit complicated for me though.
  • At the moment something like 35% of our content is sport-related. That sports editors are doing a fantastic job of churning out high-quality content is not a bad thing, and should not in any way be discouraged. However, it stands to reason that if fewer than 35% of TFLs are sport-related, the proportion of sports lists in Category:Featured lists that have not appeared on the main page will go even higher than that. In the short term, how do we approach this? In the longer term, how can we increase participation from other fields at FLC? The content obviously needs to be featured before it's eligible for TFL.
  • At the main page talk, feedback on the colour of the "Today's featured list" main page header was a little negative. I don't like it either, although abiding by the Wikimedia colour scheme, it was either that pink or an even nastier orange. Could the shade of pink possibly be tinkered with?
  • We don't need to decide a selection process just yet, but I think some direction on the purpose of the submissions page is necessary. Judging by the comment at the bottom of this diff, people may be holding back from writing blurbs because they feel the work might go to waste. In my opinion, the submissions page should merely be a place for copy-editing, checking the image is freely licenced, and raising concerns about a list (the hepatitis one is a good example of genuine concerns being sensibly discussed). All submissions should be welcome, and while there is no guarantee of a list going up, provided that a submission is well written with a suitable image, it should be retained somewhere for eventual use.
  • The caption of the main page logo at {{ArticleHistory}} should be changed from "Main page trophy" to "Main page", IMO.

Thoughts? —WFC— 21:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad all went well! Surely FLs could be featured on the Main Page more frequently than once per week, but this is a great start! Regarding FLs unrelated to sports, I am not sure if the Grammy lists are up to Main Page preferences, but perhaps I will try submitting a blurb. Again, to all involved, well done! --Another Believer (Talk) 21:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
And as to the sport lists, I don't think there is a problem with having a sport list once every three weeks or so (the proportional pace) so long as care is taken that an association football list is followed by a cricket list is followed by a baseball list etc./usw. — KV5 • Talk • 21:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Go for it Another Believer. The more the merrier at WP:TFLS!
On sports, while we're weekly or twice weekly, I agree, one in three carefully rotated shouldn't be a problem. It's when we look towards becoming daily that the issue would really start to surface. One in three would equate to four or five sports lists a fortnight, if we ever went daily. —WFC— 21:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Header

The "yellow-green"
I see how TFA title works, but it involves the help of a bot (User:AnomieBOT II). The rest is quite easy; it defenitely saves one chore. As for the pink... the only other alternative is a yellowish-green (H90, see Help talk:Using colours), which I find even less appealing. — Edokter (talk) — 22:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes please...green looks better!--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫Share–a–Power[citation needed] 11:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Edokter that the pink is the lesser of the three evils, both in terms of co-ordination on the main page, and how the individual title shades look. Although I still advocate ignoring the colour rule and going for a nicer pink in the title bar. —WFC— 12:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I could extend the available palette to twelve colors (hue increments of 30). That may result in some nice colors. ~~
{{TFL title}} has been created. One manual step added to the instruction. This task could be performed by a bot. — Edokter (talk) — 15:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Potential changes to TFLcontent

I'm in the middle of doing some restoration work on List of national anthems, and was thinking of nominating it. Given the nature of the list, and the number of featured sounds there, it doesn't make a lot of sense to nominate with a picture. It has also crossed my mind that there are a small number of FLs where a main-page image simply wouldn't be feasible, ISO 3166-1 for instance.

Before I plough ahead with an {{editprotected}} request, I think there are small things to discuss on both fronts. Would it be okay to have a list without an image on the main page? I believe it would, provided that there isn't possibly one available, but I just thought I'd check that (otherwise I'd be adding code that we don't want to use). And if sound compatibility is added to {{TFLcontent}}, what sounds template should we use? —WFC— 23:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That should be fine; we occasionally have TFAs without an image, including today's (June 16). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I think an FL with a sound instead of a list would be a great idea. — KV5 • Talk • 01:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It might be possible to do some combined pic with the flag above the sound, or performer above the sound, kinda combined into one square. Sort of like those videos of TTT at FS now (but don't do a video, just have the image). TCO (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
BTW, when I think of how "core" that list is...it really makes me feel good. Much better than "list of socks in my drawer" or something obscurer. It will REALLY make wiki look encyclopeic rather than crufty  :) TCO (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Which topic of national treasures

List of National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents) is already on the submission page. I was wondering which other of the Lists of National Treasures of Japan would make a good submission in view of variety of TFL topics: one of the buildings/structures or paintings or sculptures or swords...? bamse (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

They're all worthy of the main page in my opinion. We have multiple submissionss on football, baseball and world heritage sites, so there's most certainly room for multiple Japanse treasures ones too. If you're attempting to stand out from the crowd, the shrines one has particularly stunning images, while the swords list is very possibly the only weapon-specific one we have (I used a similar reasoning when I suggested ancient documents). —WFC— 15:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pop culture

I have to say, even as someone who has rarely participated in featured list reviews (and who has never written a featured list) the fact that they're getting a bit of main page exposure is very interesting to me. I don't really have a concrete suggestion, it's just a thought. Basically, FLC, perhaps moreso than FAC or even GAC, suffers from something of an imbalance; while there are plenty of TV, pop music and sports articles recognised, there aren't so many (say) history or biology articles recognised. I'd be inclined to say that, in the early days of the TFL project, there should be a very careful selection of articles to show off some of the more traditionally encyclopedic topics recognised by featured list candidates, rather than (and this is not meant to be disparaging) discographies, award lists, episode lists and the such. For instance, anyone can see that List of lemur species is an absolutely stunning article, and one that clearly belongs in an encyclopedia and on the main page. People may be less welcoming to, for instance, The Simpsons (season 7) (though it is, of course, a decent article). Just a thought. Hopefully, this main page exposure will bring some more eyes to FLC and make it a project to rival FAC in terms of quality and "legitimacy"; I'd say that, sadly, right now, it lags behind in both areas. J Milburn (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a very good point, one that has been voiced by editors at several venues. One of the benefits of the initial condition of displaying FLs once a week is that we can be very choosey as to which lists are selected for Main Page exposure. Even though FL does suffer from the systemic bias issues you mention, as long as we maintain the current frequency of TFLs per week, we don't have too much of a problem finding high-quality FLs to represent all subject areas of the encyclopedia. We have a continually expanding pool of candidates (to which you are welcome to add) that hopefully showcases the diversity of Featured lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I echo Dabomb, while also drawing your attention to this reply to a related point you made. I think the intention of the submissions page has been misunderstood somewhat. Our aim is to have 4323 blurbs, and then schedule carefully, to ensure that we find the correct balance. Your admirable aim of ensuring that TFL is representative would be best served by seeking out FLs that you want to see on the main page, but that are currently of relatively poor quality, and submitting them to TFL. You might find something suitable here. Right now, we're doing a good job of improving sub-standard, high importance content. Not because we're particularly good at it, but because there is a clear focus on getting lists on underrepresented topics onto the main page, without making FL look bad in the process. But part and parcel of that is ensuring that when a sports list does go up, it is held to a very high standard. —WFC— 14:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
An interesting perspective that the very spirit and essence of Wikipedia should somehow kowtow to dusty old books stacked up in a private reading library somewhere seems way odd to me. TFL has deliberately and already chosen a wide variety of lists for consideration to become TFL, which is abundantly clear from the submissions page. Any suggestion otherwise is erroneous. We are a mature enough area of Wikipedia to understand that old-school readers still want traditional material and new-school modern audiences thrive on what makes Wikipedia great, "to-the-point" lists which wouldn't ordinarily feature in a paper-based out-of-date encyclopedia. "People may be less welcoming" to a Simpsons featured list? Perhaps the old school. We're not anticipating to over-run main page with our "pop culture", moreover we already anticipated this kind of attitude with a bunch of our best work taken from all corners of the known universe. Once a week, we agreed, would not damage Wikipedia, we'd do our damned best to get it all right. We are actively encouraging people to get involved, and the once-in-a-blue-moon proper pop culture list will be welcomed with open arms by our readers and the majority of our contributors. Thanks for your note, but don't unduly stress about imbalance. That's why we have a community who cares, second-to-none, about what we're trying to achieve. We're acutely aware (probably more so than FAC) on how to appeal to our new-found audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
TRM for President! :P --Another Believer (Talk) 19:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviews...

... have slowed down a little. I reckon once something has one review on the board, others will gradually follow. But from experience elsewhere I know that people are reluctant to be the first to review something, and reckon both reviewers and nominators might be put off by the amount of unreviewed submissions. Starting off by checking the technical stuff should be a good ice-breaker. I've created a skeleton structure that should help ensure that obvious issues don't slip through the cracks, at User:WFCforLife/Housekeeping#TFLS technical review. —WFC— 18:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I know this sounds all "me me me", but perhaps also worth pointing back at the FLC checklist we gathered together a few months back? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Pic size

Main page talk says there's no rule for sizing TFL's pic. Hillary Clinton's seems rather small. I wonder why it can't be boosted. Tony (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine. I usually take 125px wide-or-long. We also don't want to hog attention away from POTD. — Edokter (talk) — 12:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
POTD might get a bit bigger—you never know. I've just asked Howcheng whether the unreadable map of the US coming up can be made larger. I don't think a bigger TFL pic on the opposite side would do any hogging. If this is 125px, I'd say 140px would be more appropriate. Tony (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Multiple images in next week's TFL

In List of female United States Cabinet Secretaries, I see three images in the lead, Albright and Rice top and middle of a large rectangle (top right blank) and Clinton bottom left with bottom middle and bottom right of the rectangle blank. This is in Firefox. It looks terrible. What's going on? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks OK in IE. I've moved the Perkins picture from the lead to the list to try and reduce image clutter in the lead, which might help - who knows with Firefox what makes it work and what breaks it...? BencherliteTalk 09:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Still buggered. Windows and Firefox 3.6.3, perhaps it's just me. Will check Safari later though. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Looks fine in Firefox 5 (and a very small laptop screen). Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

TFL blurb 11 July

Beautifully written, except there are lots of numbers: 14, actually, including "capturing 18 from 1990 to 2002 and 2004 to 2008." I don't see a way around this, though. It's a numbery kind of topic. Tony (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Image alts

As I brought up here, I've been noticing lately that the image alts for TFA, ITN, OTD, and TFP have consistently been short, caption-like statements while the image alts for DYK and TFL have been lengthy descriptions of the visual elements of each image for the purpose of users who are unable to view images. The result of subsequent discussion at DYK here was that the image alts for DYK have become more short and caption-like. Since all other sections of the main page employ such image alts and there does not seem to be any reason for TFL to differ from this standard, I recommend that the TFL image alts be changed accordingly. Neelix (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference between us and every other process on the main page that I am aware of, is that we actually use alt text and a caption, instead of using one parameter to serve both functions. Our title parameter is generally a short, sharp and punchy description of the image, in line with every other section. I vehemently disagree that we should stop using alt text. On the contrary, we should tell the likes of TFA and DYK to stop screwing disadvantaged people for the sake of 30 seconds' worth of typing. —WFC— 18:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah...the actual guidance from W3C (thanks Mall), is much more nuanced and allowing of very different formats. Essentially the field is a tradeoff. My POV is if you are going to have the damned thing, then make it really serve a purpose (i.e. a real description for a blind person), not some sort of wikilegalistic exercise.TCO (reviews needed) 18:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
TFL should lead the way. If the others can't do it, it's their problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The way ahead

Hey folks, so we're now six episodes of the main page in and nothing blew up! I'm proud as punch about the way it's gone, we've smoothly slipped into the regular main page appearance itinerary with fewer issues that I could ever have hoped. So, the next question is, how do we take over the world? Sorry, I meant, how do we expand? A few topics for discussion:

  • More days on main page?
    • Sat/Sun/Mon?
    • Mon/Thu?
    • Every day?
  • How do we choose the TFL?
    • If only a day or two a week, stay the same?
    • If only a day or two a week, go different?
    • If every day, mobilise troops to assist...
      • Do we use a WP:TFA style "voting" system?
      • Do we create our own way of selecting decent pages from the nominations/prep area?
  • At this point, are there:
    • Things we can do better?
    • Things we aren't doing at all?
    • Things that would potentially increase the readership of TFL?
  • Anything else?

It's a freestyle discussion, I'd like to hear from anyone and everyone on any aspect of the process so far or for the future. Thanks all! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I am so happy with the success of TFL! Surely FLs could appear on the Main Page more frequently than once per week--the submissions page already contains enough blurbs to last a year (perhaps not all qualify, but you get my point). Congrats again to all involved! --Another Believer (Talk) 18:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't go daily. I think y'all have done an outstanding job in many different ways and also that the articles run have been superb. That said:

(1) I want to leave a "slots" to encourage other experimentation with new content (FS, GA, Featured Videos, etc.)
(2) (Throw rocks at me, but...) Just cruised through the FLCs and there was a HUGE concentration towards pop culture and sports. Also some of the stuff was rather crufty. Concerned about quality if we go daily.
(3) I don't think there is any "danger" to your positition in not going daily, and I don't think you need the hassle of being daily.

TCO (reviews needed) 19:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree with not going daily. We can certainly support two days a week, and the high proportion of sports and pop culture FLs is actually exactly in line with the proportion of FLs that we have. If we use up all of the FLs that are not sports- and pop-related, then that's all we'll have left to feature. 1 sports or pop culture list every 3 appearances should not be a problem. All in all, I'm thrilled with the process to date. — KV5 • Talk • 21:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I am confident that the featured lists on Wikipedia are sufficiently valuable and of sufficiently high quality to go daily.
(1) A daily TFL does not remove the possibility of experimentation with new content any more than any other daily element of the main page.
(2) It is true that there is a high proportion of sports and pop culture featured lists, but this fact does not affect the viability of a daily TFL in the least. I've done the math and, even if we didn't feature any of the sports- or pop-culture-related lists on the main page and no more lists ever attained featured status, we'd be able to feature a new list on the main page every day for more than two years. Considering the facts that 1) plenty more lists will get featured between now and then and 2) we won't be totally excluding sports- and pop-culture-related lists from the main page, it would appear that we will be able to indefinitely feature a new list on the main page every day while including a frequency of sports- and pop-culture-related articles that is proportionate to the number of other topical fields represented.
(3) I am more than willing to accept the 'hassle' of going daily, as I am sure other editors involved in TFL are as well. It's no more of a hassle than TFA or TFP, and no one is suggesting that we prevent either of those from being daily. Neelix (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I too am happy with the way things have gone so far. Perhaps we can up the frequency to two or three days a week? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
    • Given the recent opinions expressed at the RfC, I think we should stay with once a week for now. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
  • What KV5 said. Baby steps have served us well so far, so I'd say continue in that vein, and go to two a week. I get a lot of what Neelix says, and desperately want to go daily eventually. But we're not as slick an operation as TFA and POTD yet: we have yet to show that we can produce seven lists a week of sufficient quality (not just the blurbs but the lists themselves), hence why we are building up a stockpile.

    For me, it's all about quality. Some people consider FLs to be inferior to FAs and FPs, and from a historical perspective they're right (looking at promotions from 2-3 years ago that are still on the "books"). Even today some would argue that some lists get through with GA standard prose, but the gap between FA and FL is undeniably narrowing. Perhaps the best thing about TFL is that we are looking at 3 and 4 year old lists and slowly but surely taking them up to scratch.

    The whole point of being on the main page is that FLC has reached a stage of maturity where lists are recognised as high quality pieces of encyclopaedic content in their own right; where the best that WP:FL has to offer is – or is on the verge of – being of comparable quality to an FA in its own way. And my opposition to going daily now is due to a fear that going too fast might jeopordize or reverse our improving reputation. When we go daily, I want TFL to be on an equal footing with TFA and POTD from a quality standpoint from day one, and to know that we are many months away from the remote possibility of someone having to work on a list from scratch hours before it goes up, as is sometimes the case at TFA and POTD. If we went daily tomorrow, I feel that we would get to that point too quickly.

    Btw, I won't be posting again for a little while, but I hope to be back and active in the reasonably near future. —WFC— 17:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I support two per week. I think the general quality of stuff in the review queue is still not up to FA. I would stick with what is working and be proud of the strides that has been made. (And don't let the FAers bully you.  ;-)) TCO (reviews needed) 18:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Support TCO's comment. People like lists. TFL is a drawcard for visitors. Tony (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I think that for now TFL should remain a once per week feature, and really don't want to see it any more than twice per week. We are still in a period where we are showing the community as a whole the kind of work that we can produce, and the worst thing we can do is to dilute the quality of the lists appearing here. Anyone paying attention to the main page RFC will see that the general support for TFL isn't at the level we all thought it was. With a daily TFL, we would be forced to run sports and pop culture lists on most days, which would give critics all the ammunition they'd ever want. That's out of the question for me, and even a few times a week is too much for now. Better to run fewer lists and continue emphasizing quality. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    • I am blown away by the sheer encyclopedic goodness of WFC's national anthem list with all the multimedia files and all. It's the perfect subject to go in a list, has so much concentrated importance and even uses files creatively. I'm in love with it and want to marry it. That said, that list is head and shoulders above the typical FL.TCO (reviews needed) 19:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
      • All I did was give the national anthems list a facelift.

        The more I think about this, the more I think we should stick to once a week for now. The right lists are being nominated for the right reasons, and with sufficient frequency. But a lot of them start off in a mediocre or worse condition, and the core of editors willing to do checks and cleanup isn't there to justify expansion. We need to be tough on ourselves, and treat every expansion as a carrot for measurable all-round progress. In my eyes, we're queueing the right amount of time in advance. Provided we don't start queueing lists any further ahead, success should be measured in the growth of WP:TFLPREP. —WFC— 21:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, could you run the state reptile list please?

If they are kicking your ass on the main page debate, I would like to get my list in. You could put me under the "is a newbie" and "asked directly in talk, attempting to bypass policy", buckets. Oh...also the non-sports or records. No offense to our sportsmen directors, sirs.  ;-)TCO (reviews needed) 02:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

pic

Hi guys, you might consider making the Soviet pic just a bit smaller for reasons of resolution (although I'm usually the one saying boost, boost). Is this the right page to edit the blurb? How does one tell when it's been cascade protected? Thanks. Tony (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/July 18, 2011. I tried purging that, with no luck. Perhaps worth asking Edokter? —WFC— 17:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection of hepatitis C list

Our June 25 TFL will be List of people with hepatitis C. A few editors suggested that due to BLP concerns, we should pre-emptively semi-protect the list while it is on the Main Page. Normally, this type of protection is contrary to our protection policy, but given the sensitive nature of the content, I think semi-protection would be prudent. What do you all think? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a massive problem with that, errors etc can be noted on Talk:Main page so I'd advocate the protection. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Either one of you guys can do it or I can too. Just let me know. — KV5 • Talk • 10:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think protection is warranted in advance of anything happening. It's very rare for TFAs to be protected preemptively. In fact, the TFLs have received very little vandalism: since the regular TFL slot started, the US female SofS list had one vandal edit, the Rawlings Gold Glove had one vandal edit, the Soviet leaders list had one possibly vandal edit and err... that's it. I'd suggest asking in advance at WP:AN for a few extra admins to put the list on their watchlist so that if there is any trouble, someone can take action sooner rather later. BencherliteTalk 11:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I want to agree with Bencherlite, but because of the nature of this list, coupled with the fact that people are already bound to question the wisdom of TFL running the list, I think it has to be semi'd. It was difficult to envisage real life harm from vandalism to previous lists; it's very easy to see how it could happen with this one. Either way though, please could an admin add {{Editnotice for lists of people}} to the page's editnotice? Us mere mortals can't do it. —WFC— 01:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Done — KV5 • Talk • 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
This goes againts the policy: "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by unregistered and newly registered users." As Bencherlite notes, vandalism in TFLs is very low, compared to TFA, DYK and ITN articles. If kids start to add people with no sources, then protect it, otherwise we are attemping to bite newbies that may improve the page. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Then sod the policy. My support for this list going on the main page was entirely conditional on semi protection, as was the other support. Indeed, the page's author completely embraced and supported that stance. —WFC— 02:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I have left a message about this discussion for the TFA director, Raul654 (talk · contribs), for his input, given his experience in running sensitive subjects at TFA. BencherliteTalk 12:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Good shout. The opinions expressed on protection in the tourette syndrome section here may be of some relevance here. —WFC— 15:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Preemptive protection only makes sense if an article is likely to attract a lot of vandalism. Given how little vandalism previous TFLs have experienced, I think preemptive protection is unnecessary. Raul654 (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WFC's link, seems like preemptive protection makes sense. ("Past performance is no guide to the future" etc etc) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not entirely clear to me what the verdict is here: I think the rationales for protection (here, at the original submission and at the tourettes discussion) were stronger than those against, but obviously I would. Either way, it's decision time. —WFC— TFL notices 22:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
As TRM and I are the two FL directors who are also admins, one of us could make the decision. Alternatively, we could ask at the administrator's noticeboard, pointing to this discussion, and leave it up to a completely uninvolved administrator to make the the choice. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I concur, and would say it's entirely your call between those two options. Although given the time, if you go for the latter option it'd be worth doing so reasonably soon. —WFC— TFL notices 22:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Protect. The one or two typo fixes you lose from an IP are much less damage than the several cumilative minutes when the thing will have interspersed Viagra ads. Let's be practical instead of ideological.TCO (reviews needed) 22:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protect. Agreed. No, we don't get as much visibility because of our location on the main page but the "Viagra ads" rationale makes a lot more sense (function before form in this case). — KV5 • Talk • 22:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait and see. The 'viagra ads' isn't an argument, because that would apply to every featured content on the main page – and there already is a strong consensus that the articles are not semi/protected pre-emptively 'just in case'. The argument that we have have to give IP editors every chance to contribute constructively is an important one for Wikipedia, and it has to be remembered that statistically the majority of constructive edits still come from IPs (if I recall correctly). So the real question here is: "Do the possible BLP damages that may arise from this particular FL outweigh our normal reluctance to semi the articles featured?". I'm going to suggest we wait and see; keep eyes on the FL; and RPP if it becomes too much work to revert obvious vandalism. At least we would have a test-case to argue from if we felt strongly that semi-prot was appropriate in the future. --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

yes. I think they all should be protected. we are putting wiki ideology ahead of reality. The good edits lost are much less than the bad views endured.TCO (reviews needed) 22:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I would personally prefer semi-protection, given Raul's comment and the relative dearth of edits made to TFLs thus far, I think I'll keep the article unprotected for now. If any issues arise, however, I won't hesitate to push the button. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Suits.TCO (reviews needed) 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The way ahead, streamlined

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

After a degree of criticism at the main page RFC about how diverse FLs as a whole are, I think it's safe to say that the future frequency of TFL is not something that can simply be determined here and rubber stamped on the Main Page talk; there will be lively internal and external debate at the appropriate time. And it's now clear that this probably isn't the appropriate time.

But for now, I'd like to bring us back to a few key questions that TRM posed the other day:

At this point, are there:

  1. Things we can do better?
  2. Things we aren't doing at all?
  3. Things that would potentially increase the readership of TFL?

—WFC— 02:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Go daily? Probably to drive readership it really would help to be daily. Like NOW. I'm kinda reversing field like a bad halfback. But to be honest, I usually miss the Monday list. Probably going daily and getting views and mindshare is more important than every list being a masterpiece.  :-| TCO (reviews needed) 02:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

There was a long time when TFA had bad quality. And even now Raul runs some old stinkers. You'll be good enough. Yeah Sandy might sniff at it, but we're talking a tiny minority that would be down on you.TCO (reviews needed) 02:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Claw your way higher on the page. Being higher on the page would help you. Probably just making your pitch that you are featured and kicking some other section lower down (DYK or OTD?) Then run right under TFA. Gotta go daily first though.

N.B. I specifically created this section to get away from discussion about how often TFL should or shouldn't run. —WFC— 02:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I apologize. It just made me think more when you gave that provocation. TCO (reviews needed) 02:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
True. My mistake. I would remove it but I can't really do it now :( —WFC— 02:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's start afresh.

I'd like to bring us back to a few key questions that TRM posed the other day. At this point, are there:

  1. Things we can do better?
  2. Things we aren't doing at all?
  3. Things that would potentially increase the readership of TFL?

—WFC— 02:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the restart WFC, probably a good idea in light of the uprisings re: Main Page etc.
  1. Improvements: Right now, I can't think of many. We must ensure our TFLs are "interesting" (it would appear, from recent debate) which, from my perspective, is easy, but we have a specific audience to address, generally worldwide, but specifically a high portion of US readers. That 100% does not mean I want to "appeal" to the majority, but we must be at least aware of this issue. Some of our best recent FLs are about arguably obscure European subjects (list of Swedish national parks, list of demolished places of worship in Brighton etc) but some of the recent TFAs (Somerset) were equally obscure. Despite all this, appeal to the audience seems paramount to guarantee community satisfaction.
  2. Things we ain't doing: Nothing. We're providing MOS-compliant, featured to the main page, it's being vetted by editors before it reaches the queue, then re-vetted before it reaches the main page. I guess, at a push, we're not running a TFA-esque voting system for what's appearing on main page. Happy to hear thoughts on that as perhaps it's been my choices that have failed to attract the appropriate attention...
  3. Increase the readership: See above. Good blurb pictures, more US-centric content (gah), more (not less) culturally relevant content (contrary to some concerns raised on some submissions, I think our average reader would be more interested in Donkey Kong than George Orwell, but that's a personal opinion...)
  4. Overall, we're doing a good job and thanks to all involved. Look forward to hearing other opinions. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
The simple way is to use existing article hit count (page views with that little toolbar thing) as the guide to eyeballs. You should favor articles that are more popular. Don't hold the reader down and force feed him "List of Macedonian champion handball players" for his own good, damned American, him. Market back...MUCH MORE. I can buy a teensy amount of diversity and educating the baboons...but we have WAY too much a culture of editor forward rather than reader back.TCO (reviews needed) 18:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've identified a sample of the sorts of non-featured lists that I'd like to see more of at FLC, at User:WFCforLife/Vital lists. Here are a few general thoughts:

  • Hit counts. Part of the solution, at least in the early days, is promotion. WP:MEDICINE is very prominent, because it is relatively well supported by professionals in that field. It would be a good idea to post on the project's talk page to try to entice editors to take an interest. But I'd suggest doing the same for just about every TFL. WP:TFLSTATS is a good tool too. If you look at the hit count of Bodley's Librarian compared to Rawling's Glove and Female Cabinet Secretaries, the difference is not as dramatic as a >50% US readership would suggest that it should be. Another factor in hit counts is timing. I don't think we've had long enough to really see the effects of date-specific blurbs; once Gordon Bennett and Doctor Who have run we can look again.
  • Reviews. The Texas highways list shows the disadvantage of a well known reviewer taking a laissez-faire attitude to reviewing; TRM took my quick glance over at face value, when at the time I was working on the basis that "if this is picked, could we easily get it up to scratch within a week?" But that's a one-time issue.

    Going forward, not enough people are doing reviews, and I think it's fair to say that the free for all experiment isn't working out. We were right to try it, but I think it is now right to recognise why it isn't working, and consolidate. I think submissions fall into three categories: 1. Those that appear to be up to current FLC standards, and could do with rubber-stamping from a few regulars. 2. Those that are not quite up to 2011 standards, but with enough about them to be taken up to scratch if an FLC regular were to adopt the list. 3. Those that are in quite a poor state and should at the very least be listed at WP:FLS, if not WP:FLRC. I think we should come up with a plan to deal with each of those three broad categories. —WFC— 19:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

    To clarify, the list of Texas highways was mistakenly moved from suggestion to queue and avoided prep, my mistake 100%. There was no misunderstanding as far as I'm concerned, the list wasn't ready and needed some updates so I removed it (i.e. undid my own mistake) and hoped for further improvement. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify what I was saying (which might be still dumb). Don't go off the hitcounts for the article as featured (that will depend on seasonality and picture and etc.) Go off the page views of the article BEFORE it gets to Main Page. A list getting 500 views per day >> than a list getting 20 views per day. It becomes a measure of reader interest in the topic.TCO (reviews needed) 19:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
That is an excellent (yet very simple) point. —WFC— 20:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Couple quick thoughts on what's been brought up above:

  • The biggest weakness of the system is that we just don't have enough reviewers to handle the massive volume of lists that have been nominated. There always seems to be a point at these processes where the number of articles becomes too much for the reviewing base to handle. The submissions page has almost 60 lists on it, which is clearly too many. If FLC is straining a bit at the 40-list mark, there's no way the newer submissions page can handle 60. This gridlock is tough to solve because we don't want to discourage nominations.
  • I have a feeling our reader base is being overestimated by many editors, in terms of wanting "encyclopedic" topics. If we put up pop culture or sports-related lists every so often, I guarantee they would find an audience. The trick is to not have them up every week, so as to showcase the diversity we have. We've featured a wide variety of lists so far, and I hope to see this continue. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I would readily trade "non pop culture" for "running notable topics". IOW, please run list of Gold Glove winners, NOT list of Macedonian handball champions. Run, what readers show they want. the front page of the newspaper has higher profile stuff, the back pages lower. It's more efficient.
Not sure if you are talking about the regular FL process or about TFL with the number of submissions. If it is TFL, just pick what you want and don't sweat the submissions. If FL, start by director fiat, looking at submissions and if it's obvious quick pass that the thing is pretty messy, just send them away and say don't come back without a major upgrade. You all are elected directors, have seen a lot of stuff, act as a bit of a filter here. We don't have unlimited reviewers. And I don't even care if you make an occisaional mistake...what matters is running a process that works.TCO (reviews needed) 17:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


I think we're walking more or less the right line with popular culture, based on the lists that have been scheduled so far, and there's certainly scope to increase the sporting frequency slightly. TCO has a point with regards to popular culture. Stuff like List of Watford F.C. seasons should be submitted, but is likely to take a back seat in the short term to more mainstream content; things like the List of World Series champions and Ballon d'Or are what we're truly after.

With reviews, I think we need to find a way of identifying lists that are up to 2011 standards, so that they can be highlighted, looked at reasonably quickly by a core of editors, and forwarded on to prep. This should reduce the number of unreviewed submissions, which in turn would make it less daunting to weigh in on one or two. I will make a suggestion over the next couple of days on how we can do this: it's in my head, but I haven't got all the nuts and bolts worked out, and am desperate to keep it as simple as possible. —WFC— 17:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

May I sugest having two levels of lists. Like WP:FA and WP:GA for articles. At present there is no equivalanet of GA for lists. The WP:GA process is scalable in quantity in that nominators also review, so for that process you don't have a lack of reviewers. If you had such a process for GA lists you both won't get as many submissions to FLC and also those lists that would arrive at FLC would likely be of a better state. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a terrible idea by any means, but the idea of a "Good list" has been rejected numerous times. My main issue with GA is that it's possible to pass it by using a single editor, with no directorship, and as such, many terrible articles get GA by default. I'm currently happy to quick-fail lists that are nominated prematurely, we tend to recommend peer review for these, and that does seem to help. We're not (yet) overwhelmed at FLC, of course the more reviewers the better, but we're surviving right now. Heading for a GL process is really not required in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Whatever the size of the gap between a modern FA and FL – some feel that there isn't one at all – it has undeniably been closing for some time. However, it is still fair to say that the very worst FLs are a lot poorer than the very worst FAs. When we are confident that this is no longer the case (and I think we are at least a year from that point), it might be worth looking again into the possibility of Good Lists. —WFC— TFL notices 20:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
I think of an FL as about like a "good" GA (not some buddy signoff, but one of the ballbuster FA-lite ones). I would not say that it is just prose either, but some of the FLs still have messy tables or poor choices in table versus prose versus bullets, or comprehensiveness and facts. Not saying this to be negative. Just my quick view. Some of them of course are stunning (like the list of Lemurs...actually better than the somewhat similar FA on Lemur taxonomy)!TCO (reviews needed) 21:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Urgent suggestion - List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar

There is a strong possibility that Sachin Tendulkar will score his 100th international cricket century during the current series against England. It would seem to me to be worth having List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar on standby so that it can be slotted in at TFL as quickly as possible if and when he reaches that landmark. Thoughts? BencherliteTalk 06:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't usually be in favour of this sort of queue jumping. But given that there will never be a better opportunity to run that list, I'm on board. —WFC— TFL notices 12:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

One small move to declutter the main page?

It would need consensus here on a matter I've raised but not pushed with TFA (I don't think the issue got through to them, except there was one direct and favourable comment): do we really need to clutter the bottom of the blurb with direct links to three past TFLs as well as a link to the month's archives?

"Recently featured: People with hepatitis C – Rawlings Gold Glove Award – Female United States Cabinet Secretaries" could just be removed, with "Archive" changed to "The month's archives".

If you can imagine this version with "This month's archives" instead of the cryptic "Archive", against the existing version.

Just a thought. Tony (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

One day hopefully, but not today. A large minority of Wikipedians are still ignorant about the quality and diversity of lists that TFL is running, as evidenced by the recent main page RfC. Because doing ten seconds' worth of research is not a prerequisite to an opinion being taken seriously on this site, I see no option but to continue ramming recently featured lists down these peoples throats until it is clear that the entire community knows what we're about. —WFC— TFL notices 13:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Caps

How about having the submission page look like WP:FLC, i.e. with capped entries? bamse (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. It could increase load times for the page but I live in a modern era of decent broadband. Others may not...! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Not essential, was just wondering since there are more TFL submissions than entries at FLC. bamse (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Today" to "This week"

Since we assign TFLs by week instead of day, can we change "Today's featured list" to "This week's featured list"? Apologies if this has been discussed before. Ragettho (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a bit misleading since the FL only stays up for one day, not a whole week. — KV5 • Talk • 11:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
And we'd like, in due course, to expand to more than one day a week, so we'd need a name change at that point, probably back to Today's featured list.. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
But why do you post a TFL for only one day? Can't you just keep the TFL box on the main page every day, and just change the featured list when you're ready? Ragettho (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
It was a community-wide decision. Many dozens of people got involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

State reptiles

Could we get it moved up in queue?TCO (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank FL peeps, "State reptile" on the front page

Thanks, FL program.TCO (Reviews needed) 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy call

Hi, everyone. Just back from a four-month wikibreak so I thought I'd pop by TFL to wish everyone here a happy new year. I'm pleased to see TFL still going strong and doubly pleased that one of my lists has been queued for a Main Page appearance soon. Best wishes, all. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

April 1: discussion initiated

Interested parties may wish to contribute here. Kevin McE (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but TFL is only on one day a week and it's not 1 April so there's nothing for us to worry about. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, our place, on the 2nd, is currently slated to feature List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft. Hardly a barrel of (hidden, or otherwise) laughs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
April 1st, 2013 is Monday, though. Perhaps TFL could start preparing for it already? 88.148.249.186 (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Good one. Indeed, by April 2013, TFL would be looking to be more than a once-a-week experience. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Renaming and re-stylizing Today's Featured List?

Sometimes, I'm tired about waiting for "Today's Featured List" every Monday.

Rather than "Today's Featured List", how about "This Week's Featured List", so it can appear for every seven days until the next Featured List? In other words, this week's Featured List, List of national parks of the United States, can appear during the whole week (March 5–11, 2012) rather than only Monday, March 5, 2012; would this help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 21:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

  • A knee-jerk comment – I think running featured lists more than once a week (say twice) is certainly a viable prospect right now, we've outdone the Today's featured article a couple of times lately with page views, and we've kept our standards high. We still need more reviewers, as do all of the featured processes, but we have a reasonable amount of backlogged FLs to manage two a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced this is the right place for this discussion. As this would affect the Main Page, and the FL RFC was originally done there, shouldn't this be at Talk:Main Page? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    Should I move this discussion or add notice there? --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    I'd move it there, personally - a notice there will be archived relatively quickly and might be archived before discussion here ends. BencherliteTalk 22:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    Since I'm undecisive, let's wait for administrators to decide. --George Ho (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Never mind. I'm afraid mass support on this proposal would inspire substantial changes, such as "WP:This week's featured list/<subpage name, such as April 2012>". I must say; I will add notice in Talk:Main Page soon. --George Ho (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    I'll be honest and say I have no idea what you're trying to express with that statement. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    Sorry, I haven't clarified enough. How about this: "Yes, this proposal may affect "Main page", but this discussion is better suitable here than for Talk:Main page because, even though the proposal may affect the Main page, it affects this Wikipedia page, as well." I hope it clarifies more, doesn't it? --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    I disagree. You're proposing a major change to Main Page (affecting the Wikipedia community at large), which far outweighs the minor (and localized) change that you describe above. —David Levy 03:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
  • ITN's frequent stagnancy is an unfortunate problem, not something that we should seek to emulate. I strongly oppose the idea of purposely retaining dynamic content for seven days.
    The idea is to start with one day and branch out, just as we did with featured pictures (which originally appeared only on weekends). As discussed above, it's possible that featured lists will expand to a second day in the near future.
    Also, the original plan called for featured sounds to share the space. (This has been put on hold, but it remains a long-term goal.)
    TFL is a worthy addition to the main page, and I support the current approach. —David Levy 03:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    What's wrong with displaying the same Featured List for seven days? I thought searching for "[Monday's] Featured List" is inconvenient for general readers after Monday. I'm too lazy to remember what Monday's Featured List is or to search any Featured List. And I remember it is some list of forests, but I don't need to go through the OP to remember what Monday's FL is, do I? --George Ho (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    May I re-insert "Consensus" heading again; why was it necessarily removed? --George Ho (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    What's wrong with displaying the same Featured List for seven days?
    As noted above, stagnancy is undesirable.
    The featured list isn't occupying space that otherwise goes to waste; it pushes down the featured picture, which shouldn't be done without a good reason. Displaying featured content for the standard day is a good reason. Displaying the same material for six additional days is not.
    If readers see that the section is stale, some might not bother to scroll past it to the featured picture.
    May I re-insert "Consensus" heading again; why was it necessarily removed?
    You described the subsection with the text "vote and argument together here", which are basic elements of discussion (i.e. this section). Consensus is a result of discussion.
    What distinction are you attempting to draw? —David Levy 09:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    What distinction are you attempting to draw?
    ...Editing convenience; see Talk:It's Great to Be Alive (disambiguation).
    It pushes down the featured picture, which shouldn't be done without a good reason
    Why does Featured List appear above Featured Picture instead of below? Or a sidebar, like "In the News"?
    If readers see that the section is stale, some might not bother to scroll past it to the featured picture.
    If Featured List could appear above Featured Picture in Monday, can it appear as a sidebar or the same just below Featured Picture or the very bottom of Main Page in other days? --George Ho (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    ...Editing convenience; see Talk:It's Great to Be Alive (disambiguation).
    That labeling is confusing too. I still don't understand what distinction is supposed to exist between the misleadingly named "Consensus" section and the one directly above it.
    Why does Featured List appear above Featured Picture instead of below?
    Both options were considered. The prevailing rationales were:
    1) The featured list is primarily textual, so it makes sense for it to appear alongside the other primarily textual sections (instead of being separated from them by the featured picture, thereby making the featured list seem like a tacked-on afterthought).
    2) Readers are accustomed to seeing the featured picture, so they know to scroll past the featured list to find it. Conversely, if the featured list were to appear below the featured picture, many readers might not realize that it exists.
    Or a sidebar, like "In the News"?
    That isn't feasible without removing or adding a section.
    If Featured List could appear above Featured Picture in Monday, can it appear as a sidebar or the same just below Featured Picture or the very bottom of Main Page in other days?
    That would be highly confusing. We aim to maintain as much consistency as possible. That's why the plan calls for the extra section (either the featured list or the featured sound) to simply come and go without otherwise affecting the everyday sections' placement. (An alternative proposal, which entailed modifying the usual layout on certain days, was rejected.) —David Levy 10:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    I still don't understand what distinction is supposed to exist between the misleadingly named "Consensus" section and the one directly above it.
    Split "Discussion" into "Comments" and "Consensus"? Any other ideas? --George Ho (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
    I still don't understand what distinction is supposed to exist between the two sections.
    Again, consensus is an outcome of discussion, not a type of discussion. Editors' comments contribute to the consensus-building process. —David Levy 11:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

Rescheduling

I guess the list of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar was specially assigned as this week's featured list in response to the player's recent achievement, but shouldn't that rearrangement be reflected at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/March 2012? --Theurgist (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and it is (it's simply transcluding the same template as the mainpage) so I guess you need to purge your cache. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Tme to look again at how lists go through TFL?

I've argued multiple times for the (admittedly complicated) idea of trying to integrate TFL and FLRC, on the basis that a common goal of both should be identifying and where necessary improving lists so that we can be proud of showcasing them to the world.

While accepting that this is unlikely to happen, I nonetheless think we need to look at TFL, and in particular TFLS, as a matter of urgency. Every time I go on the submissions page, I feel that anything I could do would be futile. Even if we somehow attracted the same level of attention as FLC, there is too much ground to cover. Furthermore, I'm sure I'm not the only one who questions the extent to which other people read contributions there, and therefore whether they are making a difference to the end product. That's not a criticism of anyone, it's just a result of lots of ground and not a lot of people. The result has unfortunately been that I'm spending less and less time on TFL, because even I – someone who played a big part in getting the thing lauched – am not sure where my time would be most effectively spent.

And yet despite that, in terms of volume I feel that we are nearly ready to expand TFL to multiple days per week.

The clincher in my opinion will be demonstrating that we are using our manpower effectively, and would not struggle with the extra volume. That means using what we have more efficiently; ensuring that the vast majority of work that goes into TFL translates directly into lists ending up on the Main Page, and that where we come across lists that are not good enough, we are doing something about it.

Again recognising that most people do not want TFL and FLRC to go anywhere near each other, I do have a simpler idea of how we might streamline, but wanted to first see if my opinions above are shared by others. Otherwise, I would simply be proposing a change for change's sake. —WFC— 18:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey WFC. Thanks for your feedback. I guess my natural instinct here is to say that while I've sort of selected every main page list, it shouldn't mean that's how should happen. I have my suggestions which I've followed lately with a couple of successes and some failures (in terms of page hits) but in general the TFL concept has woven neatly into the main page. It's good to become part of the furniture on the main page, and then move on from there (which I certainly hope we can do).
Integrating TFL and FLRC as a process seems, in my mind, a step too far. It's certainly fair to say that nominations at TFL that clearly are out-dated should be listed at FLRC (as I did recently with List of winners of the Mathcounts competition) and it certainly is a good step to re-evaluate our lists regularly, TFL being a good sideline vessel for that.
One issue I have with the submissions page is that we have little traffic over there. User:Neelix has done an admirable job of creating blurbs for numerous lists, but it's up to the community to review the lists for suitability and that's not happening. We barely have sufficient reviewers for FLC right now. I don't know what to do about that.
WFC, I'm interested in any proposal you have, but given the slimming down of reviewers and contributors we have at FLC (same is true over at FAC), we need to be judicious how we would implement anything new while keeping current and encouraging new reviewers (although I'm sure you've already considered that!). The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
On that last point, certainly, and apologies for mistitling this thread. I have changed it accordingly. To my knowledge the selection process hasn't caused any problem at all: you pick suitable lists merely in the absence of anyone else doing so. The problem is with the labour-intensity of getting lists from TFLS to the page, the relatively high proportion of lists that go onto TFLS and leave it with nothing happening, and that the size of TFLS is a cause of stagnation.

I think your suggestions page has been a great success. In 2012 only two lists have garnered fewer than 5,000 hits. Scientific publications by Albert Einstein was a difficult sell to a mainstream audience and had little real date relevance. It's the sort of list that we should post, and be proud of posting, regardless of hit count. 1936 Winter Olympics held up respectably compared to previous sports lists. We should in my opinion formalise that page as part of the revised TFL process (move it from your userspace). I'll outline my proposal below so that we can continue this discussion about what we're trying to achieve. —WFC— 22:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

WFC's vision

In a nutshell, my aim is for us to concentrate on a smaller number of lists at any given time. This should mean that we put more scrutiny and work into individual lists, and that a higher proportion of the work we do directly results in a great list going onto the Main Page. Below I'll run through in detail how I suggest we do this without increasing the workload.

  1. The starting point should be to pick the lists we intend to run. Quality checking is very important, but I don't think it should be the first step. In theory any list we select, while it might need work due to the likes of link rot and updated standards, should not be a million miles away from the standards we expect at TFL. If we start looking at a list and decide that it is a million miles away, we need to ask whether it should continue to be featured at all.

    I therefore propose that User:The Rambling Man/tfl becomes a formal part and starting point of the TFL process. That page is true to the founding principles of TFL: it's simple and open forum. The page would need to be adjusted slightly to be used for this purpose: we can look at that if this wider idea garners support.

  2. We should schedule lists six weeks in advance, and do the blurb drafting and quality work on the scheduled page. For instance, the blurb draft of List of Manchester United F.C. players which initially took place at TFLS would instead be done at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/March 26, 2012, and discussion on the list's quality would take place at the associated talk page.

    I think scheduling six weeks in advance is a decent timeframe. It strikes a good balance between ensuring that we do not do quality checking by the seat of our pants, giving reviewers/editors a degree of confidence that their work will have a direct impact on the Main Page, and ensuring that we are not working on so many lists at a time that the system collapses under its own weight. There is little need to schedule further in advance, because a tentative, longer term schedule would remain at User:The Rambling Man/tfl.

    This approach could result in the page being created before a blurb is actually drafted, but I don't see this as a bad thing. A list which has nothing but a skeleton {{TFLcontent}} template clearly needs a lot of work done on it. —WFC— 22:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

  3. We should keep WP:TFLPREP, and only add to it one or two lists at a time. 13 pre-reviewed, backup lists from a diverse range of subjects is adequate, but we need a method of replenishing it, and in principle there is no reason to limit that stockpile to 13. If we decide that we want to increase our stock of backups, we should suggest one list at a time, review one list at a time, improve one list at a time, accept/reject one list at a time, and rinse and repeat as desired. I would suggest informally handing control of that review slot to Neelix: he/she is brilliant at identifying diverse lists, writing blurbs, and making whatever improvements the reviewers deem necessary. I would also suggest creating a blank review slot: the intention being that we ordinarily don't use it, but that it's there if a newcomer to the process wants a particular list reviewed. The slightly tweaked TFL prep would look something like this.
  4. We should close WP:TFLS to new submissions, slowly work on the remaining lists, and eventually delete it. Obviously a lot of work has gone into the lists currently at TFLS, and we should salvage every last piece of that. The preload and elements of the introductory text might also be suitable for recycling elsewhere. But going forward it would be redundant to User:The Rambling Man/tfl and WP:TFLPREP.

Thoughts? —WFC— 22:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think there's a lot of merit in the ideas above, particularly if TFL is to expand beyond one day per week. In particular, I think that newly promoted lists should be at a level of quality where they are appropriate for the main page; if not, that should be detected during FLC. My one real concern is that switching to a system like the one in TRM's userspace could mean that TFL will mainly consist of lists significant for the date chosen. While I think having such lists run occasionally has improved TFL, I don't believe they should be the only lists that ever run. All FLs should have the chance to be on the main page, barring issues like serious BLP concerns. That's what I think, at least. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Not that I particularly care for this editor's incoherent ramblings, but since the TFL project is mentioned in this discussion, it's worth dropping a notification here. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_list/Archive_1&oldid=1089829825"