Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list proposal/Proposal 1

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

Survey[edit]

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the proposal[edit]

  1. Support as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, I think this is a very good proposal. I'm surprised that lists aren't currently featured on the main page, so it makes sense. GreenJoe 20:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support - The whole idea of working with a list to take it to Featured List status should be to having it featured on the main page, the fact that they currently aren't makes the work and effort of these editors pretty much redundant. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: should we also have featured topics, featured sounds, and featured portals on the main page? The main page isn't to feature some subset of whatever category of content we invent, it's to present readers with a glimpse of what we are and provide them with useful information. I don't think that lists, topics, sounds, or portals represent Wikipedia nearly as well as what currently appears on the main page. --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds and topics have not reached sufficient scale where this is close to being a viable option. I think portals still has a way to go before they have a sufficient scale, but they are closer.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure Portals would be widely accepted once the main 8 portals on the Main page are all features
  4. Mostly support: I like the idea of having a space on the main page for featured lists (why wouldn't we when we have featured pictures and articles there?), however I am not sure about the voting process. I would be more in favour of the way TFA was run before all the non-specific date requests were removed. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 22:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I like Sample2. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - I think it's a good idea. Editors work hard to get lists up to Featured standard, and once they are that standard, they should actually be "featured" on the main page. I think the layout at WP:FC is fine. If a reader is interested in the list, they get a taster of it and will click on the link to read the whole thing. --BelovedFreak 22:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support - I think it's an excellent and long overdue idea. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:33, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - This seems like a great idea to me. Featured lists have gone through a rigorous process to reach their status just as FAs and FPs have, so I don't see why they should not also receive daily recognition as Featured content on the main page. Rai-me 00:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - I completely believe this is a necessary evelopment. Though there is only a small number of these right now, the prestige, as it were, of having one's article placed on the front page bolsters the popularity of improving to features article status and lists should garner the same support as lists are equally invaluable to the encyclopedia's volume. I do understand there might be teething issues due to the low number in place presently, but believe this will promote improvement of the lists, rather than decrease the quality of the lists already present. --lincalinca 10:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I am strongly supportive of there being a main page space for FLs. I am neutral on the idea of voting etc. I certainly don't object if there are those who would wish to participate in this, but I doubt I'd find the time myself. Thanks to T the T and Co for putting so much thought into the concept. Ben MacDui (Talk) 13:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. The main opposition seems to deal with minor implementation concerns, rather than the idea and the proposal. -- Wikipedical 19:10, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment On the one hand, I wish WP's other featured content got a little more attention. I myself didn't realize there were such things as featured lists, sounds, and so on, until after I started contributing actively. On the other hand, I too am worried about implementation and usefulness. I think if someone could make a mock-up of how the main page would look with a featured list, and a mock up of how the nomination and selection process would work, and perhaps even try it out at the sandbox level, that would go a long way to convincing people to support the idea. Jeff Dahl 19:50, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support It took me a little while to figure out what was going on at the WP:LOTDP, but I am reasonably convinced that it would work. I'm somewhat convinced that adding the FL box to the mainpage as it now appears on the FC page, or with some minor modifications, will also work. WP needs to do a better job of promoting its featured content, and this will help do that. As long as WP:LOTDP can have a heading that makes it easier to understand, and as long as the administrator duties can be handled, and the formatting issues on LOTDP worked out (which there are a few), it is feasable. Jeff Dahl 20:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support (though alternatively I would also support a List of the Week). Ben Finn 20:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Has an example page been made to see what it would look like on the main page? Chris_huhtalk 21:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I don’t know if you noticed that it was pointed out that WP:FC already has a featured list section. A few hundred lists have been layed out in excerpted format. What we would probably see is a section at the bottom of the main page using the work that has already been done for starters.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 13:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ok, so it would look something like this? Chris_huhtalk 15:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but there is some talk of another format at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Featured_lists_on_the_Main_Page. I think details of the format should be ironed out later if we can get this idea approved in theory.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at this, it is the best I have seen so far: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_lists#This_month.27s_featured_list IvoShandor 19:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not as good as Chris' above that demonstrates the whole main page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I think it will be a good idea to have it on the main page like POTD, i don't think there is really any lack of space on the main page, as it just adds to the bottom. Dunno about voting yet but that is something that should be decided once it has been decided to have it on the main page anyway. Chris_huhtalk 00:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support, but display a link only, and schedule them in the order they received featured status - the same as pic of the day. The Transhumanist    22:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support: I think it's a great idea. -- Underneath-it-All 23:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - I've thought about this before and think it's long overdue. BsroiaadnLet's Go Devils! 00:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support: I like the idea of featured lists getting more exposure; the manner of choosing does not really matter to me.--Legionarius 01:13, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. I think having featured lists on the main page is a great idea, but all the checks and balances involved in the proposed selection method are unnecessarily confusing. Still, that's a side issue. Chwech 11:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. I assumed such a process existed when a list I nominated was promoted. I searched everywhere so I could immediately submit a request for a specific day like one can do for a featured article. I was even prepared to submit the list on the FA request and just hope someone would understand what I really wanted. I now know why my search was futile, so I think it's a great idea.--Ccson 14:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support in theory I would like a featured list of the day/week because it will encourage more people to work on lists, but I don't like all the buroacracy and voting this method has. The Placebo Effect 01:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support the idea of FL of the day; the Project should show off some of its more almanac-like articles. I would rather it look like Sample2, the exerts of the list are a bit cluttered. I think the voting is unnecessary, though there is nothing wrong with it. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Good idea. Lara❤Love 16:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - I'd love to see FLs on the main page (assuming they'd fit). Although, I dislike the idea of the voting system, and would prefer something similar to the one used for TFA. Gran2 17:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - There's enough lists for there to be one, and it would be an interesting new feature. Xihix 20:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - Why Not? - People have worked hard to have lists raised to FL status. Therefore the lists should be featured on the main page. I prefer the abbreviated text format and the non-selective first in line calendar approach, but won't get too wound up if it goes the other way. Good idea, hope it works. Dincher 20:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support, Lists are very important because not only do they provide information but they provide a link to other articles increasing the likelihood that they will be expanded and/or improved.--Southern Texas 21:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey - in opposition to the proposal[edit]

  1. Oppose because voting will fail to choose the best 30 lists each month. You need a huge number of voters in order to rank 30+ items. Look at Round 1 of Commons:Picture of the Year/2006. That had hundreds of voters yet by #17 it failed to rank precisely. Add to this the fatigue after the best 30, 60, 90 lists have already been chosen. I don't believe voters will have the time and patience to seriously review the 30+ lists on offer each month. It is quite a bit less pleasurable than rating pretty photographs. Voting on WP is generally discouraged, can be divisive and can be manipulated.
    My suggestion, should a LOTD meet community approval, is that initially we adopt the Commons' Picture of the Day procedure (as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong). A calendar one or two months ahead is created and editors simply insert an FL into a vacant slot. Add a few informal guidelines to discourage bunching lists of one topic together. As with TFA and POTD, a list gets one shot at glory. A simple and crude method of encouraging fair play would be to disallow an editor from inserting their own list. This approach is far more in keeping with the Wiki spirit than the present LOTD proposal or the TFA method. It requires very little house keeping or administrative actions. Colin°Talk 20:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am not sure I understand your opposition, but I don't think any system is perfect (not even Raul). I would be quite happy if this system got the best 16 right. I think that there are dozens of people who are concerned enough about main page content to cast three votes on a few dozen candidates.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, at least until I can see an example of what the main page would look like after such a change is made. I remember this was proposed a few months ago on Talk:Main Page (see last version of the discussion here), my concerns from then still stand. Articles can be summarized, pictures can be resized. How does one summarize a list while still retaining the list-ness of it and not just cutting off the list and using the lead section as a summary (which IMO defeats the purpose of putting lists on the main page)? By putting it in list form, its about as summarized as it gets. Even if we use tiny font, lists like List of California birds and most other FLs will be extremely long to put the whole thing on. Also, I don't like the idea of voting on it, especially since it will have to be done daily. Mr.Z-man 20:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You may have missed my point below that the formatting has already been layed out at WP:FC. You can see examples of what the FL main page section will look like by looking at that page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would still oppose that. It just seems ... odd ... to summarize a list with 275 rows with just the first 3. It just seems like trying to summarize a novel with the first chapter. Mr.Z-man 21:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would imagine if you don't like that format there is nothing that would make you support lists being on the main page. If you feel lists should get their day in the sun on the main page, that is the best we are likely to be able to do.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm in opposition to the proposal; the featured lists should be combined into Today's featured article, and perhaps, have one or two featured lists a week and the rest featured articles, or something similar (e.g. list, article, article, list). The idea of voting on a list of the day sounds even worse. Don't get me wrong, it sounds like a great idea to have featured lists appear on the main page, and people put as much effort into working on lists as working on an article with the potential to become featured in the near future. But voting for it, and creating a whole new section for lists, especially when there are limited spaces for content on the main page, doesn't appeal to me. ~ Sebi [talk] 22:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Having small excerpts of lists on the Main Page would be unattractive and fill a disproportionately large amount of space. 17Drew 01:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. I'm not fundamentally opposed to the idea of somehow including featured lists on the main page. However, I agree with 17Drew that list extracts would be both unattractive and space consuming there. Also I don't think voting is the way to select high-quality content. Espresso Addict 01:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. I've created several featured lists, and I don't think they should go on the main page. While featured lists do represent the best of Wikipedia's lists, I don't believe that they necessarily represent the best of Wikipedia's content (some do, certainly, but not nearly as high a percentage as featured articles, for example). Featured lists are already covered on the featured content page; I see no need to attempt to cram an example of every feature category onto the main page. --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Opposte - I need to be clear: I don't have any problem with including featured lists on the main page. I have a problem with everything else about this proposal. This is absurdly bureaucratic, with the voting for three articles and the list of the year and everything. Do whatever the FA does, and I'm cool with that. Atropos 02:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Voting a featured list to be displayed on main page every single day for 365 days in a year sounds too complicated to me. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:56, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose the way this is implemented. I don't mind seeing FLs on the Main Page, but not under this procedure. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 03:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose- I would whole heartedly support the incorporation of featured lists to be featured on the mainpage somehow, either as part of the featured article main page system or some other system. Judgesurreal777 03:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - I absolutely support having featured lists on the main page, but I don't think that this is the way to go about selecting them. Majority rule does not always produce desirable results and can be unnecessarily tedious. TonytheTiger says he wants quality lists to be featured. First, since they are featured, aren't they already supposed to be of a high quality? Second, I would worry that voting would favor those who have the time and/or inclination to constantly vote. I certainly don't have the time to conscientiously read through the lists and vote. Third, would "majority rule" favor certain topics? Undoubtedly. Fourth, the main page should be diversified as much as possible. This is hard enough to achieve. We need to find a way to make it easier, not harder. Just some thoughts. Having an occasional "featured list" instead of a "featured article" seems like one good option, although I like the idea of offering readers a variety on a daily basis, if we can really sustain that. To me "DYK" and "On this day" are too similar to really merit all the space they get. Awadewit | talk 19:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Very strong oppose - As with a number of people, I'm not opposed to the idea of having a FL on the Main Page. However this proposal is confusing, unnecessarily complicated and generally a bad idea. Voting is a surefire way to increase canvasing, systemic bias, and pointless bickering. Having a 'dictiorial' (or whatever you want to call it) director or going by time of promotion may seem unfair and has it's problems but it's far better then this voting proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nil Einne (talk • contribs) 02:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - As above. I am not at all opposed to having lists featured on the main page, however the way of selecting them is unnecessarily complicated. The way that FA's re selected works fine. Just do the same for lists. .....Todd#661 02:18, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose I really dislike the idea of regular voting. As somebody who has successfully worked on many FLs, I think having a "today's featured list" really isn't necesssary. A lot of peoples rationale seems to boil down to "Articles and pictures are on the main page, so so should lists", but isn't the main page just supposed to be a sort of introduction to Wikipedia. It would also make the page longer than necessary and if you confine the lists just to leads, some FLs only have a couple sentences of text. -- Scorpion0422 04:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose As many above, FLs don't belong on the Main Page. The space they would take up and the unnecessary regular voting would not be worth the trouble, as Z-Man points out, that a list is not a list when it is summarised into an intro with a few rows of list content so that it can fit onto the Main Page. •97198 talk 05:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I don’t know if you noticed that it was pointed out that WP:FC already has a featured list section. A few hundred lists have been layed out in excerpted format. What we would probably see is a section at the bottom of the main page using the work that has already been done for starters.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 13:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose For now. Is there an example anywhere of how the main page would look with a featured list included? Also, I believe the voting system proposed is going to be more trouble then it's worth. I'd be much happier with a system similar to that for Today's Featured Article. With a Bureaucrat or Admin that decides on the list, with suggestions from the community. Any voting system is going to favour certain topics (for example the large number of music, tv and sports related lists) and also certain regions (ie those with more Wikipedians). I'd prefer we vote for a Today's Featured List Director, and then have a system analogous to TFA. - Shudde talk 03:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose While I like the idea I don't think there is a large enough pool of articles to draw from at this point. A large portion of the list is lists of tv show episodes, list of various sporting teams/championships, list of artists discographies. Yes there are 400 featured lists but I'm not sure how many of that 400 would be worth putting on the front page. A minority of the list would be of interest to anyone outside a small fan base. Maybe once there are more featured lists this could be a little more appealing. 05:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridernyc (talk • contribs)
    Comment First, a quick look at WP:FL shows wide variety. Second, we surely have as much variety as WP:TFA did when it started with 200 articles.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    First don't compare FL, To FA. They are not the same. Second I have looked at the list, the list is very lopsided. Tons of sports lists, but then a subject like chemistry which to me seems like a perfect category for lists only has a few entries. Sorry I Just see the majority of FL at this time being worth putting in the spotlight the way you are proposing. They just are not interesting to anyone outside of there small fanbases. I really don't care about lists of anime episodes and lists of criket teams. Even the Simposons which I'm a huge fan of, sorry don't see why a list of every episodes would be of interest to anyone. Ridernyc 20:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL. The List of The Simpsons episodes was viewed 131,647 times per day according to WikiCharts, making it the 54th most popular page. Other lists come higher still Colin°Talk 21:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    yes thanks to google I bet alot of list list get tons of hits. Still don't see them as being compelling enough to go on the main page. Everyone looks at the TV listings in the newspaper but they don't put them on the front page. 02:23, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Just nominate FL for occasional use on the main page in the FA slot or a temporary FL spot. Suggest six to for consideration, and see what happens to editing activity on them after front page appearance. (SEWilco 21:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Discussion[edit]

We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might be high-time to put featured lists on the main page, but I don't think voting on list of the year, etc. is plausible (nor workable) at this point-in-time. I might suggest limiting this proposal to getting a daily List of the Day (Today's Featured List... whatever you want to call it) on the Main Page. Just my glorious opinion. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am with Ali'i here. I think we should have some sort of FL one the main page although if i remember rightly, it was considered at one time not able to hold the readers attention like an article can. Whilst i agree that we should have something (how you fit it in is another question), i think the voting system is a bit convoluted for my liking. I think it just needs an administrator willing to accpet the same role that Raul currently does for TFA. Thats my two cents. Woodym555 20:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If people think list of the year is too much that part of the process can be removed. However, if a LOTD is feasible, a LOTY is a lot easier to do because it would only be 12 lists we have already looked closely at. You could easily vote Support without LOTY for example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the calendar idea similar to that of the POTD. GreenJoe 20:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that is a much better idea. Simply have a "Featured List director" (I think this was mentioned somewhere... maybe even you Tiger-like Tony) to line up a daily Featured List. Or, if you want it to be more wiki-like, just open a calendar, and let people populate it with their favorite Featured List. And it gets to be highlighted on the Main Page. Give a space for any objections to a certain list on a certain day (as you might find on the Main Page errors board every now and again), and make them easily interchanged. I don't think people will have many objections as long as lists are not often repeated, nor similar topics being showcased over and over again. I just don't think voting on a List of the Day/Month/Year is that good of an idea. E kala mai. --Ali'i 21:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept such responsibility, but think there are many others qualified and also feel a democratic process would be better. I think you would be surprised at how well it works. As I have mentioned I have done it at WP:CHICAGO to select the Category:Top-importance Chicago articles. It works out pretty well. However, I gather you prefer a non-democratic process, but think list are ready for the main page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is all too complicated... why can't you just lump in Featured Lists in the current Today's Featured Article pool? There is not that much screen space available on the Main Page, so having a FL fill in a few slots in TFA should do the job... Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 21:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and the whole "vote for the list" system isn't something that I personally wouldn't feel comfortable using as the system for choosing what goes on the main page; if anything, it should be a discussion, or a featured list director should be appointed (like Raul654) who will choose what goes where, and when. Combining lists and articles under Today's featured article (perhaps a name change, uh, Today's featured content, or something) seems like the better alternative. ~ Sebi [talk] 22:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even think Raul is interested in FLs, but I think combining the two roles is probably unorthodox since Raul has not been involved at FLC. It makes sense for him to do TFA because he does FAC, but LOTD would be derived from efforts at FLC where he is uninvolved.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So get another director who's active at FLC, but keep the process the same. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 00:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Raul's primary role as FA director is to close FAC's; I don't think that he would be unable to select pages from the list of Featured Lists, if the community so desires. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A director is unnecessary. Whoever can close FLCs should be able to do a TFL. Having one particular person do it is unnecessary. Atropos 02:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you seriously want to replace an FA with an FL? Think of the readers! The best FLs only have several paragraphs of content, followed by pages and pages of raw information. Plus, we are an encyclopedia—can even the best list truly represent our best work? The FA box introduces readers to our content, and I don't think we have even a dozen featured lists that are comparable to the average featured article. Don't get me wrong, I've created several featured lists, and some of them take a lot of work, pulling information from different sources and all. But at the end of the day, don't we want to introduce ourselves as an encyclopedia of articles, not lists? --Spangineerws (háblame) 02:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in support of the calendar idea, and whoever promotes it (which is pretty much any established, trusted user acting on good faith that isn't directly involved with the article itself) should slot the article in on the next available day; sounds much more reasonable than having a voting system, and as I've just realised, a much better idea than combining them into the featured article queue. ~ Sebi [talk] 04:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I am not sure that a calendar is a good way to pursue the objective of exhibiting the best of Wikipedia. A calendar works on a first come first served basis and is thus not selective. I believe that a selective process where some judgmental process is used to winnow out from an excess of desirous candidates would be better. Using a system where those who are best at gaming the system to be first in line is not the type of selectivity we should be endorsing.
Also, I think that since my proposal requires that all nominating editors cast three votes we should have sufficient revealed preferences to have a credible selective process. I don’t feel that much more than 40 or 50 votes would be necessary to have meaningful results. Suppose we have 40 nominating editors and an additional 10 editors concerned enough with main page content to vote. This should give us 30 good selections. We may need more votes to distinguish the second thiry, but if we have less than 60 candidates, this is not necessary. I think with 75 nominators and 20 or 25 additional interested voters we could credibly distinguish both the top 30 promotions and second 30 renominations. My only concern is about the variation in the types of lists nominated and selected. However, logic dictates that if a guy has worked on 10 hockey lists and only has 3 votes he will not nominate them all in the same month.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 05:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We already have a selective process; it is what selected the Featured List in the first place. These are supposed to "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". I accept that within the FLs there are some that are excellent and some that are merely good. But that sort of distinction could only be ascertained by choosing a small percentage of the whole. So, voting could work for List of the Month or Year (if you get enough participants) should such an award be desirable. At present, there are only just enough lists to fill a year. Even if the promotion rate exceeds 1 per day, each list still has a strong chance of appearing on the Main Page if daily appearance is allowed. What would voting achieve in those circumstances? After a month or two, all the really excellent lists will be chosen. Enthusiasm for the whole thing will rapidly diminish. Even the "merely good" lists will get votes from project members who want to support their own kind.
I estimate that you need at least 3x the number of voters for the quantity of "winners" (so a top 10 needs at least 30 voters, a top 30 needs 90). Very few activities on WP attract 90 regular participants. So the bottom two thirds may achieve a solitary vote (and are effectively then chosen first-come-first-served). We all know voting favours the entries at the top of a list, so even the ones with multiple votes are probably those that got listed early. The end result is that no real selection is going on. It will become trivial to ensure a project votes its own lists onto the page, regardless of merit.
The calendar system has the huge merit of requiring little bureaucracy - it can be supervised much like FLC by the normal non-admin regulars. If the next month's calendar fills up too quickly, then it can be slowed down by requiring a proposer and seconder, or some other lightweight brake.
If you think some of of the Featured Lists don't "exemplify Wikipedia's very best work", then they don't deserve to be on the Main Page. But solving that requires either nominating them for FLRC or else changing the FL criteria. Unlike FA, I'd say it was easier for a list to pass the technical criteria and yet be somewhat underwhelming. If this is a problem, we need to solve it at source rather than introducing a two-tier FL status (those good enough for the main page, and those not). Colin°Talk 15:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am wondering if the lists can be updated 2-3 times per day via a bot. Like for example, a small link to the feature list be changed each time. For example, with the header (today's featured list). Miranda 10:08, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both [WP:TFA]] and WP:POTD have set the precedent of one featured content item per day from their spaces. I don't think it makes sense to try to do more than one a day since this is an international project and different people sleep at different times. 3 a day would mean 8 hours for each item. Suppose you sleep from 11:00 at night until 8:00 in the morning wherever you are. You could miss one by virtue of your location. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should add a comment about the voting. In summary, the debate has demonstrated those supportive of a consensus based selective process (the proposal), a dictatorial selective process (TFA) and a first in line calandar process. I am willing to compromise on any ideas about a consensus based selective process. My idea is intended to identify the 30 most main page worthy candidates and the single best candidate in a single monthly process. It allows for some slippage of deserving candidates into the second 30 who may not have been fully noted at first. That is pretty much a summary of what I am presenting. I am not much worried about the order of selections 2-30. If you have a better idea for a selective consensus based idea, I would probably support that. So far the main objections have come from those in support of the dictatorial and first in line processes as well as a few who don't like the format of lists for the main page however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is only a "consensus based selective process" among reviewers, not editors/nominators, since there is no opportunity for a dialogue between nominator and reviewer, as there is at the FLC stage. This can result in either the list improving and/or the reviewer changing their mind. This is why I'd rather we ensure that only "the best" become FLs rather than accepting dull lists that merely meet some objective criteria. There is enough grief on WP over FA/FL/GA reviewing without introducing another area where people can become sore losers. If all FLs are "the best", then the actual mechanism for fairly displaying them on the main page becomes irrelevant and therefore should be simple and involve the least effort. If the effort involved in this proposed voting system went into reviewing at FLC, we'd have better FLs. Colin°Talk 20:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Comment. For clarification, how does this proposal for FLs specifically differ from the FA system? -- Wikipedical 19:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It involves a complicated voting system with points and voting for multiple items and then a hierarchical advancement to "List of the Month," and "List of the Year." Now the bias... All of this is unheard of in the English Wikipedia and is not really in the spirit of how things are usually run. Atropos 19:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The FA system is dictatorial. One person says what goes on the main page without room for negotiation. This proposal is a consensus based system in which all nominators have the responsibility of casting three votes. The monthly selections are based on the collective consensus, and anyone who is interested may contribute to the decision. In addition, to providing a mechanism to fill out a monthly schedule of LOTDs, this mechanism could be used, if people agree to designate a single best "List of the Month" and possibly "List of the Year."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Dictatorial" is a highly inflammatory word to use. I don't think that a single person needs to be elected or selected to make the decision, but this bureaucracy and voting is completely unnecessary. Atropos 21:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dictatorial is a term the Featured Articles Director, himself, and his cadre use to describe him. I am just using their own term.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 13:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly is there any attempt to achieve consensus in this proposal? All you're doing is counting votes. There is no explaination required for why you're voting the way you vote. The reality is of course it's going to be very difficult to explain why you feel item 1 is better then item 2 most of the time so any consensus based system is inherently flawed. Instead, all you're left with is a simple vote which is prone to increase systemic bias etc as I mentioned above Nil Einne 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong namespace[edit]

Shouldn't this page belong in the project space? I'm going to be bold and move the page to the project space, and if anyone has any problems with it, we can revert and discuss. ~ Sebi [talk] 21:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be moved to Wikipedia:Today's featured list per TFA and TFP. –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that sounds better. ~ Sebi [talk] 00:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Moved. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 03:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it seems[edit]

That there is significant support, thus far for including featured lists in some form on the main page, however, this proposal looks destined for the land of no consensus rejection if we don't decide what to do. First we should feel out how the community feels about FL inclusion on the main page, then we should decide how to do it. Who, participating in this discussion (regardless of all the voting above) would support the simple idea of Featured lists being included on the main page in some form to be decided? IvoShandor 21:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

18 of the 23 who have commented above support lists on the main page. 6 of these 18 do not support this proposal. Of the remaining 5, 3 have oppose out of concern for how featured lists would look on the main page, 1 felt featured lists were not our best work, and 1 opposed this proposal without mentioning an opinion about lists on the main page. It appears that including featured lists on the main page somehow is definitely something many people would like, and I think the first thing we should decide is how that will look, and then we can decide how the lists selected will be chosen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atropos (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support FLs on the main page, but I do not support the voting system. ~ Sebi [talk] 21:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. This proposal, however, is going no where, and fast. I kindly suggest that it be tagged as rejected and the discussion be moved to the Village Pump, where it can be determined if community consensus does in fact exist for such an inclusion (especially among those editors who do not work anywhere near WP:FL. IvoShandor 21:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should split it into 2 discussions, cause right now we're discussing having FL on main page and having a voting process for the lists to be displayed per day. These are separate and should be discussed in 2 different pages. Of course, you need the first discussion to reach an agreement before the second discussion can move forward. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion started[edit]

I started a separate discussion at the Village pump concerning featured lists on the Main Page and consensus, or lackthereof, for their inclusion on the Main Page at all. It can be seen at this subsection. IvoShandor 03:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommendation: Start small like POTD did[edit]

Why all the rush to post a featured list on the Main Page when you can start small and begin to create featured lists of the day right now ASAP? Yes it is true that WP:POTD started in 2004, but they did not appear on the main page until July 2005. In that month, a main page template called Wikipedia:Today's second feature was implemented in which DYK was shown on weekdays and POTDs on weekends. It was not until the current design of the main page, implemented in March 2006, that POTDs started to appear seven days a week.

Furthermore, if there are users who want to create featured lists of the day, but cannot agree on a vote method, you might want to consider how POTDs are chosen: they are selected in the order they were promoted, a rough FIFO order (although we try to not to put pictures of the same subject too close to each other). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposer is somewhat against the idea since he/she feels there needs to be additional selection beyond being a FL. See above... Nil Einne 09:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this - and the featured content portal shows how it can be done. Create a {{lotd}} template, encourage people to add it to their user pages, and see what happens.

There is clearly a substantial body of opinion that featured lists should appear on the main page in some form, although there is some opposition. This kind of proposal could develop a wider consensus, one way or the other.

It goes almost without saying that it is going to be difficult to get wide support for a bureaucratic/"democratic" process, with daily/weekly/monthly votes. -- !! ?? 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, looking at the Main Page today, today's featured picture has both a larger image and more text than today's featured article! Surely the picture does not need more than half a column, for the picture and a caption, and the other half of its space could be taken up by a list... -- !! ?? 10:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, look - that is your sample format 2. I think you need to tidy it up a bit first, though. -- !! ?? 14:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal, as it stands, is a massive waste of time[edit]

Voting for a daily TFL is illogical, cumbersome, and completely unnecessary, and trying to institute some sort of stupid process will not expedite getting our well deserved FLs on the Main Page. This proposal, as written, is an utter waste of time. Process Is Evil. There is a simple solution, and that is just putting the lists on the Main Page chronologically - no obtrusive "voting," no one person in charge, just simple chronological listing. Keep it simple. Instead of wasting our time with this, we should focus our energies on getting the FLs on the Main Page in the first place. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Competition breeds innovation and a competitive selective process to get on the main page will cause people to improve the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But won't people realise that whatever they do, as long as the list they've written is a FL, it'll end up on the main page at somepoint, regardless of how many votes its gets - as it should be? RHB - Talk 19:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That does not make sense. If there are over 400 FLs and they are producing more than 30 per month, how can they all get on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats a broken argument that could be applied to FPs and FAs as well. Instead of dilly dallying by trying to institute some utterly wasteful process that there will be no consensus for, fight instead for getting the FLs on the main page in the first place, and keep the selection process simple. This proposal is doing more harm than good. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The process is fairly simple. People nominate lists, and everyone involved says which 3 they would most like to see on the main page. Then, someone tallies the responses.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But how do you expect people to review thirty lists, most of which are on subjects a reviewer is likely to know next to nothing about, in hopes of selecting the three which represent the best work? To me, it looks that the most popular topics would end up getting most votes. Perhaps this is how it should be (it ensures that the FLs that end up on the main page are of interest to more readers), but do we really need a full-scale selection process when a simple popularity contest would suffice?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I can see that you're commenting in good faith, but your language is a bit abrasive. Calling this proposal "stupid" and a "waste of time" may be seen by some editors as being uncivil. Just a friendly heads-up. Dylan 21:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No offense was intended, but I won't back down from my feeling that this is wasting time... whoever wrote this proposal meant well, but like I said, its doing more harm than good. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message to Closing admin[edit]

If you are wavering between approved and no consensus keep in mind that at one point this debate had 10 oppose and 7 support. However, as the arguments have been refined and the proposal has been tweaked 18 of the last 24 respondents have supported. Also, note that one of the major changes that has helped with the support is the production of the sample2 format of the prospective main page. Many persons involved were hesitant to support because of the possibility that this proposal might detract from the appearance of the main page. Several support votes have specifically expressed satisfaction with this late addition to the proposal. Even some early oppose votes based on formatting predate the creation of sample2. I had been proposing with the other sample format because I did not want to take space away from WP:POTD. However, I see that sample2 is preferable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 12:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of the people were upset because the FLOD is chosen by voting, which takes too much time. However, most opposition agrees on having a FLOD. In short, people oppose because of how they are chosen, not the idea. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_list_proposal/Proposal_1&oldid=1147944896"