Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

See User:Raul654/Featured article thoughts for helpful hints relating to requests
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Recent changes

I've made some changes given the above discussions. I imagine more changes will come, but two things are clear:

  1. Most editors don't like the five article rule
  2. Most editors don't like the way nominations are removed when no one is taking that specific date.

This fixes both by allowing more than five nominations. It allows noms for two weeks beyond the most recent one. It also allows two nominations for the same date to be juxtaposed and for a consensus to determine which is best. Raul still has final say and can overrule as he wishes. Wrad (talk) 20:18, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it exceedingly ironic, that , after so much debate about changing the rule, there are still only five nominations, even after the rule change. Perhaps people haven't realized that the rules have changed? And on a side note, isn't the points system obsolete, as any article can be nominated, regardless of points? Noble Story (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I think people are scared. If you get burned enough times, you eventually don't want to touch the stove even when it's off. Hopefully we'll ease into it after awhile, though. Wrad (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Points can be helpful still if two article are in contention for the same date. Wrad (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
No doubt there's an assumption that the 5-article limit is still in effect. Would it help to actually list all the dates for the 2 week period as placeholders? That way, one could tell at a glance which dates: (1) are open; (2) have nom(s) under discussion; (3) have TFAs selected by Raul. JGHowes talk - 19:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Not anymore. Raul doesn't like the setup for some reason :( . Wrad (talk) 19:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this change (it was buried in an avalanche of subsequent edits and not easy to find). I cannot be more clear about this - I want a hard limit on how many nominations go on this page. (Admittedly, 5 is arbitrary, but it's a reasonable number for me to deal with and giving people a fair number of open slots) As such, I've restored the rule, and put the limit back up to 30 days. Raul654 (talk) 19:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

To put it really bluntly, nearly everybody else seems to hate the rule. It seems to me that by making it more open you would be saving yourself a headache. Let the community decide what goes on the front page and the community gets blamed for bad decisions, not you. Why do you want this hard limit? Nobody else does. It most certainly is not a fair number of open slots from what I've seen. This could really be an effective way to decide what goes on the main page, if we just let it. Wrad (talk) 19:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a perennial suggestion, which I'm not particularly in the mood to rehash. I already did that in 2004, 2005, 2006, and as recently as a few weeks ago. Suffice it to say, we're not going to vote on the FAs that go on the main page.
As for everyone hating the limit, I'm aware they do. To be equally blunt, that's because they are too shortsighted to see what will happen with no limits. We once had a suggestion page once with no limits, and it was a disaster. It had upwards of 250 requests, nobody maintained it, and it was so large and unwieldy I tried never to look at it. In fact, now that I think about it, I'd be equally happy to go back to that old situation -- no limits on requests, and I get to ignore all of them. Raul654 (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Of course you realized that the recent change didn't make it unlimited, I hope... I don't see how this horror story is relevant. We don't want unlimited... Wrad (talk) 19:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
It allowed any number of requests for any date within the next two weeks. That is unlimited by defintion. Raul654 (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
"Within the next two weeks..." (???). So let's limit the number per day to two. Problem solved! Let's not be so jaded about this, please. Wrad (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
So in other words, you want to increase the limit from 5 to 28. Raul654 (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
That's ridiculous, Raul how often are people going to put two suggestions up? Especially when one has a billion points on it and a bunch of support votes? Wrad (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
how often are people going to put two suggestions up -- Prior experience on this page has shown that this page will fill up to the limit every time - no exceptions. Sorry if you didn't realize that, but that's just the way it is. Raul654 (talk) 20:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's definitely been happening lately. I mean, we've had five noms for about a week under this new unlimited format. Man. Things really were out of control until you came along. First you complain about unlimited and now you complain about 28 noms. Raul, the fact is, five noms for 30 days is about the worst way this page can be organized. Just trash this page. You already seem convinced that it was doomed from the start and are unwilling to make the changes that will really make it work and be useful. Just do it your own dang way like you want to, okay? Wrad (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I support Raul's change; there are many factors that go into scheduling the mainpage, and the requests page has to reflect all of the considerations Raul has to account for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Poor, poor Raul. Oh well. I guess I'll just stop trying to help and move on. You can deal with your problems on your own, like you always have. Wrad (talk) 19:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, what Raul is pointing out is exactly what happened before, and it became unworkable. There has to be a limit, or the system becomes unusable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Has he tried EXACTLY what we're proposing before? I'm getting really sick of these "we've done it before" arguments. Anytime anyone thinks of an idea Raul's there with that one. Wrad (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I personally think if we don't want to do this, we shouldn't have this page. The five-article rule is just going to cause more problems. I think Raul is doing fine picking TFAs and I haven't seen him do one I didn't like yet. I really don't care what's on the front page. I'm sorry I've been a bit bitey. Raul's doing fine with TFA's. I was just trying to help out and am defensive about things sometimes. Wrad (talk) 21:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Would also add that under the unlimited format Raul would be forced to the put up request everyday and would never have the chance to put his own chooses up. Buc (talk) 18:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
This is not an unlimited format. Raul taking requests is an unlimited format by definition since there is no limit to the number of requests he can be sent. Also, why should one person get to decide? Your arguments are not making any sense. Wrad (talk) 21:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Raul should alway get the final say. Buc (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
He would get the final say in this system. This is absolutely insane. Wrad (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
A few points:
  • I do not believe that it is productive to make comparisons between a chaotic, unmaintainable page of "upwards 250 requests" and a controlled page of 28 nominations at most. This is a very specific and well-defined proposal and a decision should be made on its merits.
  • Even though the maximum projected capacity of the page is 28 nominations, it would not be reached easily because the nominations would have to be distributed between fourteen days. I take it that most Featured Articles do not need to be featured on the Main Page on a specific day, therefore there is enough flexibility as to their scheduling (co-operation and understanding between the editors is important here); there certainly is not a need to fill both slots on a given day, unless it is important for two articles.
  • There have been concerns, from what I notice, about the point system, mostly by the Director himself. The new system would only make use of the points in cases of two nominations for a day; it would be useful there, but not be used elsewhere. An acceptable compromise, perhaps, between those unwilling to trust the point system for the entire process and those supportive of its benefits in determining the value of nominations.
  • The authority of Raul would not be undermined in the least under the new system: for dates in which he would desire to exhibit a specific article, he would do so regardless of the discussions on the page (as now—the disclaimer is in place); for the rest, he would be aided by not having to make decisions. Wikipedia has been successfully built on its community; I see no reason why we should not trust editors to run this process smoothly.
  • If there are still qualms about applying the proposal, I suggest a trial run with ten days instead of fourteen; this way the effects thereof could be evaluated in an even more controlled page than the one suggested, with a maximum of twenty nominations instead of the controversial five, but still a maximum not easily reached.
All in all, I find that the proposed system would be efficient, less controversial, a certain improvement over the current one, and satisfying to both parties (the Director and the nominees). I should be much distressed to see it summarily dismissed, when so many objections have been voiced against the current system. Wikipedia is all about constant improvement, and the same spirit should be echoed here.
I look forward to constructive feedback. Waltham, The Duke of 23:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wrad, I support your idea and have a hard time imagining how allowing any number of articles to be proposed, for dates within the next x days, would be unmanagable. You're right, most people don't like the current system, and as Awadewit once pointed out, it favors those who have time to refresh their watchlists all day. Finally, giving users the right to remove others' nominations (when their nomination (according to them) has more points) is rather "bite-y" and hardly in keeping with the usual approach to discussion on Wikipedia.[Not done any more, I see.] Oh well. –Outriggr § 01:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
All I can say is Raul, even if you are absolutely positive it won't work, can you at least humor us? If it is a failure, all you have to do is ignore it and put what you want on the front page. Wrad (talk) 02:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You can search these talk archives and see this has come up before. The bottom line is Raul does it the way he wants to and that's it. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Raul can speak for himself, I believe, and I should like him to read through my analysis and answer to that. The proposal put forth by Wrad has many virtues which should be evaluated separately, and the fact that most people object to the current system is enough motivation, at least in my opinion, to try a little harder to change this regrettable situation. We ask for the Director to give us the opportunity to rid him of a chronic headache, and perhaps even to rest him a little—a system is only efficient if it does not take for granted a constant investment of resources by any given individual, because at the absence of that individual for however short a time period it will unavoidably break down. Raul would only intervene when he would judge that his intervention would be required, and the power to do so would continue to rest with him exclusively. He could still override the process at any stage, but if he would prefer not to, he would at least have that luxury. What is the problem with that? Waltham, The Duke of 10:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I think this would probably create more work for Raul. In addition to the work it currently takes him to ensure there is topic diversity on the main page, he would also have the headache of trying to please 14+ nominators each fortnight. Most nominations would probably need to be rejected to maintain topic diversity, and he'll end up getting constant complaints. Epbr123 (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
How is that any different from what he's doing now? He already has to deal with requests all the time. The way I see it, if he picks something from this page and people don't like it, they can't blame him, because it was a community decision. Wrad (talk) 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
If the community is going to be making decisions people don't like, it would be best to leave the job to Raul. Epbr123 (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Who says they are? We don't know if they will or not, but we sure do know that a lot of people don't like the ones Raul's picked! Wrad (talk) 16:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
If the decision was totally left up to the community, there would not be topic balance. What in your proposal prevents three video game articles being on the main page each week? Epbr123 (talk) 17:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me that you haven't really taken part in discussions on this page. People who !vote here take that into account. It would NOT be a problem. Wrad (talk) 17:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Even though this may sound like a good idea, it's been tried before and not worked. What's the piont doing it again? Buc (talk) 16:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
We haven't done this before. Whatever we did before was nothing like this. If you believe otherwise, prove it by providing a link to whatever was exactly like this and didn't work. I wish I could do whatever I wanted on something this important. Wouldn't that be nice? What if Raul gets hit by a car today, then what? Wrad (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Just as a note, I'm supporting everything Wrad is saying. And I still find it just a bit funny that Raul has yet to respond to the comments made here. Noble Story (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break I

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)

Addition–clarification Although it has not been very clear so far, either in my mind or in the proposal, I have decided that the best way to go is for the page to host nominations not for the following 14 free days, but for the next fourteen calendar days. In other words, there will be 14 headings and every day one will go from the top and another will appear at the bottom. Days for which articles have been scheduled will have a Locked or Scheduled label, accompanied by the title of the article and perhaps other information (see bullet #3). This will produce several additional benefits:

  • Further manageability – Although the nominal maximum remains eight-and-score, the actual maximum number of nominations drops to twenty, or less (four locked days in a fortnight is a realistic, if not conservative, estimate). The actual number is now estimated to range between ten and fifteen nominations at any given time.
  • Better organisation – It is easier for editors to make their arrangements if they know that a slot will be freed exactly fourteen days in advance (which I consider enough time for a decision to be made; I mention this because this clause makes it hard to schedule an article more than 14 days prior, although Raul can certainly by-pass that at will).
  • Smoother proceedings – The Director can take up slots, if he wishes to make specific selections for these days, as previously; the difference is that editors will be promptly informed if he overrides a decision or simply takes care of a vacant slot, as that will be written under that day's heading, and no questions need be asked (although, of course, it doesn't ensure that they won't).
  • Better informativeness – Editors can see in a glance which slots have closed, and which articles are scheduled for them, without having to go to the relevant month's TFA page.

I haven't added this to the proposal proper, as I don't know how editors will feel about it (it changes the page's character just a bit), but it makes for a shorter and more organised page, which I believe is more to Raul's taste, and is more informative to, and easily used by, the editors. Waltham, The Duke of 17:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

From where I sit on this, the problem is that everyone agrees the current system sucks, but no one seems to know exactly why it sucks. Moreover, the editers and Raul654 have vague notions of what they do and don't want this page to be, and thus far the community's attempt to act on these vague notions is creating results that no one seems to like. In short, we all seem to agree that we need a change, but we are not even sure what the underlying problem is in the first place. From where I sit, the three biggest issues with regards to people and this page are as follows:
  • We have several articles that could be featured on revelvent dates within the next two to four weeks, be not enough slots to accomadte all of them, which creates frustration among editers in the waiting line. If we could limit requests in such a way as to permit multiple requests for the same days then we might allieviate the problem at the expense of returning the request page to 100+ articles as was the case in early 07.
  • We lack any kind of long range request system for those of us trying to get articles up on dates outside of 30-days. Admittedly, this should not be as large an issue as it is, but I think the perception that there is unclaimed terrirotry out there that editers are being forcibly kept off of is creating a kind of roit mentality, and people are getting increasingly "physical" in thier pushing and shove to find some niche they can claim for "their" article;
  • We have no system in place to protect articles already on the TFA request page from removal by second and third parties. I think that when most people place an article here they want a degree of security in knowing that the article they suggest will not be removed by someone eight second after they add the article here in the first place. That kind of thing is tantamount to being cut off while driving; it angers people and foster unnessicary ill will among the contributers.
I'm going out on a limb here, but I would suggest creating a category for proposed TFAs for date specfic requests, and changing the system so that editers nominate their articles on the article talk page using a modified {{todo}} template to explain in 500 words or less why the article should go up on the given date. From here Raul could evaluate multiple requests for the same date, decide on the one best suited to the date, and use it as the TFA, but thats just me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomStar81 (talk • contribs) 06:22, 11 May 2008
I've long been complaining about the process in which Featured Articles are nominated for the main page. The original process, although admittedly it had its faults, was much better until one month when the backlog was too great, Raul (Instead of enlisting more help) changed the process completely and screwed up whatever shred was working. There are still issues which have not been resolved despite my continued requests; the current process is extremely flawed and almost no one likes it. Articles which have no dates or important topics are shoved to the back and having done a few of these myself, it really does not make one want to to use this process. Raul stop being so stubborn and make changes based on community opinion not unilateral bias. If you can't handle the workload, give it to someone else. Cheers 203.97.171.7 (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Repeated Today Featured Article

Should it state that Today's Featured Article should not be repeated? (Halgin (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC))

Yes, that would be helpful. –thedemonhog talk • edits 16:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
As with everything that goes without saying, I think we should write it. :-) Waltham, The Duke of 16:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)