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

message: :Add  # Support  or  # Oppose  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
===Survey - in support of the proposal===
# Support as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  15:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: # Support as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  15:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the proposal

message: # Strong Oppose: Still don't support featured lists on the Main Page and certainly don't support any system that is a bureaucratic mess, like this one.IvoShandor 16:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the proposal

message: I support including more featured content on the Main Page. But I disagree with the arrangement of the POTD with the caption to the right of the image; since the caption box is now vertical, it reduces the size of the picture. If WP:TFL is implemented, I'd prefer the image occupy as much of the caption box as possible with the caption at the bottom. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 17:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly is the proposal here? That we experiment with something that doesn't have consensus to go on the Main Page and then vote on whether it should go on the Main Page whether we have consensus or not? This is totally unnecessary. IvoShandor 17:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POTD

message: My full reasoning was a little longer than I intended, so I am putting it here instead of the poll section: The format is okay, though it would be nice if the word "list" was used more than that one time in the header to emphasize that it isn't the same as a regular article. At least change the generic "more..." to something like "the full list..." The example one devotes over 25% of the section (2 out of 7 sentences) to the most recent people (the current and former Opposition Leaders), making it look a lot like the TFA. I still don't like the idea of voting - randomly choosing, or choosing based on relevance to the date would be better, not that its too bureaucratic, but that it is way more process than is needed. Except for ones that may have a significance to the date or relevance to other things on the main page, why would any list be more preferable to others? If none of the lists have any special significance for the day and all of the lists are featured quality, why would there be any reason to oppose one over the others? Mr.Z-man 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't want to get into burdensome details, but monthly scheduling would give priority to date requests.  Voting/commenting would help choose one list over another based on main page appeal.  All lists may be featured, but not all are equally desirable for the main page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  18:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Unless something like List of gay porn stars is an FL, there isn't much reason to discriminate. There is not as much of a supply of FLs as there is FAs. What gives a list "main page appeal?" Will there be criteria, or is it just "what the voters like?" Mr.Z-man 18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: You can make the template if you want and do an experiment with it and let people use it, but without a strong consensus somewhere, you can't put it on the main page. Please assume good faith, not that people have an "out of control ego" or an ulterior motive to their comments. Mr.Z-man 01:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I was too polite and thus ambiguous in my attempt to avoid what might be considered a personal attack.  The phrase "Featured list should be on the main page or why have featured lists?" by one of the supporters above is IMO an example of an inflated sense of importance or an attempt to coerce opinion by making this a "if you don't give me the frosting, I won't buy us the cake" proposition.  Otherwise, you're making my point exactly.  Why force special privileges for an untried concept on the community, when trying it requires effort already needed for the desired end state? If the supporters here feel that it not worth doing unless it's on the Main Page, then it's not worth doing. - BanyanTree 02:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: General comments

message: Another problem is that there isn't nearly as much variety among the FLs as there is with FAs. There are more FLs relating to television shows then there are in all of the science categories combined. Some FA request commentators hate the number of pop culture related stuff that makes the main page, but well over half of all of the FLs relate to media, music or sports. In fact, roughly 1/4 of all FLs are in the sports category, which means there could be 1 sports article making the main page per week, which isn't much variety. If you tried to fairly rotate the topics, say 1 every two weeks, then many of the categories would be tapped dry and you'd be left with dozens of media, sports, politics and geography FLs, but not many other topics so you could vastly separate them.
And if you do things randomly, you run into problems too. For example, in August, September and October, 20 FLs relating to NHL trophies were promoted. So, if a TFL ever made it that far, there would be 20 NHL FLs (all about one topic) on the main page within a short period. -- Scorpion0422 00:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lack of variety among FLs

message: IMHO, the reason why there are many opposes is that we really haven't tried it out yet; and testing things at the Main Page at the get-go is a bad idea. What I say is we have a Second Main Page where we can test LOTD and perhaps several other featured content we have and perhaps other new ideas (how about recently uploaded images a la DYK or the quote for the day?) then we'll put a prominent link to Second Main Page at Main Page and see what other people think about it. --Howard the Duck 04:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a very good idea to me. Other websites do the same type of thing see Page 2 on ESPN.com Dincher 04:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Example. I can't think of any other ideas to put it in there though. --Howard the Duck 12:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that idea of having a sandbox of the Main Page, where changes can be proposed and illustrated for a central discussion. But since it's a meta page, better to rename it in Wikipedia space, such as Wikipedia:Main Page sandbox or Wikipedia:Main Page 2. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 14:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm giving you people free rein what to do with that, see FL would almost not be at the Main Page, the next best thing is to develop a 2nd main page in the condition that a link is prominently displayed there. --Howard the Duck 14:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

text: What it looks like from the outside is that we're trying to stuff a heap of unnecessary things onto an already-clogged Main Page. "Sports" news? Really? We're an encyclopedia, people don't necessarily come to an encyclopedia for up-to-date sports scores (I'm not saying they don't come here for it full stop, but rather, wouldn't people be more inclined to visit a site that specialises in sports scores, than an encyclopedia?). Putting a featured portal at the top, and featured media lower down the page sound to me like we're trying to put all our good stuff on the Main Page. I bet that a lot of newcomers don't even know that any other featured content outside of featured articles exists. A second main page, IMO, isn't a great idea. ~ Sebi 21:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When is putting good stuff on the Main Page a bad idea? it is certainly better to feature FLs than DYKs, for example. As for sports and other things, see my reply below... --Howard the Duck 03:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I am not sure where you got the idea about Sports news. I was just using ESPN.com's Page 2 as an example of a second page, a page that features some unusual news that wouldn't make the main page. Dincher 22:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sports news is from User:Howard the Duck/Main Page 2. ~ Sebi 23:45, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I saw that after I actually looked. Oops, anyway I think that adding the scores of the World Series or other big sporting events would be fine. Dincher 03:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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