Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list proposal/Proposal 3

Survey

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

1. Support as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Week Support - Instead of LotD, I's say it makes more sense to have featured content of the day, even though the lists would be more sensible for an encyclopaedia, featured content would add more variety, and keep supporters of just PotD reasonably happy. Ferdia O'Brien (Talk) 18:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
3. Support as nominator.--Shadyaftrmathgunit 21:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Support Featured list should be on the main page or why have featured lists? I don't really care how it gets there, vote, "decree", whatever. Dincher 21:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
5. How many times do I have to support? –thedemonhog talk • edits 22:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Support Ben Finn 01:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
7. In principle. Drive and incentive for a better quality encyclopedia is never a bad thing. - Mailer Diablo 08:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Support Marcus Bowen 11:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the proposal

1. Strong Oppose: Still don't support featured lists on the Main Page and certainly don't support any system that is a bureaucratic mess, like this one.IvoShandor 16:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

   Could you clarify why you oppose featured lists on the main page? I'm not sold on this proposal myself, but I do like the idea of having lists on the front page because they're as encyclopedic as FAs. --lincalinca 09:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Oppose Unless their is a Featured List Director who manages it like the Featured articles, or they are just put on the main page in the order that they are featured like Featured Pictures. The Placebo Effect 17:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

   • Even random order would be fine. POTD does the order they are promoted and then mixes up any that are going to result in the same topic on multiple days in a row. Voting only increases the chances for systemic bias to proliferate, POV pushers to get their way, etc. etc. Voting is bad for a process like this. While I still don't support FLs on the Main Page, I may be apt to change my mind if everyone just forgets about this unfair voting crap. Do we really need to go through this again? IvoShandor 17:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Oppose I still don't think it's really necessary and a lot of people's rationale seems to be "we have articles and pictures on the main page, so why not lists?" Don't get me wrong, I think there are some great list pages, but they are generally not on the same level as FAs. Many of them pass with minimal support and if there was no FL process, there are only a small portion that would be FA quality. And again, the main page is supposed to just give users a taste of Wikipedia and having a really good article there makes sense because the first thing people think about when they hear "wikipedia" is articles, not lists. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
4. Oppose Every variant of information doesn't need its own spot on the front page. Does Wikipedia need featured categories or templates on the front page? Yes, I know people carefully craft lists, categories, and templates also. If it's a quality list then a list will eventually show up in the FA space even if labeled List instead of Article. (SEWilco 17:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC))
5. Opppose - sorry, I don't like the revised layout - the featured picture needs to stay as a horizontal rectangle across the screen, not a square. I also think the process is still too bureaucratic. Carcharoth 18:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
6. Weak oppose See my extended reasoning below. Mr.Z-man 18:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Proposed nomination method is, IMO, too bureaucratic and I dislike the idea of proposal nominations being constantly repeated until they are accepted. -Halo 18:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose - Only featured lists should even be considered for inclusion, and I frankly doubt that there are enough such lists to ensure that the content would rotate as it does in all the other sections. Were there enough featured lists, that would be different. John Carter 18:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

   • Comment - There's 437 featured lists so far on Wikipedia:Featured lists - I think that's plenty, particularly as more will be added over time. -Halo 18:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

   Comment - About fourteen month's supply, developed over the entire history of wikipedia. By contast, there are several hundred featured articles which aren't apparently even in the rotation yet. I only state that to indicate that, according to the existing stats, there doesn't seem to be a good chance that we would get an average of one new FL per day, which would be required to make such a section sustainable. John Carter 18:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

   I have to disagree. Doing f&A for the signpost, I have seen how many have been promoted each week and its is consitantley above 7 a week. The Placebo Effect 18:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

   Comment - I don't think it would be a problem. To put it in context, when WP:TFA began in August 2004, there were only 354 featured articles - even if there are repeats after 18 months, I doubt it's a big enough problem to stop lists appearing on the front page. -Halo 18:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

   Where does this 354 number come from. It thought TFA started much earlier (Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 22, 2004).--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

   Okay, it started earlier than I thought. Still, there were probably less than that then - I got the number from here. -Halo 22:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

9. Oppose - I am not convinced that all lists (my own included) are inherently interesting enough to be displayed on the Main Page (and if we pick and choose only the most interesting, then what does that say about FL criteria?). I am also opposed to the selection criteria, which seems like too much effort for what could be done randomly or entrusted to a director or committee. Sorry, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 18:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

   It says the FL criteria do not restrict promotion to 30 per month.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

10. Oppose - as pointed out above, not enough lists to last for long. Also might encourage controversial editing ("this should/should not be in it") as has already been seen with "Today's Featured Article". No need to make a rod for our own backs. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 18:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    FYI, for at least the past 6 weeks, the Featured List process has promotoed 7+ lists a week. The Placebo Effect 18:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    Wasn't aware of that. Thanks. Doesn't change my opinion, however. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

11. Oppose. My concerns about the original proposal are not changed: there is no need for a bureaucratic process requiring voting and layers and layers of selection. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose for the same reasons last time. Squeezing in another section on the main page is probably not the best idea considering the amount of available space, and most people will probably think the featured list is a featured article if only the lead section is displayed. I don't see what's wrong with modifying Wikipedia:Featured content to show a selected list, portal, sound, article and topic all on one day. I'd be in favour of that, instead of trying to squish all the elements of featured content onto the main page. ~ Sebi 20:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
13. Oppose - First, I think you greatly misunderstood the previous objections. It wasn't about something that could happen, it was about what a bad system was proposed. However, I have reconsidered my position entirely. While I would support including lists in the FA section (infrequently), I don't think lists should have a new section on the main page. It would be aesthetically unpleasing and they simply aren't as interesting to our readers. Atropos 00:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
14. Oppose As before, I still believe it just won't work (space constraints, taking the "listness" out of a list). And another thing - (a) the main page isn't for plastering featured content all over, and (b) featured content isn't just for plastering over the main page as some seem to believe ("Featured list should be on the main page or why have featured lists?"). •97198 talk 06:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Too much bureaucracy (all that's needed is one admin to schedule lists with input from the community) and no room for it in any case (we already do not have room for the picture of the day, which is much more important than this). — Gavia immer (talk) 14:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Importance of Main Page elements:
      1. FA - useful for research
      2. FP - useful for research
      3. ITN - useful for being informed
      4. FL - useful for research
      5. OTD - useful for drinking sessions
      6. DYK - useful for drinking sessions.
    • However, I'd agree that the Main Page is too bloated already, that's why I'd won't see this LOTD ever being included in the Main Page, ever. --Howard the Duck 14:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
16. Still too bureaucratic. Both TFA and POTD get by with one person deciding when a certain article/picture goes on the main page. There's no reason why a TFL can't use this system that works. MER-C 12:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

General Comments

Won't there be problems ensuring that the proposed main page doesn't get "wonky" as ITN/C, DYK, TFA, OTD and TFP all have to "line up" so it looks "correct" without one section being much bigger than the other? I can see there being problems with that - wonkiness already happens with only 4 sections on the main page, let alone six. -Halo 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not know what the slang term wonky means, so I do not know how to respond.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary:wonky - "lopsided, misaligned or off-centre". Basically, I'm wondering if it will be a problem ensuring that one side won't be significantly longer than the other without problems. -Halo 18:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Balancing is really the responsibility of T:DYK/N administrators. It won't be a problem. They have a link to check and see if it looks balanced with each update.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't spend much time editing Main Page templates. Ideally, the two columns mirror each other with ITN being tweaked to the same length as TFA, and DYK being tweaked to the same length as SA. There is always an imbalance when a short TFA is replaced by a long TFA as items are slowly added to ITN as suggestions come in. In such cases, a few SA items are sometimes uncommented to cover the gap in the space above so DYK doesn't have to drop below their standard number of items. You are correct that DYK is the most agile of the templates, having a perpetual backlog and a 6-8 hour update cycle, so it ends up doing constant tweaking to make sure that the columns as whole are even, but that doesn't mean that one can do whatever one wants with the template lengths and assume its DYK's problem.

Since one would assume that an LOTD would be written beforehand and thus "fixed", it cannot be placed opposite POTD, which is similarly "fixed", and would result in an imbalance every day. These templates, along with TFA, would have to be placed side by side with ITN, DYK and (I guess) SA, which have at least some flexibility in length. But as I note below, I would like to see LOTD implemented first (project and template space is fine for this), so one can see its viability and settled form, before moving on the second question of placing it on the Main Page. - BanyanTree 23:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

POTD

I support including more featured content on the Main Page. But I disagree with the arrangement of the POTD with the caption to the right of the image; since the caption box is now vertical, it reduces the size of the picture. If WP:TFL is implemented, I'd prefer the image occupy as much of the caption box as possible with the caption at the bottom. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

What exactly is the proposal here? That we experiment with something that doesn't have consensus to go on the Main Page and then vote on whether it should go on the Main Page whether we have consensus or not? This is totally unnecessary. IvoShandor 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

General comments

My full reasoning was a little longer than I intended, so I am putting it here instead of the poll section: The format is okay, though it would be nice if the word "list" was used more than that one time in the header to emphasize that it isn't the same as a regular article. At least change the generic "more..." to something like "the full list..." The example one devotes over 25% of the section (2 out of 7 sentences) to the most recent people (the current and former Opposition Leaders), making it look a lot like the TFA. I still don't like the idea of voting - randomly choosing, or choosing based on relevance to the date would be better, not that its too bureaucratic, but that it is way more process than is needed. Except for ones that may have a significance to the date or relevance to other things on the main page, why would any list be more preferable to others? If none of the lists have any special significance for the day and all of the lists are featured quality, why would there be any reason to oppose one over the others? Mr.Z-man 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to get into burdensome details, but monthly scheduling would give priority to date requests. Voting/commenting would help choose one list over another based on main page appeal. All lists may be featured, but not all are equally desirable for the main page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Why? Unless something like List of gay porn stars is an FL, there isn't much reason to discriminate. There is not as much of a supply of FLs as there is FAs. What gives a list "main page appeal?" Will there be criteria, or is it just "what the voters like?" Mr.Z-man 18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I simply don't understand why this needs to be approved for the Main Page before being created. This is precisely the opposite of how consensus was reached to get pictures on the Main Page. The people behind this proposal need to create the template, encourage other FL devotees to add it to their user pages, and sort out the inevitable bugs that pop up. If the template becomes popular, it will become self-evident that it should be added to the Main Page. There is zero need to create a bureaucratic process to decide on the shape of the bureaucracy that will manage the process of filtering the results of a process; it's worse than the pre-meeting meetings that I've attended for work. I'm also getting a "the template isn't worth doing unless we put it on the Main Page" vibe here, which I consider either a result of out of control ego or an attempt to blackmail !voters. - BanyanTree 00:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You can make the template if you want and do an experiment with it and let people use it, but without a strong consensus somewhere, you can't put it on the main page. Please assume good faith, not that people have an "out of control ego" or an ulterior motive to their comments. Mr.Z-man 01:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I was too polite and thus ambiguous in my attempt to avoid what might be considered a personal attack. The phrase "Featured list should be on the main page or why have featured lists?" by one of the supporters above is IMO an example of an inflated sense of importance or an attempt to coerce opinion by making this a "if you don't give me the frosting, I won't buy us the cake" proposition. Otherwise, you're making my point exactly. Why force special privileges for an untried concept on the community, when trying it requires effort already needed for the desired end state? If the supporters here feel that it not worth doing unless it's on the Main Page, then it's not worth doing. - BanyanTree 02:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of variety among FLs

Another problem is that there isn't nearly as much variety among the FLs as there is with FAs. There are more FLs relating to television shows then there are in all of the science categories combined. Some FA request commentators hate the number of pop culture related stuff that makes the main page, but well over half of all of the FLs relate to media, music or sports. In fact, roughly 1/4 of all FLs are in the sports category, which means there could be 1 sports article making the main page per week, which isn't much variety. If you tried to fairly rotate the topics, say 1 every two weeks, then many of the categories would be tapped dry and you'd be left with dozens of media, sports, politics and geography FLs, but not many other topics so you could vastly separate them.

And if you do things randomly, you run into problems too. For example, in August, September and October, 20 FLs relating to NHL trophies were promoted. So, if a TFL ever made it that far, there would be 20 NHL FLs (all about one topic) on the main page within a short period. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Concern

In principal, having featured lists on the main page is a good idea - we should be displaying articles that we consider to be our best content, but I have strong concerns about this particular way of presenting a featured list. All the idea's submitted so far suggest that a lead should appear on the main page, linking to the list - IMHO, this just adds another featured article to the main page - a list is quite literally what it says, it's a list of information about a particular topic. I'm not sure having a list on the main page is even possible due to space constraints, especially for it to be at all informative. I really think it's a bad idea to have a featured list on the main page, without even having a list. Sorry, but that's my two cents. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In my view, Wikipedia:Featured content (which used to be the featured content portal) does this the right way: both POTD and their featured list appear in full-width boxes. The list includes (part of) the lead, an image, and the first few entries in the list.

Needless to say, I still think it would be nice to show featured lists on the main page, but I still don't support this over-bureaucratic revised proposal. Perhaps the best thing to do would be to run a "list of the day" off the main page - on user pages, and its own subpage - to see how it works out in practice. I think POTD started out that way. -- !! ?? 19:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Idea: second main page

IMHO, the reason why there are many opposes is that we really haven't tried it out yet; and testing things at the Main Page at the get-go is a bad idea. What I say is we have a Second Main Page where we can test LOTD and perhaps several other featured content we have and perhaps other new ideas (how about recently uploaded images a la DYK or the quote for the day?) then we'll put a prominent link to Second Main Page at Main Page and see what other people think about it. --Howard the Duck 04:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a very good idea to me. Other websites do the same type of thing see Page 2 on ESPN.com Dincher 04:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Example. I can't think of any other ideas to put it in there though. --Howard the Duck 12:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I like that idea of having a sandbox of the Main Page, where changes can be proposed and illustrated for a central discussion. But since it's a meta page, better to rename it in Wikipedia space, such as Wikipedia:Main Page sandbox or Wikipedia:Main Page 2. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 14:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm giving you people free rein what to do with that, see FL would almost not be at the Main Page, the next best thing is to develop a 2nd main page in the condition that a link is prominently displayed there. --Howard the Duck 14:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Now that seems like a better idea for extending the main page. -137.222.46.10 15:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What it looks like from the outside is that we're trying to stuff a heap of unnecessary things onto an already-clogged Main Page. "Sports" news? Really? We're an encyclopedia, people don't necessarily come to an encyclopedia for up-to-date sports scores (I'm not saying they don't come here for it full stop, but rather, wouldn't people be more inclined to visit a site that specialises in sports scores, than an encyclopedia?). Putting a featured portal at the top, and featured media lower down the page sound to me like we're trying to put all our good stuff on the Main Page. I bet that a lot of newcomers don't even know that any other featured content outside of featured articles exists. A second main page, IMO, isn't a great idea. ~ Sebi 21:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

When is putting good stuff on the Main Page a bad idea? it is certainly better to feature FLs than DYKs, for example. As for sports and other things, see my reply below... --Howard the Duck 03:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure where you got the idea about Sports news. I was just using ESPN.com's Page 2 as an example of a second page, a page that features some unusual news that wouldn't make the main page. Dincher 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Sports news is from User:Howard the Duck/Main Page 2. ~ Sebi 23:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that after I actually looked. Oops, anyway I think that adding the scores of the World Series or other big sporting events would be fine. Dincher 03:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying ideas for new content, if you have yours, add them, after all, they'll not appear in "the" Main Page. --Howard the Duck 03:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)