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

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)  14:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: #Support as nominator.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  14:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in support of the proposal

message: #Oppose because voting will fail to choose the best 30 lists each month. You need a huge number of voters in order to rank 30+ items. Look at Round 1 of Commons:Picture of the Year/2006. That had hundreds of voters yet by #17 it failed to rank precisely. Add to this the fatigue after the best 30, 60, 90 lists have already been chosen. I don't believe voters will have the time and patience to seriously review the 30+ lists on offer each month. It is quite a bit less pleasurable than rating pretty photographs. Voting on WP is generally discouraged, can be divisive and can be manipulated.
#:My suggestion, should a LOTD meet community approval, is that initially we adopt the Commons' Picture of the Day procedure (as I understand it, correct me if I'm wrong). A calendar one or two months ahead is created and editors simply insert an FL into a vacant slot. Add a few informal guidelines to discourage bunching lists of one topic together. As with TFA and POTD, a list gets one shot at glory. A simple and crude method of encouraging fair play would be to disallow an editor from inserting their own list. This approach is far more in keeping with the Wiki spirit than the present LOTD proposal or the TFA method. It requires very little house keeping or administrative actions. Colin°Talk 20:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey - in opposition to the proposal

message: Comment.  For clarification, how does this proposal for FLs specifically differ from the FA system?  --  Wikipedical 19:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It involves a complicated voting system with points and voting for multiple items and then a hierarchical advancement to "List of the Month," and "List of the Year." Now the bias... All of this is unheard of in the English Wikipedia and is not really in the spirit of how things are usually run. Atropos 19:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The FA system is  dictatorial. One person says what goes on the main page without room for negotiation.  This proposal is a consensus based system in which all nominators have the responsibility of casting three votes.  The monthly selections are based on the collective consensus, and anyone who is interested may contribute to the decision.  In addition, to providing a mechanism to fill out a monthly schedule of LOTDs, this mechanism could be used, if people agree to designate a single best "List of the Month" and possibly "List of the Year."--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  20:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Dictatorial" is a highly inflammatory word to use. I don't think that a single person needs to be elected or selected to make the decision, but this bureaucracy and voting is completely unnecessary. Atropos 21:38, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dictatorial is a term the Featured Articles Director, himself, and his cadre use to describe him.  I am just using their own term.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  13:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: How exactly is there any attempt to achieve consensus in this proposal? All you're doing is counting votes. There is no explaination required for why you're voting the way you vote. The reality is of course it's going to be very difficult to explain why you feel item 1 is better then item 2 most of the time so any consensus based system is inherently flawed. Instead, all you're left with is a simple vote which is prone to increase systemic bias etc as I mentioned above Nil Einne 02:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break

message: Shouldn't this page belong in the project space? I'm going to be bold and move the page to the project space, and if anyone has any problems with it, we can revert and discuss. ~ Sebi [talk] 21:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this should be moved to Wikipedia:Today's featured list per TFA and TFP.  –thedemonhog talk • edits • box 00:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that sounds better. ~ Sebi [talk] 00:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  - Moved. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 03:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong namespace 

message: That there is significant support, thus far for including featured lists in some form on the main page, however, this proposal looks destined for the land of no consensus rejection if we don't decide what to do. First we should feel out how the community feels about FL inclusion on the main page, then we should decide how to do it. Who, participating in this discussion (regardless of all the voting above) would support the simple idea of Featured lists being included on the main page in some form to be decided? IvoShandor 21:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 18 of the 23 who have commented above support lists on the main page. 6 of these 18 do not support this proposal. Of the remaining 5, 3 have oppose out of concern for how featured lists would look on the main page, 1 felt featured lists were not our best work, and 1 opposed this proposal without mentioning an opinion about lists on the main page. It appears that including featured lists on the main page somehow is definitely something many people would like, and I think the first thing we should decide is how that will look, and then we can decide how the lists selected will be chosen.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atropos (talk • contribs) 21:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I support FLs on the main page, but I do not support the voting system. ~ Sebi [talk] 21:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. This proposal, however, is going no where, and fast. I kindly suggest that it be tagged as rejected and the discussion be moved to the Village Pump, where it can be determined if community consensus does in fact exist for such an inclusion (especially among those editors who do not work anywhere near WP:FL. IvoShandor 21:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you should split it into 2 discussions, cause right now we're discussing having FL on main page and having a voting process for the lists to be displayed per day. These are separate and should be discussed in 2 different pages. Of course, you need the first discussion to reach an agreement before the second discussion can move forward. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: So it seems

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

message: Why all the rush to post a featured list on the Main Page when you can start small and begin to create featured lists of the day right now ASAP? Yes it is true that WP:POTD started in 2004, but they did not appear on the main page until July 2005. In that month, a main page template called Wikipedia:Today's second feature was implemented in which DYK was shown on weekdays and POTDs on weekends. It was not until the current design of the main page, implemented in March 2006, that POTDs started to appear seven days a week. 
Furthermore, if there are users who want to create featured lists of the day, but cannot agree on a vote method, you might want to consider how POTDs are chosen: they are selected in the order they were promoted, a rough FIFO order (although we try to not to put pictures of the same subject too close to each other). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The proposer is somewhat against the idea since he/she feels there needs to be additional selection beyond being a FL. See above... Nil Einne 09:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, look - that is your sample format 2.  I think you need to tidy it up a bit first, though. -- !! ?? 14:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recommendation: Start small like POTD did 

message: Voting for a daily TFL is illogical, cumbersome, and completely unnecessary, and trying to institute some sort of stupid process will not expedite getting our well deserved FLs on the Main Page.  This proposal, as written, is an utter waste of time.  Process Is Evil.  There is a simple solution, and that is just putting the lists on the Main Page chronologically - no obtrusive "voting," no one person in charge, just simple chronological listing. Keep it simple. Instead of wasting our time with this, we should focus our energies on getting the FLs on the Main Page in the first place.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Competition breeds innovation and a competitive selective process to get on the main page will cause people to improve the project.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  16:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But won't people realise that whatever they do, as long as the list they've written is a FL, it'll end up on the main page at somepoint, regardless of how many votes its gets - as it should be? RHB - Talk 19:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That does not make sense.  If there are over 400 FLs and they are producing more than 30 per month, how can they all get on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  21:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats a broken argument that could be applied to FPs and FAs as well.  Instead of dilly dallying by trying to institute some utterly wasteful process that there will be no consensus for, fight instead for getting the FLs on the main page in the first place, and keep the selection process simple.  This proposal is doing more harm than good.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 22:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The process is fairly simple. People nominate lists, and everyone involved says which 3 they would most like to see on the main page.  Then, someone tallies the responses.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  15:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But how do you expect people to review thirty lists, most of which are on subjects a reviewer is likely to know next to nothing about, in hopes of selecting the three which represent the best work?  To me, it looks that the most popular topics would end up getting most votes.  Perhaps this is how it should be (it ensures that the FLs that end up on the main page are of interest to more readers), but do we really need a full-scale selection process when a simple popularity contest would suffice?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You're certainly entitled to your opinion, and I can see that you're commenting in good faith, but your language is a bit abrasive. Calling this proposal "stupid" and a "waste of time" may be seen by some editors as being uncivil. Just a friendly heads-up. Dylan 21:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No offense was intended, but I won't back down from my feeling that this is wasting time... whoever wrote this proposal meant well, but like I said, its doing more harm than good.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The proposal, as it stands, is a massive waste of time 

message: If you are wavering between approved and no consensus keep in mind that at one point this debate had 10 oppose and 7 support.  However, as the arguments have been refined and the proposal has been tweaked 18 of the last 24 respondents have supported.  Also, note that one of the major changes that has helped with the support is the production of the sample2 format of the prospective main page.  Many persons involved were hesitant to support because of the possibility that this proposal might detract from the appearance of the main page.  Several support votes have specifically expressed satisfaction with this late addition to the proposal.  Even some early oppose votes based on formatting predate the creation of sample2.  I had been proposing with the other sample format because I did not want to take space away from WP:POTD.  However, I see that sample2 is preferable.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  12:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think most of the people were upset because the FLOD is chosen by voting, which takes too much time. However, most opposition agrees on having a FLOD. In short, people oppose because of how they are chosen, not the idea. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Message to Closing admin