Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Featured list director

Two leaders of the pack so far

Looks like Scorpion and Rambling Man are both leading the pack pretty clearly. Gary King (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Watchlisted

I'm a little late to the party, but I've added this page to my watchlist. Raul654 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It probably won't snow, so...

...Scorpion and TRM, I'll be happy to help you chaps in any way I can. Hopefully the list of volunteers I kicked off will be a useful resource for you. --Dweller (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Cart meet horse

Right, so apparently "it has been decided" that we definitely need a featured list director, and we are so keen on the idea that everyone has been voting here to select someone as that person already. Do we actually know what the director is going to do yet?

Can someone please attempt an answer to my questions here which have been virtually ignored now for three days:

• What are the perceived problems with the featured list process as it stands?
• What would a "featured list director" do to solve those problems that cannot be done using existing wiki mechanisms?

And, further:

• Is this a position for life, or for a fixed term? Is there any kind of of recall mechanism?
• What are the tasks, responsibilities, duties, authorities of the role? What can (or must) the director do that no-one else is permitted to do?
• Do the candidates anticipate this role having a positive or negative effect on their input in reviewing candidates at WP:FLC?

It may even be a good idea to create a page somewhere, setting out the answers to these questions, for future reference. Wikipedia:Featured lists/Director, perhaps?-- Testing times (talk) 22:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comments; they were fair questions, but I was reluctant to interact because you sounded so angry. However, you're right you shouldn't have been ignored, so apologies from me.

There are many problems with FL that we've been chewing over for some time. Some can be seen by scanning recent threads at Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. Others that I'm aware of emerged during the difficulties we had over the recall debate over the List of Arsenal F.C. players. As I perceive it, the problems roughly break into a few different areas:

1. the FL criteria need work as they are flawed for various reasons
2. there's a lack of quantity of participation in FLC debates
3. there are concerns about the quality of participation in FLC debates
4. there are concerns about the "automatic" promotion or rejection of lists because no human is assessing the quality of support/objects

As you can see, that's quite a lot of serious problems. Appointing a Director/Directors will help address all but the first of these points (Points 2/3 are helped because Directors will be able to call for assistance with review without breaching WP:CANVASS).

I think some of the calls for 2 Directors rather than 1 were prompted by trying to avoid some of the criticism that's flung in Raul's direction. Also, to share the workload.

Finally, I'd add that no-one can fully anticipate how the Directors will settle into their role because no doubt they'll develop it as time goes on. It looks likely it'll be Scorpion and TRM doing the job and I think they've zoomed into substantial leads in the polling (with 1 oppose between them IIRC) because we trust 'em to do a great job. --Dweller (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your helpful responses, User:Dweller, and my apologies for sounding angry before. Clearly I was writing with more passion than I intended.

In relation to the points that you raise:

1. the criteria can be changed (indeed, there is a discussion now about that very thing at Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria, which began in the absence of a director)
2. I am not at all clear how creating the position of "director" (and, perforce, for reasons of propriety, preventing one or more of the most active participants at WP:FLC from active reviewing in the cases that the close) helps to improve participation.
3. Ditto. How would a director improve the "quality" of participation?
4. Is promotion/rejection really as automatic as you suggest? I suspect that the current FLC closers are indeed assessing the quality of support/oppose votes. If not, they should be. Indeed, I would expect the FLC closer to be forming a view as to the quality of the list themselves, and chip in (and/or extend the debate) if they thought the discussion had reached the wrong answer. Again, if this is not happening, it should be.

I'd still be interested in responses from others, particular the candidates. -- Testing times (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Putting my neck on the line here, it's interesting that since this debate has raged on a bit, promotions seem to have stalled and people have become more reticent to offer support. I think Tony's exacting standards (I know, Tony, they're not beyond the wit of man but still...) have worried a few contributors and a few afficianados of FLC. People are nervous to support now as they're probably anticipated Tony coming along a little later with a strong oppose due to flaws in the basics, namely grammar and MOS. Rightly or wrongly, we may, all of us, have been guilty over the past few months of seeing FLC as an easy touch compared with FAC. And as Tony pointed out some weeks ago that there's no reason for this discrepancy in quality.

A few editors have pointed out that, should I be placed in the position of FLD then my participation will dramatically reduce. Not so. I think two things should happen sooner rather than later - firstly, editors should be encouraged to take their lists to PR first. User:Ruhrfisch and I (amongst a host of others) have been working hard on ensuring that no article go more than three days without substantial comment. This would help lists coming here to be scrutinised for quality of content rather than the several dozen lines of MOS breaches we see for virtually every list. Secondly, regardless of the perceived "neutrality" of a director, why couldn't a director provide guidance and assistance in meeting the newly agreed criteria? At the moment, the standardised "4 passes, 10 days" rule just doesn't work the way it should, and people at various Wikiprojects, including some with whom I have been involved will happily pile on support and then sit back and wait. And until Tony came along, people were naturally more reticent to go against the general consensus, stick their necks out and say "no, actually, oppose, despite the six supports from all the Wikiproject members who came here because they knew this list was waiting...".

As Dweller points out, calling for additional resources to improve quality by a director would be a valid and neutral move. After all, everyone wants the quality of these articles to improve. That may not directly answer any of the points raised above, but I think it kind of represents my opinion on the whole shooting match. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, The Rambling Man. While not quite precisely addressing all of my questions, that is the sort of thoughtful response I was looking for. I am slightly worried that no-one else (particularly the other director candidates) thinks my questions are worth considering. Perhaps they have expressed their views on these issues in other places, and I have just missed them. Well, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

For what it is worth, I think WP:FLC has worked perfectly adequately without a director, and would continue to do so without one. I also suspect that WP:FAC would work perfectly adequately without a director (relying instead on the settled consensus of the involved editors), and a director would not be appointed now if there was not one already. Perhaps the only reason that Raul654 retains that position is that he (and his various delegates) do such a good job :) I just don't see the need to place grand hats on peoples' heads. -- Testing times (talk) 07:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Omitted nominess

Personally, I would have nominated User:Sephiroth BCR who has the second most WP:FLs and User:Circeus. Is it too late to do so?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Sephiroth said he "was mulling about nominating myself (considering that I've successfully nominated twenty-six FLs), but I feel my focus is too narrowly restricted to anime episode lists" and Circeus hasn't been involved in the process in quite some time. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 20:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as you being a co-FLD, you are a good choice. I know you and I have sniped a bit over the future of WP:LOTD and WP:LOTM, but that aside you are a fine choice. Since I did not see Sephiroth as either withdrawn or declined, I was asking about him because he would have been a strong dcontender for my support.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)