Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Five requests?

The page says five requests. It use to say five articles. I removed a 6th article. Does five requests mean five requests for articles or dates? (Halgin (talk) 21:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC))

I don't think sandy has been following the discussion very well here. We should remove one of the two that are for the same day. It's obvious. People seem to agree with that. Wrad (talk) 21:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wrad (I think Sandy does too), remove the lowest scoring one of the two that have requested the same day (check the points area accurate though). Ryan4314 (talk) 21:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure who I'm agreeing with; a three-pointer was removed, when there are several with less points up. And the point thing is being gamed again, because most of the tallies are incorrect, so sorting out which one to remove is a challenge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:21, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't a three pointer, it was a two pointer. Wrad (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
3rd Battalion 3rd Marines has 1 point, whereas Ran has 2 points. I don't feel either meet the criteria of Date relevant to article topic: For example "Earth" on "Earth Day." Ryan4314 (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Ran was first released in Japan on June 1. That is a relevant date. Wrad (talk) 21:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are two confusing factors on the page right now; multiple noms with miscalculated points, and one nom that could change dates. So, I don't know how to sort out which one gets deleted, but I hope others can understand why there hasn't been a system invented yet that isn't a headache. I reverted so that it would be properly sorted before deciding which to remove. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think some of these date relevance claims are really starting to be a stretch (see May 28). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
The reason this page is a headache is because it's just plain dumb to have that five article rule in the first place. The vast majority of editors here believe that and yet you and Raul refuse to fix it. Wrad (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have anything to do with fixing it or not, but I am concerned that no matter how Raul tries to work within a system to keep people happy, the system is gamed, as it is clearly being gamed when I happened to peek in today. Most of the articles up have incorrect point tallies, yet they're still there, possibly keeping out other articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

(Reply to Wrad) Maybe, it's down to personal perception, doesn't matter anyway, still beats 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines due to it's FA age. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

We should scrap "Date relevant to article topic: 1 point", anyone agree? Ryan4314 (talk) 21:30, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No. I think there should be points for any type of anniversary or relevance. Wrad (talk) 21:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Who decides the "relevance"??? It becomes even more controversial when you (a nominator) decides your own request's date relevance. Scrap it or make it clearer (like the 25th anniversary etc) Ryan4314 (talk) 21:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, I lost several responses to edit conflicts. Looking at it according to what I think you are saying is the logic, even though several of these date connections are tenuous at best, the last to be added (Marines) has to go because three of them are on the same date, yet Ran gains an extra point for age, and the Hurricane can be moved to another date. Is that correct? If so, I'll revert, but who is watching these points ? Several of them are wrong, and some of these date connections (like to Phil Hartmann's death) are really a stretch. And obviously, these films can come up with any number of claims for date relevance. No wonder this system is a headache; no matter what is put in place, it gets gamed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to check out my proposal, my fellow editors? Among other things, it makes as limited a use of the point system as possible. It isn't that far from the current system in this respect, but I consider the whole scheme an improvement over the current and older systems. As far as the details of the exact usage of points are concerned, we could perhaps discuss them later; clearer unofficial "guidelines" for what constitutes "relevant date" should exist, even if only in an archived message. Plus, there should be some consistency with anniversaries. I have a couple of ideas on that... Waltham, The Duke of 00:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I think we all have, but since Raul hasn't even deigned to reply to anything, there haven't been any changes. I think that if there's a clear consensus, then we should move ahead, with or without Raul. I, for one, would like to see what Wrad or Waltham suggested come into place. Noble Story (talk) 09:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, it's not my proposal per se; I have built on Wrad's ideas. Actually, I'm not sure what is his and what is mine; I'd certainly like to know what he thinks of the detailed plan I have given. If he agrees, we could then say that it is our plan.
I agree that we need to go forward, but I am afraid that this is not possible without the Director's approval; this is, more or less, his page. He has full veto powers. What I really want to see is Raul examining the proposal and discussing it with us. I believe I have argued well enough that it is different from what has been applied so far, and therefore the "we've seen this and it doesn't work" arguments are moot. Waltham, The Duke of 10:02, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I sorted through the proposal, and to the best of my understanding, it just furthers the problems on the current page and makes them bigger. Whether the page allows 5, 28 or 200 (as it did in the past), it will just fill up to that level, generating more squabbles among editors who just don't accept that someone has to choose one article a day for the mainpage, and not all will make it. Filling up the page with more requests will only generate more of the same squabbles, and won't change the outcome. It will make Raul's job harder, though. Noblestory's idea that we should just "move ahead" is not wise IMO; the mainpage must be stable, it has been, and Raul has done a fine job at keeping it that way and not losing patience with the competing demands and gaming of any system put in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, and I thought I was quick enough. I have just posted my addition–clarification, further limiting the number of nominations (to a practical maximum of twenty or below) and making it more organised and informative. As far as the filling up is concerned, per the proposed system, the regulars (or any passer-by, for that matter) can remove a second nomination for a slot if there is no plausible date connection for it. True, it must be made clearer which date connections are plausible, but that is as much a problem under the current system as it might be under the proposed one.
In any case, right now I just want some discussion on the proposal. To be a little more ambitious, I aim at a two-week trial run; considering that the worst thing that could happen is to have the page clogged with (less than) twenty nominations, it is not so unreasonable, is it? At least it would prove that the proposal really is ineffective, which can by no means be proved now. All that said, I'd like to repeat that all the previously tried systems had no point system, and this one has, so no comparison can be made lightly. Waltham, The Duke of 17:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
5 is way too low a number not to be filled up... The problem is that editors often don't get a chance to post legitimate date requests; the proposal allows for some flexibility, but still ensures a relatively short and fully controllable page. And when I say controllable I do not mean just be Raul. The regulars' role seems to have been much underestimated in the various discussions; there are people willing to help out here. Wikipedia is run by a community—why not give it a role in this process as well? The Director should not be obliged to police this page if others can do it for him. And that will allow us to get further than the current extremely low limit. Waltham, The Duke of 17:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, 5 noms is simply not adequate with a 30-day limit. That leaves 25 days uncalled for. The new proposal has no such holes in it. The Duke is correct. Wrad (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

changing this would make it easier on Raul...period

Take a look at Talk:Elderly Instruments, WT:TFA, and User Talk:Raul654. Raul is getting pounded by people who hate the TFA choice. I personally don't think that the choice was all that bad. I do, however, think it's pretty darn obvious that if TFAs were always chosen by consensus, then Raul wouldn't get so much of this garbage. He's the one who chooses them, so he gets all the heat. If the community chose them, then the community as a whole would take the heat. Wouldn't that be nice! As it is, Raul gets steamrolled several times a month for something on the main page. Just a thought... Wrad (talk) 00:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm comfortable defending my choice of articles. It would be more useful, IMO, to deconstruct this myth which seems to have sprung up that all business related articles are somehow advertising and thus we cannot feature them on the main page. Raul654 (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It's wonderful you feel that way, Raul, and I agree about the whole ad thing, but I really don't feel comfortable with the system at all, and I don't seem to be alone. TFA needs to be a community system. The current system is not working. Wrad (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Your logic has some holes, Wrad. Elderly Instruments was promoted FA via a wide-open, community-wide, consensus-driven process, and it was still criticized by the armchair quarterbacks. Having it put on the mainpage via a similar process would not eliminate the armchair quarterbacking; it would just weaken the process. Thank goodness someone who actually understands policy is choosing the mainpage articles, rather than the armchair quarterbacks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
That is not true at all sandy. I just checked the archives. Elderly instruments was never on this page. Not for a second. This is the page where consensus should be determined. I don't know what "wide open" thing you're talking about, but I pay close attention to TFA noms and I wasn't aware of it at all, so it wasn't that open. Wrad (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You might want to re-read my message to see which part you missed (hint: the whole thing :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
See my comments below on this (FA and TFA look very similar. I was talking about TFA and assumed you were. Isn't that what this who discussion is about! Sheesh! Who cares what the FAC said?!) Wrad (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a chart to expand on this idea:

What Raul has to do with the current system
  • Handle personal requests via e-mail and on his talk page for TFAs (talk about an infinite system by definition!)
  • Handle requests on this page
  • Think up other articles for the spaces in between
  • Sit down and make a schedule for TFA
  • Put them all on the TFA schedule
  • Handle all the flack whenever people think something was a bad choice for TFA
What he would have to do with the proposed system.
  • Sit back, relax, let people propose their articles here and here alone, and let the wikipedia community choose the TFAs.
  • Put them on the TFA schedule at his leisure.
  • That's it.

--- Wrad (talk) 00:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


That may be the ideal, but I suspect there would be a systemic bias for computer games and TV series. Once those ran out, doesn't it seem likely there would be endless debates about what should be scheduled when? I can imagine the community still debating at 23:55 what should go up for the next day. I think this task is best done by one person with a long view of what's been on the main page and some plan for the future. Gimmetrow 01:04, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I really don't agree. I don't see any arguments of that kind fomenting on the page we have now, and see no reason to believe they would suddenly spring up with this small change. The real question is, do you have faith in the community system that is wikipedia, or not? I do. Wrad (talk) 01:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Try to re-read the answer I already gave to that above. Elderly Instruments was promoted FA via a wide-open, community, consensus-driven process, and there are still armchair quarterbacks claiming it shouldn't be FA. Your logic has holes. We can't have that kind of lack of understanding of Wiki processes, policies and guidelines extending to the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Stop talking about FA! We are talking about TFA here! Where the heck are these holes in my logic? I don't give a darn bit how it got promoted to FA. I'm talking about TFA. THE COMMUNITY DID NOT CHOOSE ELDERLY INSTRUMENTS AS TFA. IF THEY HAD, RAUL WOULD NOT GET HOUNDED LIKE THIS. This is not rocket science. Wrad (talk) 01:24, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because the community decided this should be an FA does not mean they decided that it should be on the main page on May 21. Those are two very different decisions. There are no holes in my logic. I am completely baffled at your apparent equation of FA-status with a community backing for TFA. That just isn't how it works, my friend. Wrad (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Wrad again. The decision to feature an article on the main page must involve more than whether it is a featured article. The system is putting too many articles on the main page that aren't interesting to a wide readership, and/or that lack the available research or scholarship that makes a really good FA a really good FA. You can say that's my opinion, but it's really not that subjective nor difficult to determine that a TV show episode (from any country), or a road (from any country), or a minor video game (from any country), or a small business (from any country) is not interesting to most of the readership; when average readers see such tangential articles featured, it's not surprising that they wonder "well what reason would they have for putting this on the main page?". We select articles for readers just as we write them for readers; as such, we should not expect them to understand the particular machinations that put an article on the main page. We should not be surprised when they call something that looks like advertising "advertising".
This main-page determination would be a perfect application of the consensus principle; I might think some FA is too minor to be on the main page, and others disagree, stating their reasons, and consensus wins. Yay! –Outriggr § 01:37, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I would also support that the community chooses TFA via consensus . This would be really beneficial I think. The article is nominated by one or several users, then people !vote support/oppose/neutral. Then, Raul654, or people appointed to (any admin maybe ?), are entitled to close the discussion. Cenarium (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

←If the honourable colleagues will allow me to contribute with my two pence... I dislike extremes. Wikipedia is a community project, and is therefore one which should (and usually only achieves success in this way) work by striking working balances. By this reasoning, having mob rule decide on TFAs is as unacceptable as having the Director choose the articles completely on his own. And as doomed to eventual failure. A good balance is what is needed in this case, utilising elements and resources from both sides, which could then effectively check each other. The current system, albeit a vast improvement over the incredibly chaotic page of one year ago, is still deficient in that it is too closed. From the very extreme on the mob side, we have gone halfway from the middle to Raul's side. However, equilibrium has yet to be achieved, and until that happens, the complaints will continue on this page. There is a real problem, and people can feel that; actively trying to solve it now will save everyone involved a lot of future headaches.

If you will see my proposal, you will notice a few points I make. First, the Director retains all of his current powers. He can steer discussion towards another direction, or even override a decision, should he feel that it is necessary. The point is that, although Raul can still do whatever he does now, he can now have the luxury to delegate some of the work whenever he finds that he is too busy or just feels like having a break. Plus, although I believe him when he says that he is comfortable defending his choices, I also have the feeling that he would not mind not having to do it as often. Second, according to my proposal and the addition thereto, there will be exactly two weeks in which to debate each day—although, now that I think of it, a 24-hour deadline might be desirable. But these tweaks are debatable; it is the principle here that I am trying to get across. If we can agree on the basics, the rest is open to discussion. Third, if the regulars are indeed unable to steer the programming towards diversity, which is not necessarily what will happen (they should be given the chance to police the page for themselves, although I don't say that Raul can't help there as well), perhaps a simple means to note down the topics of the previous month's TFAs would be in order (like a collapsible table), making the process even more organised and "automatic". As I have said again, a process should work no matter who executes it; we should be able to replace the people in the Director's and the regulars' positions and still have a workable system. This is the beauty of a Wiki and of the collaborative process associated with it. I recognise the value of many of our distinguished Wikipedians, but institutions too focused upon them are by definition ephemeral, and therefore subject to inevitable future change. I ask you: do we really want to build on institutions with expiration dates? Waltham, The Duke of 05:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


Alternatively we can forget about TFA being a selection process, having requests for dates or even content balance and just line them up in order of promotion to FA. The line starts at the oldest FA that hasnt been on main page yet then work forward, of course articles being promoted now wont get a look in until 2013 but every article gets treated equally. Raul wont have any complaints all he'll do is close FAC and list them on a page from which a bot can place them in the TFA page, promoting multiple articles at once wont matter as they'll all get to the mainpage within a couple of days of each other. Gnangarra 05:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
But then we would lose variety in day-to-day TFA subject matter. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Unfortunately, things can never be so simple. Waltham, The Duke of 06:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Every 6 months or so someone proposes this. Look, Raul does a fine job with TFA. The fact that some people get uppity cuz the type of article they don't want to see on TFA makes it does not mean that there is anything wrong with Raul doing his job. If he can't handle it, I trust him to inform the community of that. There is zero evidence that Raul's job needs to be made any easier. He's doing a fine job. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
You do not sound like you have read my message above. The conclusion is of particular interest; I strongly recommend it. Waltham, The Duke of 06:35, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please read it. I think Raul's doing as good as he can under the system we have as well, but I think that the system is flawed and that Raul is obviously not going to last forever. (I think the Duke's system is about what we need right now). In the end, let me make it clear that this really is not about making Raul's job easier. That is not the point. The point is to make a system that will actually work in the long run. The only reason I made the list above is because people were arguing that the new system would make it harder on Raul. I believe that I have proved that absolutely false now, so let's move on. Wrad (talk) 12:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
And in the process of choosing the TFA, the community will have an occasion to improve the article before the passage on the Main Page. Cenarium (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; as is mentioned in Wikipedia:Article development#Featured article: "The article could also receive the distinction of being featured on the main page. Before the article is scheduled to appear on the main page, it should receive a last review and polishing where possible." Especially, I should add, if they are rather old. Waltham, The Duke of 15:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Making a change would be less work for Raul, but it begs the question if he likes his immense power. No other vital part of the community is decided upon unilaterally - admins are voted, FAs, FARs, etc etc - if I were him I wouldn't want to give it up either! The only problem that exists from moving a new proposal forward is that people don't have any bright ideas as to what needs to be done, only the sense that the current system isn't working. For a site which analyses and constructs rules for deletion, adminship and article stength, this side of wikipedia is pretty shit basically. It's almost as if the creators finished writing how to get an FA, and then got bored and gave up before writing clear instructions on how to get it to the main page. For such an enormous issue, it isn't really being given the light it needs - I suggest taking it to a much more public court and exposing it so that ALL of wikipedia can comment and improve it. And for God's sake Raul, everyone appreciates all the work you've done but I'm going to say what most of us are thinking - stop being so damn stubborn, accept your changes suck and let the people decide what to do without your hinderance and if they say you need to let the reigns go a bit, then you need to let go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.16.76 (talk • contribs)
I agree with this, as I agree with Wrad above. Unfortunately nothing is likely to happen, short of there being some wide-scale discussion and community consensus - it's bizarre that on a wiki one person has control over an entire process, especially as it has not scaled particularly well as Wikipedia has grown larger. If the people involved in the discussion here they could bring it up on the village pump I suppose. naerii - talk 22:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Is not the case that whatever happens here is up to Raul, regardless of what consensus is reached here, village pump or anywhere else? Being BOLD following discussion here doesn't work [1],[2]. Is there anywhere that sets out when the community can overrule Raul? (not that I'm suggesting he's doing a terrible job, just there seems to be no accountability or scope for change) Paulbrock (talk) 08:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • No change necessary. Raul has always done a fine job and I will always trust his better judgement. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I think he does alright, too. But he isn't going to be around forever in our wildest dreams, and the more he keeps the workings to himself, the bigger problem that is going to be when (not if) something happens. Wrad (talk) 18:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Order

A minor matter, but should nominations be arranged by date added or date requested? –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say by date, so people can see what else is being proposed in the order it would be on the main page. Wrad (talk) 21:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Snoutcounting

What exactly is the point of the support or oppose !votes here? As I understand the rules, consensus does not play a role in the process. Coemgenus 18:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the rules are pretty dumb. We need to rewrite them. See above sections. Wrad (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't mean I wanted the !votes to count, I just wondered at their purpose. I'm not sure enough people visit this page to get a true consensus of the community, and Raul's picks seemed fine to me in the past. Coemgenus 13:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't want it to be a bunch of votes either. I was saying it seems more like a points thing than a community thing. I want it to be a consensus thing. If this page actually meant something, we would have plenty of people here chiming in. However, we do arrive at the number of point by consensus. Wrad (talk) 13:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
The votes are symobilic, at best. Since Raul doesn't explain his choices (or non-choices) for the the Main Page, we don't really know what criteria he uses to choose the articles
</semi-sarcastic talking to demigod>
Actually, usually the number of supports/opposes reflect what eventually happens to the article in the end, although not always (see the recent Jurassic Park nomination).
Actually, as I think more about it, I can't come up with a reason why we vote. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 14:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

explanation

So only five requests at a time; you can only add a new one after some go away. So how are people every supposed to get their articles on this page, as it's hard to tell when a space has been opened up? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) If only you knew... It's not like there are no ideas. Waltham, The Duke of 14:00, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
What article and date would you like nominated? I can make sure that it gets requested. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Put this page on your watchlist. Sometime you can tell of an article has been removed. Also go to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 2008 or what ever the current month is. When a article is added for a date then the article requested for that date can be removed. For example when a article for June 22 was added to this month's queue someone removed the article requested for that date. Halgin (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
@thedemonhog: It's still far away, but September 24 marks Myst's 15th anniversary (1993), so I'd like to see it go up then. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Automated selection

Just by reading through the above discussion, and with no prejudice towards Raul who seems like a fine fellow with a pretty thankless job, I think this process of selecting the daily featured article should be randomized and automated. It wouldn't be too hard to have someone create a bot to generate a queue based on criteria, such as how long an article has been FA without appearing, what category it is in, etc. The bot could construct a queue of featured frontpage articles for the next two weeks, Raul can look at it and if the bot didn't generate enough variety, he can easily swap the articles around in that two week queue. If the bot malfunctions, Raul can shut it down and go back to picking articles manually until it's fixed. I think this may help alleviate the issue of people griping about articles like Elderly Instruments (which I thought was a perfectly legitimate article) and people won't be able to use Raul as a whipping boy every time something appears that they don't like. The main point is to create efficiency and fairness. I have no idea who would create the bot, this is just a thought I had and figured I'd share. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the furore regarding Elderly Instruments had anything to do with the specific date it was featured on the Main Page; the protesters would prefer not to see the article there at all, something which a robot like the one you propose would not solve. And there are other criteria besides variety and age; can a bot be refined enough to tell which anniversaries are important and which are not? I highly doubt it. Automating the procedure is a nice way of relieving the people responsible for the process and making sure that nobody will be blamed for choices perceived as "bad"; however, these choices will increase significantly. The selection procedure is too complicated for a programme, and the value of TFA would be much compromised due to the many lost opportunities for clever scheduling. Waltham, The Duke of 00:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Blade Runner TFA annoyance

I did some basic research, found this page and find it full; or should I say littered with requests that have appropriately been rubber stamped and yet sit there as if further consensus is required or that there is a obcure yet pertinent reason to deny it a TFA. Instead of breaking the arbitrary 5 request rule, I was Bold and added my TFA version for June 25th... which is the original release date of Blade Runner. It was efficiently removed.

I am not denying Raul654 the ability to make the final decision, but I am pitching in and getting something done, for which I get slapped. I'm not a anon, and I'm not a moron. If Raul654 changes it, that's fine; I appreciate dealing with "greedy requests" he speaks of. But I sure as hell do not appreciate sitting on my hands, ON A WIKI, until a precious queue spot is vacated to discover June 25th might already be filled; likely by an arbitrary article. For a moment I considered wiping the deck clean on the requests page... you can take this to mean I wish to be "pro-active" in finding an alternative means of proposing TFA's that facilitates Raul654's selections.

Reading over the previous discussion, I'm quite taken aback at the suggestion Raul654 is doing a fine job (which he is) and therefor the statue quo is fine. This is a Wiki people! As this month closes I do want a mechanism established where community input and suggestions can be best offered to whoever is in charge of the TFA process. Anyone who suggests otherwise is inviting a reciprocal headache from me. (yeah, NOT pleased) - RoyBoy 03:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Put up a request for comment and let's get something decided. I don't really know how or I would have already. Wrad (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is the only way to resolve your concern, and is certainly better than blanking the requests page (which would just be vandalism, and pointy vandalism at that, not to mention pretty inconsiderate of those of us who have bothered to follow the rules up to this point). File the RFC, I'm sure a fair number of people will be willing to participate in the discussion. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Kind of, from my POV at the time I'd be doing maintenance and removing approved TFA's. I will try an RfC. - RoyBoy 23:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Side-note: In the reverted version of the June 25 TFA, Image:Blade Runner poster.jpg was being used; however, that picture is not allowed on the main page because it is non-free. –thedemonhog talk • edits 07:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Thx for the heads up. - RoyBoy 23:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Facilitating TFA suggestions

{{RFCpolicy|section=Facilitating TFA suggestions !! reason=The current system of "Today's featured article/requests" is too restrictive and slow to facilitate TFA suggestions/nominations with the TFA coordinator. !! time= 23:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)}}

The current system of "Today's featured article/requests" is too restrictive and slow to facilitate TFA suggestions/nominations with the TFA coordinator. I assume this was done because the previous method was too democratic. I suggest permitting users to edit blank TFA templates, with the understanding their selection may be moved/removed by the TFA coordinator; and that they a) cannot change a template that has already been submitted or b) can add new ones below and the TFA coordinator will choose one or none. In all cases, in the end the TFA is chosen by a coordinator and once it is the template for that day is protected.

This removes the limit of suggestions to 5, allowing the Wiki to facilitate TFA suggestions. Protected dates keeps things in check and reiterates the decision still remains with the coordinator. Further, if there is a concern too many suggestions could be made far in advance (a date squatting rush); then only XX days/months ahead of today could be editable for suggestions. The TFA templates are just sitting there, let's make use of them. Thanks. - RoyBoy 23:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There is also an alternative proposal below. Wrad (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Rather than having a possible limit be XX days from today, make it XX days from the last scheduled TFA. Sometimes TFAs are scheduled over a week in advance. If we had a ten day limit and 7 of those days were already scheduled, then we could only allow three nominations. Also, we need to reiterate the fact that only one nomination is allowed at a time per person. Wrad (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, I'm awaiting to be able to nominate Canada for July 1, and this ridiculously small window of opportunity makes me cling to the edge of my seat. I have the TFA templates for already nominated dates on my watchlist, and somehow I find hope in trying to put my request into the 5 slots before one of the probably dozens of users who are considering putting in a request do so. It just makes this page seem like a battle ground. WP:NOT states that although Wikipedia is not a democracy, "Its primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion", and I'm not seeing enough opportunity for discussion. Overhaul please! -- Reaper X 01:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You cannot nominate Canada for July 1 because it already appeared as TFA on June 23, 2006. Also, if Canada was eligible, there is nothing barring you from nominating it. In the instructions at the top of the requests page, a points system is described. Because Canada has been an FA for so long and because its date is relevant and because it is a vital topic, it is allowed to take out another request to make way for itself. –thedemonhog talk • edits 05:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • A support from someone who doesn't understand that the article has already been on the main page is interesting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • His point, however, remains valid. He is not the only editor to mention the problem of waiting for a slot to open out of the meagre five that are available. Wrad (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, Sandy has a point—it is interesting. The history of this page shows that there are many people who want to participate in this process, and the current system is too restrictive to allow them to be involved in any degree. It is extremely easy to ascertain whether an article has been featured as long as you know how to (i.e. the talk page, although a list of articles that have been on the Main Page would also be useful); a greater involvement than what we have now will allow for people to be educated on the process and help out more efficiently—after all, the page hosts discussions, not votes, so mistakes could be pointed out. My proposal retains the checks that will ensure the continued smooth function of the page while opening it up a little. Waltham, The Duke of 02:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support A general overhaul seems in order here...but order must be maintained and the page shouldn't spill over into a list pages and pages long like its predecessor. I don't know if a simple template might work better where a quick glance could tell you if the article was eligible or not and where it stood next to its "competition". I'm not sure the suggested approach works best, but it certainly wouldn't hurt to try it. Honestly, I'm kinda thinking that the date you want can be requested something like a week in advance with the final selection made 3 days prior to the date, one nomination per user, and a basic review to determine relative importance to its "competition". All of this is predicated also on the fact that Raul can choose another article if he wishes. — BQZip01 — talk 05:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongest possible oppose, absolutely not. One area of Wiki that works is Raul's management of Today's featured article, and it is because of his management that we have a stable mainpage TFA, free of the issues that have appeared in some other mainpage areas. The fact that FA production has increased and that we have more FAs than can appear on the mainpage has led to complaints from some editors, who may feel entitled or frustrated, but Raul has bent over backwards to accommodate as many requests as he can while maintaining mainpage diversity, and the fact remains that not all FAs will appear on the mainpage, and we cannot have a mainpage free-for-all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Sluggish narrowed community involvement, that gives redundant support, isn't a Wiki. The rest seems assert things my proposal has taken into account (Raul needn't bend over as much since requests would be posted directly to the template), or hasn't proposed (what free-for-all?). - RoyBoy 03:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Couldn't you have just said "oppose"? Anyway, I don't feel entitled at all. I do feel frustrated, though. This system just doesn't work anymore and it needs to be wikified. It needs to be a community decision. Raul does not choose which articles should be FAs and which shouldn't. That would be ridiculous. That is a community decision. He does, however, for some reason, get to decide what is to be on the front page. He does a pretty good job, but I believe the community would do a better job. This would not be a free for all any more than the FA page is. Wrad (talk) 21:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
      • I concede that there are some problems in the other segments of the Main Page, but again there is no co-ordinator there at all. My proposed scheme retains this role for the Director, so I beg SandyGeorgia to be more receptive to the idea of a less restrictive scheme for this page. There are all shades of grey between black and white, you know. Waltham, The Duke of 02:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm wondering why it's so important that we have a date request system. The vast majority of readers won't even realize that there is a date connection - that is more of an inside joke to those who are very familiar with the topic. An article has just as much chance at getting on the main page without a specific date being chosen (I assume...what are the stats on proposals here actually getting to the main page?). Yes, I realize that people want their articles on the main page, but are we only worrying about dates because that is the only method of requesting that my FA get up there now rather than later? Karanacs (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

People notice more what is on the TFA slot than they notice anything else on Wikipedia. TFA pages get nearly 100,000 hits in one day when they are on the main page. They are also transmitted via e-mail and other feeds to thousands of others. It is the single most visible part of the site. Even if the vast majority don't notice, that leaves about 20,000 who do. I think we need to adjust to the times. We have more FAs now than we ever have. We will never get them all a slot. We have a choice now like we never have before. Raul is human and makes mistakes. A community system would pick a TFA that more people would approve of. It would make fewer mistakes. It would make TFA rely on the same thing the rest of wikipedia relies on: consensus. Wrad (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that more people would approve. I suspect this would become like FAC, FAR, and to some extent GAC where you see the same core group of commentors all the time (although with this proposal there are sure to be whole projects showing up to vote for an article in their realm to show up). That means the other 99.999% of WP editors will likely still complain about the decisions that get made and then never come around to be part of the consensus-building. At least with other community consensus processes we have actually policies to point to when supporting and opposing; I worry that opening this system up will lead to a popularity contest, and all we'll see is a string of the same type of articles over and over. Karanacs (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I should share your concerns if I believed that votes were held on this page. The system ought to be based on arguments (like in FAC, where an unaddressed actionable oppose can doom the article). Waltham, The Duke of 02:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I also feel that this proposal is less structured than it needs to be. Have a look at the alternative proposal below. Wrad (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - I agree with Wrad. One of Wikipedia's core values is consensus. Entitlement isn't really the issue, the issue is consensus, which the current system doesn't really account for. It would be much easier for everyone if we just left all Wiki decisions up to Jimbo and a selection of deputies, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way and TFA shouldn't either. Articles that have already appeared on the main page can be easily tracked via categorization and if put up for TFA in error, it will be mentioned in the ensuing discussion, the discussion "closed", and a new request for that date can appear. This really doesn't have to be much different from any other discussion on WP (such as AFD). Nobody of Consequence (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Support some kind of change, if not exactly what's outlined above. I have yet to see a reasonable answer as to why we can request articles for the next X days, but we only provide Y slots where X > Y. (Sorry to get a little mathy, there.) Honestly, having the same number of request spots as we have days (i.e. X = Y) is all it would take to placate me. If there was a conflict on one day, use the points system, use first-come, first-served, flip a coin, I don't care, but the current system favors the wiki-stalkers. It's one thing if you can't get your date because there's a more deserving article; it's quite another when you don't even get to request your date because you never caught the page with fewer than five requests during the window. I'm not saying Raul is doing a bad job; for all I care you can scrap the whole voting thing and just allow suggestions for date requests in the next two weeks or month or whatever. The idea is to connect a date with an article and get Raul to consider it, isn't it? Especially since the final decision is his anyway, subject to topic balance, etc. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 22:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose: While I don't see the harm in increasing the five request limit to ten (however, I do not push for this because I am glad that there is a requests page in the first place), Raul654 does a great job of keeping the topic of today's featured article varied. I think that the variety might be lost with community scheduling. It is easy to see something like Canada on July 1 for Canada Day and the United States on July 4 for Independence Day. One of my friends noticed Lethbridge on December 13, 2007 and Dawson Creek on April 17, 2008 and thought that it was strange that two small Canadian cities would be featured so close together and they were four months apart! –thedemonhog talk • edits 01:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This could lead to more problems than solutions. The way TfAs are chosen at the moment is a perfectly good compromise, and Raul654 does his best to keep the process running smoothly. Unfortunately not every featured article can appear on the main page. With an average of one being featured every day, and a full backlog at FA's that haven't appeared on the Main Page, the chances of a FA being chosen as a TfA will decrease. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This would encourage a free-for-all. We just have to accept that we cannot get all FAs on the mainpage, we simply have too many. Opening it up to a free-for-all is idealism, it will never work. We have an excellent topic-balance on the TFA, and that would be removed if we opened it up to a free-for-all. Woody (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternative proposal by Wrad

This page has never been truly functional, and we urgently need to explore ways of improving it if we are to solve the chronic problems plaguing the TFA nomination process. This I have been able to corroborate from a detailed study of the page's history and the discussion archives.

Here is an overview of this process's history:

In early 2007, there was a free, open system in place with an average of over 100 nominations on the page; most of these received few or no comments, or not at all, and the page was chaotic and unmanageable. (example diff) Its later split into two parts, one for specific-date requests and one for general requests, changed little: although the first part received more comments, the rest of the nominations languished for weeks or even months, unnoticed. (example diff) When the page was re-united, date requests continued to be made. (example diff) A long and sometimes heated discussion started on the fate of the page in mid-May, initially leading to the banning of date requests. A section was eventually set up on the page for date requests, governed by special rules. (example diff) In mid-September, the Director removed the entire section of the general requests, deeming it entirely unmanageable, leaving the current system of five requests for each given time, which should be within the next 30 days. (example diff) In March 2008, the Director proposal for a point system was implemented; it has since been further developed. (example diff) Additional problems came up in April, regarding the classification of articles and the criteria of representation. Soon afterwards, various editors turned against the point system, including the Director. New suggestions then started arriving... And here we are now.

A workable system for this page must balance the need for:

  1. a short, usable page which Raul could easily manage;
  2. flexibility in nominations to ensure that all valid date requests would be served;
  3. maintaining topic diversity on the Main Page; and
  4. an efficient system to decide on coveted dates.

Here follows a detailed description of how the proposed system would operate, as introduced by Wrad and elaborated on by me—a system which manages to address all the above needs:

  • The page has sub-headings for the 14 days following the current day. In each sub-heading, up to two nominations are allowed, limiting the absolute maximum number of nominations for the page to 28.*(see addition below this message)
  • No distinction in the layout of the page is made for date-specific and date-irrelevant requests. However, there is a different method of handling the two types of nominations:
    • A date-specific nomination is left in the slot for that day and, with the comments of the reviewers and the help of the point system, it is determined whether the date request is valid. If it is, the nomination is scheduled for that day; if there is already a date-irrelevant nomination for that day, that will usually be moved.
    • If, however, both nominations require the specific day, and no compromise can be reached for an alternative date for one of them, a point competition between the two takes place. (Thus, the point system is only used for date-specific nominations, and not for all of them.)
    • For date-irrelevant requests, the most important factor is the variety of topics, which is considered by the group of regulars; in the Wiki spirit, informal agreements between nominators—perhaps brokered by the regulars—can result in slot-exchanging or in the postponing of a nomination. For general requests, it is unacceptable to occupy both slots in a day; competitions only occur between date-specific nominations, and thus the total number of nominations stays far below the maximum. If a second date-irrelevant nomination is entered into a day, it is summarily (re)moved.
  • The Director's place in the entire system does not change in the least; he retains the full power to override any "decision" by the community on the scheduling of a TFA. All participants in the process are aware of that and partake with the risk that their "successful" nomination might be overturned at any moment and for any reason.

As you can plainly see, there are significant differences from the previously tried models. The new system is a combination of an open system (with flexibility in the handling of the slots) and a closed one (with limited slots and a point system for date requests). Nothing like that has ever been tried. Isn't this enough for the honourable colleagues to at least consider discussing it? Waltham, The Duke of 00:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC), updated at 15:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments. I still wonder why we are concentrating on date relevancy. At least in my opinion, most of the rationales for date relevancy are weak, and I doubt that the majority of the readership actually realizes there is a date connection when those occur. Karanacs (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You are one person with one opinion. Some agree with you and some don't. Shouldn't all have a voice in the process? Everyone has their own ideas for what should be on the main page, let's put them together and come to a consensus people can agree on. Wrad (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
I certainly didn't mean to imply that I'm the only voice and I'm sorry if I did so. This proposal gives preference to articles that do have a date connection, no matter how tenuous. From the little bit I've watched this page (admittedly not much) it often seemed that users were choosing a date that looked a little relevant in order to have a reason to put in a request for the main page. If we are truly going to make everything equal, then why not allow two general requests for a day rather than reserve one or both of them for date-specificity? And will there be an option for people to !vote "Neither of the above"? Karanacs (talk) 22:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
This proposal allows two requests for one day to be on the page at one time. The reason dates get so much attention now is because there are only five slots and only ones with huge amounts of points even have a chance. The ones with lots of points are the ones that are anniversaries. If the system was more open, this would not be an issue. Wrad (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the system I am suggesting is slightly different. I do propose to use both slots only if there is a date struggle, because there is a strong desire from the Director and the main participants here to keep the number of nominations on the page low. However, I am also an advocate, as many others seem to be, of not clinging too much upon dates. Paying too much importance to anniversaries when these are not important should clearly be avoided. The significance of dates is for the commentators to decide on each nomination; if the date is not deemed of importance, then the nomination may be removed from that slot (to another, or completely), also depending on whether there is another contender or other concerns (mainly variety of topic). Things are easier if there was already an article in the slot and the one with the weak date claim sought to usurp it; in this case the initial article would remain, whether it had a relevant date or not. In any case, this system will leave slots free for articles irrelevant of date.
In short: if a nomination is judged to have a valid date claim, it can stay in a previously empty slot or take it from a date-irrelevant article that was there before; if it requests the slot of a date-specific article, a point contest ensues. However, if its date is judged unimportant, then it has no bearing at all on the article's scheduling. Articles with no valid date claims can only claim slots empty or (a rare occurrence) with articles of disputed date relevance which should go if they would disrupt variety of topic.
But I'm going into too much detail; such things are certainlty open to discussion. (Perhaps I could write a long essay on my specific vision for the system in my userspace). Waltham, The Duke of 02:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Karen, the reason I believe the date system works best is that it has an end in sight and continually is refreshed (i.e. if there is no date system, there is simply a list of articles that have no end in sight. — BQZip01 — talk 03:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and don't forget the addendum, now archived. I clarify there that I suggest having the next 14 calendar days on the page, instead of the next 14 free days; I also give there the advantages of such a system. However, that is not a core part of my proposal. Waltham, The Duke of 02:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

  • This suggestion is similar to the one in the German Wikipedia which is one of the few things there that *really* work well. Here is a description of their system: For the nomination for featured article of the day a list ordered by date exists: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vorlage_Diskussion:Hauptseite_Artikel_des_Tages Everybody is allowed to make suggestion for a specific date. Most often there is no conflict at all and articles which are independant of a specific date are moved if another date-related one proposed for the same day! If there is a conflict, the users vote for the article more deserving this specific date with similar arguments like mentioned in the rules here. There is no discussion about this system and everybody seems to be happy with it.
  • However, there is one serious problem with the proposed system regarding the fact that there are much more featured articles here. It favors date-related articles too much! There are always birthdays, founding days, etc. so that animals and other articles like that would never get the chance to be a featured article of the day again. So, dates should only be of concern if they are really important ones, like 10, 50, 100, ... and so on.

--Novil Ariandis (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

  • You couldn't know this, but this is incorrect. All 2.522 "lesenswerte" (worth reading) articles are also possible candidates for the mainpage slot. However, it seems to be so that English authors are more interested in the mainpage slot than German authors, so that our system won't work that well here without further tweaking. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • You didn't know this because I have made an error in my own argumentation in the first porst which doesn't make much sense with this in mind. It does make sense with English authors being more interested in the mainpage slot than German authors, though. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternate suggestion

I propose a system whereby each date has a maximum of five nominees. Each date's nominees will open two weeks out (when users may submit FAs). Nominees will use one of the provided templates and must meet minimum guidelines (such as an FA, a picture, a caption, etc). Any nomination not meeting those requirements should be automatically removed by either Raul or Sandy. Three days prior to the date, a selection will be made by Sandy, Raul, or a designated rep. This does not preclude the selection of another FA for TFA that is not on the list.

This sounds like a viable alternative that has a maximum of 70 articles at any given time and is a simple ordered process.

Additionally, improvements to the template could give more information at the top (like 10th anniversary, 100th anniversary, other important dates, etc). Thoughts? — BQZip01 — talk 03:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sandy's not involved with this page (and wouldn't accept this headache that Raul puts up with even if you gave me a five-year supply of fine Italian chocolate), but the point is for Raul not to have to sort through dozens (what used to be hundreds) of requests. Perhaps it's time for people to accept that success is a good thing, a #1 Google rank is a good thing, but not all articles will be on the main page on command. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I resent your tone, but am willing to accept good faith on your behalf and that I'm being too defensive. I agree Raul shouldn't have to sort through dozens/hundreds of requests. That is my point. He would only have to look through five each day. I never said you should be involved, only that you could be involved. I accept that success is a good thing, but there is no reason that it can't be improved. I and no one else have suggested that any article should be on the main page "on demand". Please slow down and back off the excessive hyperbole. — BQZip01 — talk 04:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Five nominations per date? There will be an onslaught for every single day. And 70 nominations on the page, even as a theoretical maximum, is extreme; we have asked for one of 28 and are still waiting. In general, your proposal is too close to the unsuccessful models that have already been tried, and I am sorry to say that there is no way this will be accepted. The point is to ease the restrictions and allow for some community participation, not to remove them entirely and return to the previous chaos. This is what Raul and Co. seem to dread most of all—their view seems to be that this system is better than the previous one, and if it isn't broken there is no need to fix it. The problem is that causes too much consternation in the form of numerous lost opportunities, and that they do not realise the system could open up a little more and keep working fine. It's the safe approach, I suppose, but this is not what has brought Wikipedia where it is. Waltham, The Duke of 04:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, we can work on this. I am willing to compromise. How about 7 days in advance and only 4 articles per day? That would be a max of 28. Or 3 per day=21. Furthermore, as I stated above, Raul should only have to sort through those coming up (only 3/4/5 per day at most). Honestly, it should simply be a quick glance and pick one. On top of that, he can simply not choose one of those and choose an FA not even on the page. I could care less. It might also behoove us to simply remove support/opposition from that page or place it in a collapseable box or something like that. I'm willing to work all the way around this one. I concur that the current restrictions should only be eased, not erased. 1 nom per person. I'm not saying the current system is broken, but that it could simply be improved. — BQZip01 — talk 04:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you all not understand or know the history and the inevitability, that no matter how many requests are allowed, someone will want more? Raul has to be able to account for other factors, not every day can be per editor request, and he shouldn't have to sort through volumes of requests. Any way it is sliced, as soon as the bar is moved, editors want more because everyone wants to be on the mainpage when they want it, without regard for other scheduling factors. Moving the bar won't solve the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Since this is referring to me as well, I'll take the opportunity to talk about my system here. My system has been designed so that 1) there will be no "volumes" of requests, 2) there will be effective control by the community on how nominations will be made and handled, taking factors like variety into consideration, and 3) Raul retains veto powers in every stage of the process. You may be right about some users always wanting more, but this is not true for everyone, and if a system feels just regulars can make newcomers understand how things work. The important thing is that it is not only a matter of numbers and lost opportunities. Will you people ever realise that, and it is the first time I use this word on Wikipedia, the system is hostile? It has editors at their toes, waiting anxiously for openings, or it has them replace nominations which are perfectly fine. It creates the impression, largely justified, that the community is excluded from the process on purpose, which is dispiriting and frustrating. Wikipedia is a wiki, and everything in it must respect the community which has built it and indicate the editors' appreciation towards it. This process, in its current form, insults the community. I am really sorry, but this is how things are. Waltham, The Duke of 07:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think five request are fine,the thing that annoys me is waiting for article that clearly are either supported or opposed (like Moe Berg right now) but you still have to wait for the date to be filled before you can remove it. Buc (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with you that the current system is hostile. My fear is that any system will have that same effect. Maybe a new system will allow two or three requests per day, but I suspect that there will still be a need for editors to be there at just the right time to get their request in that queue. I think that many people feel that requesting their article is the only way to get it on the main page, and that is not true (although it may be the fastest). By expanding this system, will we be reinforcing that this is the way to get your article on the main page (even if it doesn't guarantee you a spot)? Karanacs (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I think this would reinforce that this is how to get on the Main Page. I also think that people wouldn't be waiting for a spot as much as you think. There are only so many FAs that haven't been on the page. That's a big number, but then there are only so many people pushing for an article to get on the page during a specific time frame. Lots of editors like to hold out for a specific anniversary. We also want to limit it to one nomination per person, which helps things. I can't really tell how many would actually apply their article for TFA. I just suspect it would follow the "when it rains, it pours" principle, with periods with few noms alternating with lots of noms for a specific day. Wrad (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see how this would reinforce that stereotype. I explicitly stated that the directions that Raul can pick whatever he wishes should be included. You can certainly be more explicit if you wish.
As for Sandy's comments, I'd like to address each of them
  1. "Do you all not understand or know the history and the inevitability, that no matter how many requests are allowed, someone will want more?...Moving the bar won't solve the problem."
    The first step is to admit you have a problem :-) I understand that some people will always want more, but the desires of a few need not override the desires of the many.
  2. "Raul has to be able to account for other factors, not every day can be per editor request, and he shouldn't have to sort through volumes of requests."
    I get the feeling that you saw the number 70 and just said "I don't think so. That's WAY too many!" My point is that you could have 70 on the page, but Raul would only have to glance at five. The rest would simply stay where they were. I've already explicitly stated that not every day should be a "per editor request". This could be further mitigated by Raul blocking certain days in advance for something he is planning to fill (in the interests of transparency). This site is run by consensus (more or less). Heck, we could always simply do away with !voting and just let Raul pick. Maximum of one per editor in the interests of fairness and I think we have a working system.
  3. "Any way it is sliced, as soon as the bar is moved, editors want more because everyone wants to be on the mainpage when they want it, without regard for other scheduling factors."
    Then they will have to learn patience. The current system doesn't address this issue any more than my proposed solution. In short, you have proposed a problem common to every system mentioned so far, but since it is a common denominator, it doesn't make my system (or any other) worse or better than any of the others.
It wouldn't hurt to try one of these systems for a month with the proposer being responsible for maintaining the page (that's maintenance, not making decisions). There wouldn't be an extra bit of work for Raul (or Sandy). Anyway, that's my two cents. — BQZip01 — talk 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Both control and flexibility are needed on this page: control will fend off abusers of the system and will ensure that the page will not fall in a vicious cycle of entropy; flexibility will allow nominators, commentators, and the Director to adapt to each nomination's needs—shorter deliberations for uncontroversial nominations, for instance, and the ability to close whichever one has been decided. This proposal seems rather inflexible in setting too rigid time-frames, forcing the Director to review nominations for one day each time (not good for allowing the evaluation of the greater picture, which is supposed to be Raul's expertise), yet is rather lax in control. I am sorry if I appear annoyingly stuck in only supporting my own proposal so far, but I really think that it is the only solution I've seen so far satisfactorily addressing all the main concerns. Over-analysis of issues can help, see. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 01:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Duke, appreciate your comments. I'm not saying Raul has to do one day at a time. He can do three days at a time or a whole week if he wishes. I don't really care. It's the basic construct I'm talking about here: a list for each day from which Raul can pick one or pick another FA if he so desires. The number per day or number of days out it irrelevant. Those can always EASILY change. — BQZip01 — talk 02:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think only deciding 3 days before the date is a bad idea. I'm not sure what kind of time we have at the moment, it seems to vary quite a bit. But at least 1 week ahead is ideal. We often get complaints the article is not up to scratch, should never have been a FA et al. This leads to edits wars on the TFA trying to add cleanup, deletion or review templates and silly suggestions like removing Raul and coming up with some complicated voting system to improve community involvement. Ignore the flaws in these ideas, one of the best responses to them is that we already have sufficient room for community involvement. If editors are sufficiently worried about the quality of articles then they should take a look the 1 week or more beforehand when the article has been selected for TFA when they are free to fix or raise any problems to be addressed without disrupting the article when it is TFA. 15:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Identify yourself. Waltham, The Duke of 00:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment to Comment 3 days...a week, whatever. The basic construct is what I am pushing. We can change the numbers as necessary. — BQZip01 — talk 04:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Watchlist note

Is there any way we can get this put up as a note at the top of everyone's watchlist like I see with other big issues? I want to see as many opinions on this as possible. It effects a lot of people. Wrad (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Using MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. Which message should be displayed ? Cenarium Talk 03:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This page is a mess, and it is not in a fit state to be added to the watchlist just yet. I would suggest archiving the page and then setting out the options. Currently, it is a mismatch of opinions, diatribes and random polls. Can we remove everything and set out the actual opinions here in a clear manner. Woody (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Yep. It's not even clear what the various parties want, or if they understand that several of them are asking for different things, or that everyone understands that confusion resulted from the instructions being wrong for a month (an undetected change). Raul was right to archive the page while giving clearer guidance about modifying the process, and parties should begin to discuss those options rather than putting a mish-mash before a broader audience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, this page is a mess. We should make something clear before posting a watchlist notice. Cenarium Talk 17:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
This kerfuffle doesn't reach a level warranting watchlist mention; parties should discuss and sort their confusion. Do we list every request by a handful of editors on the watchlist? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Straw poll y'all

Given the volume of mostly consensus and somewhat redundant discussion above, there is broad agreement submitting requests via templates weeks ahead of time would permit sufficient input and leeway for the community to the TFA director, who still makes the decisions and for TFA assistants to remove disqualified submissions. SandyGeorgia's concern of some always wanting more is true, but entirely irrelevant as compelling reasons for more spaces would lack persuasiveness once a tenable, less frustrating and more Wiki system is actually implemented.

Using the point system to break up ties sounds good, but I want to focus on the most salient issue before us. The number of days open to nominations, and the number of nominations per day allowed. Days refer to days ahead of the last locked TFA. - RoyBoy 00:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there is not broad agreement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
So the logical course of action is to close the poll, or seek broader participation? I do not require your counsel on the timeline of this poll. - RoyBoy 14:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Keep existing 5 nomination process
7 days, 3 nominations (21 max)
14 days, 2 nominations (28 max)
14 days, 3 nominations (42 max)
42 does have something going for it, but then again it sub-consciously reflects a systematic bias in Wikipedia. - RoyBoy 03:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
21 days, 2 nominations (42 max)
28 days, 1 nomination (28 max)
14 days, 2 nominations (28 max), consensus-driven discussions, closed and enacted by any administrator
  • Support A TFA is the work of all Wikipedians and should reflect the way our community works, i.e. on consensus. Most of our processes work this way, and work fine, I don't see why the TFA process should be any different. The 14/2 schedule appears to be reasonable. Cenarium Talk 02:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The reason why I think its important to keep the TFA final decision to one (or a few people) is the TFA is different than other processes because of its prestige. I can foresee cliques pushing for their articles, vote spamming etc. to ensure their articles get to the front page. Additionally, permitting would give people a sense of entitlement that their article was nominated by the community and therefore it is the correct decision. Just as with publications and newspapers, what goes on the front page is a decision for someone with seniority and trust. Certainly writers can ask for their story to make the front page (which is what I am trying to formalize and facilitate), but in the end the decision is not democratic. - RoyBoy 14:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Vote spamming has never been allowed on Wikipedia. That Raul keeps closing discussions may be acceptable for the time being, but the fact is that unlike the FAC/FAR process, you needn't be overly specialized. We're not a newspaper. Cenarium Talk 17:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Polls are evil, Raul is the featured article director, and Raul has said five articles at a time. Besides that, I strongly oppose any notion of unprotecting the TFA daily templates or opening them in any way to a free-for-all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I though it was voting that was evil :) . I never voted for Raul, and I don't think he should be able to veto huge majorities like we're seeing here. I don't think that was part of his job description, anyhow. I also don't see how the proposal I'm supporting is a free for all. I don't see any logic behind you and Raul's constant, repetitive, doomsday, "it won't work" arguments. Wrad (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • If you think that's the case, then you obviously haven't been following the many complaints on this page over the last several months, all along the lines we're arguing here. We've hardly begun yet! Wrad (talk) 01:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Has anyone asked Raul whether he'd be willing/able to look at this increased number of nominations? If one or more of the plans above will make it so that he's not willing to look at the page anymore it would be a moot point. Karanacs (talk) 01:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I don't think that Raul even cares. I mean, when was his last comment on this talk page? He hasn't participated at all. I really find it very contrary that a supposedly open encylopedia is having the most visible part of the whole thing (TFA) by only one person. That is absolutely crazy. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 02:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Respectfully, there are a lot of people here who think there is a better way with more transparency. Provided we can come up with a solution that everyone here would like, a bureaucrat ignoring that consensus would be a problem, IMHO. — BQZip01 — talk 02:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've found straw poll's is a fast way to gauge consensus on an issue and limit redundant discussion. If you have a less evil and efficient method, please employ it on things you wish to action. - RoyBoy 04:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this whistling in the wind, or is something gonna come of this? I've read nothing from Raul or SandyGeorgia indicating that they are open to a major change in the system.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Until we get consensus, I we all agree we shouldn't change anything for the sake of change. Once we get consensus, it will be hard for a single individual to oppose/suppress it. — BQZip01 — talk 19:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm as much as an iconoclast as the next guy, but I think I'll sit this one out. Wake me up when the revolution's over.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
That kind of attitude will get us nowhere. Sandy and Raul can't stand against consensus. They don't have that kind of power. Unless of course people think they do and don't get involved. Wrad (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Who bells the cat?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get what you're saying there. The point is, we don't need Raul and Sandy's permission to make these changes. If they don't like the way consensus is heading, then consensus will move ahead without them. Wrad (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
What is this "Raul and Sandy" business and where is it coming from? Raul schedules the mainpage and I have no involvement or input; I'm here opining as any other editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm new on this page, so possibly I don't know what's going on. I'll sit back and watch with interest.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So, we have five people for 28 days/2 noms, and one for 28/3. You can call that a consensus, but we obviously need more people voting. That's the problem with this page: Not enough exposure. Considering that the C-Class vote got on everyone's watchlist, and that's not half as important as the Main Page TFAs, I think this should definitely go on everyone's watchlist. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 09:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm thinking. How? Wrad (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Raul would know. :-D Waltham, The Duke of 21:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Voting should continue, posting a heads up elsewhere may illicit more participation. I'm going to notify the Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard. It would be nice if this was mentioned in the mail list. I will ask the Signpost to mention it. - RoyBoy 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Since the Village pump and other posts didn't generate the desired results, keep asking? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
There have been preemptive calls that consensus has been reached by people who really should know better. For something this important I'm certainly not going to move forward without more community involvement. What should I do SandyGeorgia, drop it after one post to the Policy Village Pump? Lackluster participation isn't surprising given I've largely sat back on this. I'm interested in community opinions/options, yours included, whatever they may be. I've certainly been surprised before; and if I think the issue is important enough, I do have some practice herding cats. I like cats, unless they hiss and growl for no apparent reason; but I can deal with that as well. - RoyBoy 04:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
I have lost count by now, but this notion has been posted at least (among other places) to the Village Pump, the Adminstrators' Noticeboard, and Requests for Comment; all of which have generated basically no reaction. We are seeing the same small core of people supporting this, and clearly the community is not unhappy about the job Raul has done. There has been no reaction in spite of multiple posts in many places, indicating general satisfaction with the mainpage. If you don't recognize that, perhaps you haven't followed hot topics at some of those same boards, which generate dozens, scores and hundreds of responses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I don't recognize/understand the expected turnout for hot topics, but as I'm purposefully ignorant of community sentiment and previous turn-outs/possible burn out on this issue I am unsure if this even qualifies as "hot". I'm also unaware of artificial time restrictions being placed on this poll. - RoyBoy 14:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Roy, this isn't the first time this has been brought up. And Sandy is dead-on that it's the same 3 or 4 very vocal people constantly rehashing it. I'm not going to leave the poll open indefinitely - it's clear that there is no consensus to change what's already in place. Raul654 (talk) 16:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Understood, but that doesn't clarify to me what the community consensus is on funneling requests to you. Was the 5 requests compromise/solution reached by any kind of meaningful consensus? Stating "no consensus to change" after 5 days and half-hearted solicitation on my part (policy forums -- relatively speaking -- are not heavily trafficked IMO, I started slow on purpose) is unacceptable. I appreciate your knowledgeable and historic perspective, but this poll is seeking further perspectives. If you archive it again... I will choose to question good faith and act accordingly.
I should also clarify my motivation, I could have made my Blade Runner request on your talk page. First off, I didn't want to bother you, secondly I didn't want to feel like I owed you, thirdly -- and most importantly -- it isn't how things should be done on a Wiki. I know this, because I felt uncomfortable with the notion of asking you directly. That discomfort was a new experience for me on Wikipedia. Probably also on a sub-conscious level, even though I recognize Blade Runner has a better shot of being a TFA in 2012; it is my understanding with more FA articles the likelihood goes down every year... let alone 4 years from now. *shrug* In the end the TFA request process is too informal (requests can be made in the user talk space), too restrictive (5 requests for all future dates!) and has been decided on by whom? - RoyBoy 16:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
One of the (many) problems with this poll is the different and confusing aspects of what various people are asking for, without discussing and coming to a consensus on how to better address the concerns. (Also notably missing is any example of Raul mismanaging TFA on the mainpage or being unwilling to discuss reasonable options -- reasonable meaning not hundreds he has to sort through or that lower mainpage diversity or increase resource starvation). First, the instructions were off for over a month, which confused everyone. Second, some are suggesting the templates should be unprotected and filled in by the community (which would be a free-for-all and a wreck). Third, it's unclear if the community can remove requests that receive little support, making room for more requests. Finally, some are suggesting changes to the point system and five-day issue, which is an entirely different issue that could be separately discussed (per Raul's earlier response) without the additional confusion of a malformed poll. There are a number of different issues being thrown in by different people; I suggest archiving the page, remove the malformed poll, and actually start discussing. Raul has already indicated that he's not concerned so much with how points are assigned, etc., but that he not have mountains of requests to sort through (which was the history of this page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Also agree with this. I've resisted the urge to weigh in on the above poll because none of the responses really represent my view or what I consider a good solution. I do think some aspects of the process need to change, but I'm not sure this tangled mess of discussion is going to produce a satisfactory result. However, now that this free thinking exercise has identified a number of separate issues, which I think Sandy has enumerated rather nicely immediately above, those issues can be discussed individually. Eventually, the individual solutions for each problem might coalesce into something resembling a proposal that the community could sensibly weigh in on. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 18:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
What, you mean results where only one person opposes--you? Forgive me for trying to get a broader spectrum. I didn't think our numbers would be this good. Wrad (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
You know that's not true, and it's not very becoming of you to suggest it is. Please do review the archives, and note that you have basically the same small group calling for this over and over in spite of never gaining consensus for it. Factor also that many recent complaints about the page were because somewhere along the way, someone changed the page instructions to a system that was unclear and dysfunctional, and that change flew under the radar for a bit because the instructions aren't on a separate page (and they still aren't, so changes to instructions may be get lost among the routine declarations on the page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
That's what I'm saying. It's always the same (vast majority) in favor of changing and the same small minority against it. We could just accept our majority as consensus and move on, but why not get some new blood in on it? Wrad (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
The instructions have been moved to a subpage and trancluded. –thedemonhog talk • edits 02:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Administrators are familiar with closing community discussions and are able to protect pages and edit protected pages, there is no reason that only one person rules over the TFA process. Concerning diversity, it's very possible to establish guidelines, the community is aware of the issue. Cenarium Talk 03:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/requests/Archive_3&oldid=1255165221"