Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:49, 6 March 2012

• WT:TFL
• WT:LOTD

Archives

Archive 1

A good start

21 and a bit hours in, I'd say it has been a reasonably successful launch. 100% of edits up until the time of this post were constructive. The main page looks good. We didn't break anything. The main complaint at Talk:Main Page is that we're only running once a week. And we managed to give a little bit of exposure to WikiProject Cuba. .

These are the things that have sprung to my mind through the course of the day:

• We should set up an automated process for the editnotice, along the lines of {{TFA title}}. Looks a bit complicated for me though.
• At the moment something like 35% of our content is sport-related. That sports editors are doing a fantastic job of churning out high-quality content is not a bad thing, and should not in any way be discouraged. However, it stands to reason that if fewer than 35% of TFLs are sport-related, the proportion of sports lists in Category:Featured lists that have not appeared on the main page will go even higher than that. In the short term, how do we approach this? In the longer term, how can we increase participation from other fields at FLC? The content obviously needs to be featured before it's eligible for TFL.
• At the main page talk, feedback on the colour of the "Today's featured list" main page header was a little negative. I don't like it either, although abiding by the Wikimedia colour scheme, it was either that pink or an even nastier orange. Could the shade of pink possibly be tinkered with?
• We don't need to decide a selection process just yet, but I think some direction on the purpose of the submissions page is necessary. Judging by the comment at the bottom of this diff, people may be holding back from writing blurbs because they feel the work might go to waste. In my opinion, the submissions page should merely be a place for copy-editing, checking the image is freely licenced, and raising concerns about a list (the hepatitis one is a good example of genuine concerns being sensibly discussed). All submissions should be welcome, and while there is no guarantee of a list going up, provided that a submission is well written with a suitable image, it should be retained somewhere for eventual use.
• The caption of the main page logo at {{ArticleHistory}} should be changed from "Main page trophy" to "Main page", IMO.

Thoughts? —WFC— 21:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad all went well! Surely FLs could be featured on the Main Page more frequently than once per week, but this is a great start! Regarding FLs unrelated to sports, I am not sure if the Grammy lists are up to Main Page preferences, but perhaps I will try submitting a blurb. Again, to all involved, well done! --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

And as to the sport lists, I don't think there is a problem with having a sport list once every three weeks or so (the proportional pace) so long as care is taken that an association football list is followed by a cricket list is followed by a baseball list etc./usw. — KV5 • Talk • 21:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Go for it Another Believer. The more the merrier at WP:TFLS!

On sports, while we're weekly or twice weekly, I agree, one in three carefully rotated shouldn't be a problem. It's when we look towards becoming daily that the issue would really start to surface. One in three would equate to four or five sports lists a fortnight, if we ever went daily. —WFC— 21:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I see how TFA title works, but it involves the help of a bot (User:AnomieBOT II). The rest is quite easy; it defenitely saves one chore. As for the pink... the only other alternative is a yellowish-green (H90, see Help talk:Using colours), which I find even less appealing. — Edokter (talk) — 22:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes please...green looks better!--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫_{Share–a–Power} 11:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Edokter that the pink is the lesser of the three evils, both in terms of co-ordination on the main page, and how the individual title shades look. Although I still advocate ignoring the colour rule and going for a nicer pink in the title bar. —WFC— 12:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I could extend the available palette to twelve colors (hue increments of 30). That may result in some nice colors. ~~

{{TFL title}} has been created. One manual step added to the instruction. This task could be performed by a bot. — Edokter (talk) — 15:29, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Potential changes to TFLcontent

I'm in the middle of doing some restoration work on List of national anthems, and was thinking of nominating it. Given the nature of the list, and the number of featured sounds there, it doesn't make a lot of sense to nominate with a picture. It has also crossed my mind that there are a small number of FLs where a main-page image simply wouldn't be feasible, ISO 3166-1 for instance.

Before I plough ahead with an {{editprotected}} request, I think there are small things to discuss on both fronts. Would it be okay to have a list without an image on the main page? I believe it would, provided that there isn't possibly one available, but I just thought I'd check that (otherwise I'd be adding code that we don't want to use). And if sound compatibility is added to {{TFLcontent}}, what sounds template should we use? —WFC— 23:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

That should be fine; we occasionally have TFAs without an image, including today's (June 16). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I think an FL with a sound instead of a list would be a great idea. — KV5 • Talk • 01:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be possible to do some combined pic with the flag above the sound, or performer above the sound, kinda combined into one square. Sort of like those videos of TTT at FS now (but don't do a video, just have the image). TCO (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, when I think of how "core" that list is...it really makes me feel good. Much better than "list of socks in my drawer" or something obscurer. It will REALLY make wiki look encyclopeic rather than crufty  :) TCO (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Which topic of national treasures

List of National Treasures of Japan (ancient documents) is already on the submission page. I was wondering which other of the Lists of National Treasures of Japan would make a good submission in view of variety of TFL topics: one of the buildings/structures or paintings or sculptures or swords...? bamse (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

They're all worthy of the main page in my opinion. We have multiple submissionss on football, baseball and world heritage sites, so there's most certainly room for multiple Japanse treasures ones too. If you're attempting to stand out from the crowd, the shrines one has particularly stunning images, while the swords list is very possibly the only weapon-specific one we have (I used a similar reasoning when I suggested ancient documents). —WFC— 15:11, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Pop culture

I have to say, even as someone who has rarely participated in featured list reviews (and who has never written a featured list) the fact that they're getting a bit of main page exposure is very interesting to me. I don't really have a concrete suggestion, it's just a thought. Basically, FLC, perhaps moreso than FAC or even GAC, suffers from something of an imbalance; while there are plenty of TV, pop music and sports articles recognised, there aren't so many (say) history or biology articles recognised. I'd be inclined to say that, in the early days of the TFL project, there should be a very careful selection of articles to show off some of the more traditionally encyclopedic topics recognised by featured list candidates, rather than (and this is not meant to be disparaging) discographies, award lists, episode lists and the such. For instance, anyone can see that List of lemur species is an absolutely stunning article, and one that clearly belongs in an encyclopedia and on the main page. People may be less welcoming to, for instance, The Simpsons (season 7) (though it is, of course, a decent article). Just a thought. Hopefully, this main page exposure will bring some more eyes to FLC and make it a project to rival FAC in terms of quality and "legitimacy"; I'd say that, sadly, right now, it lags behind in both areas. J Milburn (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

This is a very good point, one that has been voiced by editors at several venues. One of the benefits of the initial condition of displaying FLs once a week is that we can be very choosey as to which lists are selected for Main Page exposure. Even though FL does suffer from the systemic bias issues you mention, as long as we maintain the current frequency of TFLs per week, we don't have too much of a problem finding high-quality FLs to represent all subject areas of the encyclopedia. We have a continually expanding pool of candidates (to which you are welcome to add) that hopefully showcases the diversity of Featured lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I echo Dabomb, while also drawing your attention to this reply to a related point you made. I think the intention of the submissions page has been misunderstood somewhat. Our aim is to have 4548 blurbs, and then schedule carefully, to ensure that we find the correct balance. Your admirable aim of ensuring that TFL is representative would be best served by seeking out FLs that you want to see on the main page, but that are currently of relatively poor quality, and submitting them to TFL. You might find something suitable here. Right now, we're doing a good job of improving sub-standard, high importance content. Not because we're particularly good at it, but because there is a clear focus on getting lists on underrepresented topics onto the main page, without making FL look bad in the process. But part and parcel of that is ensuring that when a sports list does go up, it is held to a very high standard. —WFC— 14:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

An interesting perspective that the very spirit and essence of Misplaced Pages should somehow kowtow to dusty old books stacked up in a private reading library somewhere seems way odd to me. TFL has deliberately and already chosen a wide variety of lists for consideration to become TFL, which is abundantly clear from the submissions page. Any suggestion otherwise is erroneous. We are a mature enough area of Misplaced Pages to understand that old-school readers still want traditional material and new-school modern audiences thrive on what makes Misplaced Pages great, "to-the-point" lists which wouldn't ordinarily feature in a paper-based out-of-date encyclopedia. "People may be less welcoming" to a Simpsons featured list? Perhaps the old school. We're not anticipating to over-run main page with our "pop culture", moreover we already anticipated this kind of attitude with a bunch of our best work taken from all corners of the known universe. Once a week, we agreed, would not damage Misplaced Pages, we'd do our damned best to get it all right. We are actively encouraging people to get involved, and the once-in-a-blue-moon proper pop culture list will be welcomed with open arms by our readers and the majority of our contributors. Thanks for your note, but don't unduly stress about imbalance. That's why we have a community who cares, second-to-none, about what we're trying to achieve. We're acutely aware (probably more so than FAC) on how to appeal to our new-found audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

TRM for President! :P --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Reviews...

... have slowed down a little. I reckon once something has one review on the board, others will gradually follow. But from experience elsewhere I know that people are reluctant to be the first to review something, and reckon both reviewers and nominators might be put off by the amount of unreviewed submissions. Starting off by checking the technical stuff should be a good ice-breaker. I've created a skeleton structure that should help ensure that obvious issues don't slip through the cracks, at User:WFCforLife/Housekeeping#TFLS technical review. —WFC— 18:08, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I know this sounds all "me me me", but perhaps also worth pointing back at the FLC checklist we gathered together a few months back? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Pic size

Main page talk says there's no rule for sizing TFL's pic. Hillary Clinton's seems rather small. I wonder why it can't be boosted. Tony (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it's fine. I usually take 125px wide-or-long. We also don't want to hog attention away from POTD. — Edokter (talk) — 12:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

POTD might get a bit bigger—you never know. I've just asked Howcheng whether the unreadable map of the US coming up can be made larger. I don't think a bigger TFL pic on the opposite side would do any hogging. If this is 125px, I'd say 140px would be more appropriate. Tony (talk) 07:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Multiple images in next week's TFL

In List of female United States Cabinet Secretaries, I see three images in the lead, Albright and Rice top and middle of a large rectangle (top right blank) and Clinton bottom left with bottom middle and bottom right of the rectangle blank. This is in Firefox. It looks terrible. What's going on? The Rambling Man (talk) 08:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It looks OK in IE. I've moved the Perkins picture from the lead to the list to try and reduce image clutter in the lead, which might help - who knows with Firefox what makes it work and what breaks it...? Bencherlite 09:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Still buggered. Windows and Firefox 3.6.3, perhaps it's just me. Will check Safari later though. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Looks fine in Firefox 5 (and a very small laptop screen). Adabow (talk · contribs) 09:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

TFL blurb 11 July

Beautifully written, except there are lots of numbers: 14, actually, including "capturing 18 from 1990 to 2002 and 2004 to 2008." I don't see a way around this, though. It's a numbery kind of topic. Tony (talk) 18:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Image alts

As I brought up here, I've been noticing lately that the image alts for TFA, ITN, OTD, and TFP have consistently been short, caption-like statements while the image alts for DYK and TFL have been lengthy descriptions of the visual elements of each image for the purpose of users who are unable to view images. The result of subsequent discussion at DYK here was that the image alts for DYK have become more short and caption-like. Since all other sections of the main page employ such image alts and there does not seem to be any reason for TFL to differ from this standard, I recommend that the TFL image alts be changed accordingly. Neelix (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The difference between us and every other process on the main page that I am aware of, is that we actually use alt text and a caption, instead of using one parameter to serve both functions. Our title parameter is generally a short, sharp and punchy description of the image, in line with every other section. I vehemently disagree that we should stop using alt text. On the contrary, we should tell the likes of TFA and DYK to stop screwing disadvantaged people for the sake of 30 seconds' worth of typing. —WFC— 18:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah...the actual guidance from W3C (thanks Mall), is much more nuanced and allowing of very different formats. Essentially the field is a tradeoff. My POV is if you are going to have the damned thing, then make it really serve a purpose (i.e. a real description for a blind person), not some sort of wikilegalistic exercise.TCO (reviews needed) 18:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

TFL should lead the way. If the others can't do it, it's their problem. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

The way ahead

Hey folks, so we're now six episodes of the main page in and nothing blew up! I'm proud as punch about the way it's gone, we've smoothly slipped into the regular main page appearance itinerary with fewer issues that I could ever have hoped. So, the next question is, how do we take over the world? Sorry, I meant, how do we expand? A few topics for discussion:

• More days on main page?
  • Sat/Sun/Mon?
  • Mon/Thu?
  • Every day?
• How do we choose the TFL?
  • If only a day or two a week, stay the same?
  • If only a day or two a week, go different?
  • If every day, mobilise troops to assist...
    • Do we use a WP:TFA style "voting" system?
    • Do we create our own way of selecting decent pages from the nominations/prep area?
• At this point, are there:
  • Things we can do better?
  • Things we aren't doing at all?
  • Things that would potentially increase the readership of TFL?
• Anything else?

It's a freestyle discussion, I'd like to hear from anyone and everyone on any aspect of the process so far or for the future. Thanks all! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I am so happy with the success of TFL! Surely FLs could appear on the Main Page more frequently than once per week--the submissions page already contains enough blurbs to last a year (perhaps not all qualify, but you get my point). Congrats again to all involved! --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't go daily. I think y'all have done an outstanding job in many different ways and also that the articles run have been superb. That said:

(1) I want to leave a "slots" to encourage other experimentation with new content (FS, GA, Featured Videos, etc.)

(2) (Throw rocks at me, but...) Just cruised through the FLCs and there was a HUGE concentration towards pop culture and sports. Also some of the stuff was rather crufty. Concerned about quality if we go daily.

(3) I don't think there is any "danger" to your positition in not going daily, and I don't think you need the hassle of being daily.

TCO (reviews needed) 19:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with not going daily. We can certainly support two days a week, and the high proportion of sports and pop culture FLs is actually exactly in line with the proportion of FLs that we have. If we use up all of the FLs that are not sports- and pop-related, then that's all we'll have left to feature. 1 sports or pop culture list every 3 appearances should not be a problem. All in all, I'm thrilled with the process to date. — KV5 • Talk • 21:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

• I am confident that the featured lists on Misplaced Pages are sufficiently valuable and of sufficiently high quality to go daily.

(1) A daily TFL does not remove the possibility of experimentation with new content any more than any other daily element of the main page.

(2) It is true that there is a high proportion of sports and pop culture featured lists, but this fact does not affect the viability of a daily TFL in the least. I've done the math and, even if we didn't feature any of the sports- or pop-culture-related lists on the main page and no more lists ever attained featured status, we'd be able to feature a new list on the main page every day for more than two years. Considering the facts that 1) plenty more lists will get featured between now and then and 2) we won't be totally excluding sports- and pop-culture-related lists from the main page, it would appear that we will be able to indefinitely feature a new list on the main page every day while including a frequency of sports- and pop-culture-related articles that is proportionate to the number of other topical fields represented.

(3) I am more than willing to accept the 'hassle' of going daily, as I am sure other editors involved in TFL are as well. It's no more of a hassle than TFA or TFP, and no one is suggesting that we prevent either of those from being daily. Neelix (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• I too am happy with the way things have gone so far. Perhaps we can up the frequency to two or three days a week? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Given the recent opinions expressed at the RfC, I think we should stay with once a week for now. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• What KV5 said. Baby steps have served us well so far, so I'd say continue in that vein, and go to two a week. I get a lot of what Neelix says, and desperately want to go daily eventually. But we're not as slick an operation as TFA and POTD yet: we have yet to show that we can produce seven lists a week of sufficient quality (not just the blurbs but the lists themselves), hence why we are building up a stockpile.

  For me, it's all about quality. Some people consider FLs to be inferior to FAs and FPs, and from a historical perspective they're right (looking at promotions from 2-3 years ago that are still on the "books"). Even today some would argue that some lists get through with GA standard prose, but the gap between FA and FL is undeniably narrowing. Perhaps the best thing about TFL is that we are looking at 3 and 4 year old lists and slowly but surely taking them up to scratch.

  The whole point of being on the main page is that FLC has reached a stage of maturity where lists are recognised as high quality pieces of encyclopaedic content in their own right; where the best that WP:FL has to offer is – or is on the verge of – being of comparable quality to an FA in its own way. And my opposition to going daily now is due to a fear that going too fast might jeopordize or reverse our improving reputation. When we go daily, I want TFL to be on an equal footing with TFA and POTD from a quality standpoint from day one, and to know that we are many months away from the remote possibility of someone having to work on a list from scratch hours before it goes up, as is sometimes the case at TFA and POTD. If we went daily tomorrow, I feel that we would get to that point too quickly.

  Btw, I won't be posting again for a little while, but I hope to be back and active in the reasonably near future. —WFC— 17:51, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Well said. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I support two per week. I think the general quality of stuff in the review queue is still not up to FA. I would stick with what is working and be proud of the strides that has been made. (And don't let the FAers bully you.  ;-)) TCO (reviews needed) 18:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Support TCO's comment. People like lists. TFL is a drawcard for visitors. Tony (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think that for now TFL should remain a once per week feature, and really don't want to see it any more than twice per week. We are still in a period where we are showing the community as a whole the kind of work that we can produce, and the worst thing we can do is to dilute the quality of the lists appearing here. Anyone paying attention to the main page RFC will see that the general support for TFL isn't at the level we all thought it was. With a daily TFL, we would be forced to run sports and pop culture lists on most days, which would give critics all the ammunition they'd ever want. That's out of the question for me, and even a few times a week is too much for now. Better to run fewer lists and continue emphasizing quality. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I am blown away by the sheer encyclopedic goodness of WFC's national anthem list with all the multimedia files and all. It's the perfect subject to go in a list, has so much concentrated importance and even uses files creatively. I'm in love with it and want to marry it. That said, that list is head and shoulders above the typical FL.TCO (reviews needed) 19:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
    • All I did was give the national anthems list a facelift.

      The more I think about this, the more I think we should stick to once a week for now. The right lists are being nominated for the right reasons, and with sufficient frequency. But a lot of them start off in a mediocre or worse condition, and the core of editors willing to do checks and cleanup isn't there to justify expansion. We need to be tough on ourselves, and treat every expansion as a carrot for measurable all-round progress. In my eyes, we're queueing the right amount of time in advance. Provided we don't start queueing lists any further ahead, success should be measured in the growth of WP:TFLPREP. —WFC— 21:32, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

      • We are getting one hell of an asskicking at the RFC on mainpage layout. I'm fuming. No way we should look to expand now, there's a near 50% effort to remove us from main page altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
        • TRM, could you provide direction to this discussion? --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:00, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
          • See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Main Page features. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
            • Thanks, DB. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Yikes, could you run the state reptile list please?

If they are kicking your ass on the main page debate, I would like to get my list in. You could put me under the "is a newbie" and "asked directly in talk, attempting to bypass policy", buckets. Oh...also the non-sports or records. No offense to our sportsmen directors, sirs.  ;-)TCO (reviews needed) 02:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

pic

Hi guys, you might consider making the Soviet pic just a bit smaller for reasons of resolution (although I'm usually the one saying boost, boost). Is this the right page to edit the blurb? How does one tell when it's been cascade protected? Thanks. Tony (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It looks fine at Misplaced Pages:Today's featured list/July 18, 2011. I tried purging that, with no luck. Perhaps worth asking Edokter? —WFC— 17:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection of hepatitis C list

Our June 25 TFL will be List of people with hepatitis C. A few editors suggested that due to BLP concerns, we should pre-emptively semi-protect the list while it is on the Main Page. Normally, this type of protection is contrary to our protection policy, but given the sensitive nature of the content, I think semi-protection would be prudent. What do you all think? Dabomb87 (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a massive problem with that, errors etc can be noted on Talk:Main page so I'd advocate the protection. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Either one of you guys can do it or I can too. Just let me know. — KV5 • Talk • 10:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think protection is warranted in advance of anything happening. It's very rare for TFAs to be protected preemptively. In fact, the TFLs have received very little vandalism: since the regular TFL slot started, the US female SofS list had one vandal edit, the Rawlings Gold Glove had one vandal edit, the Soviet leaders list had one possibly vandal edit and err... that's it. I'd suggest asking in advance at WP:AN for a few extra admins to put the list on their watchlist so that if there is any trouble, someone can take action sooner rather later. Bencherlite 11:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I want to agree with Bencherlite, but because of the nature of this list, coupled with the fact that people are already bound to question the wisdom of TFL running the list, I think it has to be semi'd. It was difficult to envisage real life harm from vandalism to previous lists; it's very easy to see how it could happen with this one. Either way though, please could an admin add {{Editnotice for lists of people}} to the page's editnotice? Us mere mortals can't do it. —WFC— 01:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Done — KV5 • Talk • 02:16, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

This goes againts the policy: "Semi-protection should not be used as a pre-emptive measure against vandalism that has not yet occurred, nor should it be used solely to prevent editing by unregistered and newly registered users." As Bencherlite notes, vandalism in TFLs is very low, compared to TFA, DYK and ITN articles. If kids start to add people with no sources, then protect it, otherwise we are attemping to bite newbies that may improve the page. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 02:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Then sod the policy. My support for this list going on the main page was entirely conditional on semi protection, as was the other support. Indeed, the page's author completely embraced and supported that stance. —WFC— 02:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I have left a message about this discussion for the TFA director, Raul654 (talk · contribs), for his input, given his experience in running sensitive subjects at TFA. Bencherlite 12:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Good shout. The opinions expressed on protection in the tourette syndrome section here may be of some relevance here. —WFC— 15:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Preemptive protection only makes sense if an article is likely to attract a lot of vandalism. Given how little vandalism previous TFLs have experienced, I think preemptive protection is unnecessary. Raul654 (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Per WFC's link, seems like preemptive protection makes sense. ("Past performance is no guide to the future" etc etc) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It's not entirely clear to me what the verdict is here: I think the rationales for protection (here, at the original submission and at the tourettes discussion) were stronger than those against, but obviously I would. Either way, it's decision time. —WFC— TFL notices 22:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

As TRM and I are the two FL directors who are also admins, one of us could make the decision. Alternatively, we could ask at the administrator's noticeboard, pointing to this discussion, and leave it up to a completely uninvolved administrator to make the the choice. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur, and would say it's entirely your call between those two options. Although given the time, if you go for the latter option it'd be worth doing so reasonably soon. —WFC— TFL notices 22:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Protect. The one or two typo fixes you lose from an IP are much less damage than the several cumilative minutes when the thing will have interspersed Viagra ads. Let's be practical instead of ideological.TCO (reviews needed) 22:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protect. Agreed. No, we don't get as much visibility because of our location on the main page but the "Viagra ads" rationale makes a lot more sense (function before form in this case). — KV5 • Talk • 22:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Wait and see. The 'viagra ads' isn't an argument, because that would apply to every featured content on the main page – and there already is a strong consensus that the articles are not semi/protected pre-emptively 'just in case'. The argument that we have have to give IP editors every chance to contribute constructively is an important one for Misplaced Pages, and it has to be remembered that statistically the majority of constructive edits still come from IPs (if I recall correctly). So the real question here is: "Do the possible BLP damages that may arise from this particular FL outweigh our normal reluctance to semi the articles featured?". I'm going to suggest we wait and see; keep eyes on the FL; and RPP if it becomes too much work to revert obvious vandalism. At least we would have a test-case to argue from if we felt strongly that semi-prot was appropriate in the future. --RexxS (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

yes. I think they all should be protected. we are putting wiki ideology ahead of reality. The good edits lost are much less than the bad views endured.TCO (reviews needed) 22:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Although I would personally prefer semi-protection, given Raul's comment and the relative dearth of edits made to TFLs thus far, I think I'll keep the article unprotected for now. If any issues arise, however, I won't hesitate to push the button. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:03, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Suits.TCO (reviews needed) 23:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The way ahead, streamlined

Okay, let's start afresh.

I'd like to bring us back to a few key questions that TRM posed the other day. At this point, are there:

1. Things we can do better?
2. Things we aren't doing at all?
3. Things that would potentially increase the readership of TFL?

—WFC— 02:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the restart WFC, probably a good idea in light of the uprisings re: Main Page etc.

1. Improvements: Right now, I can't think of many. We must ensure our TFLs are "interesting" (it would appear, from recent debate) which, from my perspective, is easy, but we have a specific audience to address, generally worldwide, but specifically a high portion of US readers. That 100% does not mean I want to "appeal" to the majority, but we must be at least aware of this issue. Some of our best recent FLs are about arguably obscure European subjects (list of Swedish national parks, list of demolished places of worship in Brighton etc) but some of the recent TFAs (Somerset) were equally obscure. Despite all this, appeal to the audience seems paramount to guarantee community satisfaction.
2. Things we ain't doing: Nothing. We're providing MOS-compliant, featured to the main page, it's being vetted by editors before it reaches the queue, then re-vetted before it reaches the main page. I guess, at a push, we're not running a TFA-esque voting system for what's appearing on main page. Happy to hear thoughts on that as perhaps it's been my choices that have failed to attract the appropriate attention...
3. Increase the readership: See above. Good blurb pictures, more US-centric content (gah), more (not less) culturally relevant content (contrary to some concerns raised on some submissions, I think our average reader would be more interested in Donkey Kong than George Orwell, but that's a personal opinion...)
4. Overall, we're doing a good job and thanks to all involved. Look forward to hearing other opinions. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The simple way is to use existing article hit count (page views with that little toolbar thing) as the guide to eyeballs. You should favor articles that are more popular. Don't hold the reader down and force feed him "List of Macedonian champion handball players" for his own good, damned American, him. Market back...MUCH MORE. I can buy a teensy amount of diversity and educating the baboons...but we have WAY too much a culture of editor forward rather than reader back.TCO (reviews needed) 18:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I've identified a sample of the sorts of non-featured lists that I'd like to see more of at FLC, at User:WFCforLife/Vital lists. Here are a few general thoughts:

• Hit counts. Part of the solution, at least in the early days, is promotion. WP:MEDICINE is very prominent, because it is relatively well supported by professionals in that field. It would be a good idea to post on the project's talk page to try to entice editors to take an interest. But I'd suggest doing the same for just about every TFL. WP:TFLSTATS is a good tool too. If you look at the hit count of Bodley's Librarian compared to Rawling's Glove and Female Cabinet Secretaries, the difference is not as dramatic as a >50% US readership would suggest that it should be. Another factor in hit counts is timing. I don't think we've had long enough to really see the effects of date-specific blurbs; once Gordon Bennett and Doctor Who have run we can look again.
• Reviews. The Texas highways list shows the disadvantage of a well known reviewer taking a laissez-faire attitude to reviewing; TRM took my quick glance over at face value, when at the time I was working on the basis that "if this is picked, could we easily get it up to scratch within a week?" But that's a one-time issue.

  Going forward, not enough people are doing reviews, and I think it's fair to say that the free for all experiment isn't working out. We were right to try it, but I think it is now right to recognise why it isn't working, and consolidate. I think submissions fall into three categories: 1. Those that appear to be up to current FLC standards, and could do with rubber-stamping from a few regulars. 2. Those that are not quite up to 2011 standards, but with enough about them to be taken up to scratch if an FLC regular were to adopt the list. 3. Those that are in quite a poor state and should at the very least be listed at WP:FLS, if not WP:FLRC. I think we should come up with a plan to deal with each of those three broad categories. —WFC— 19:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

  To clarify, the list of Texas highways was mistakenly moved from suggestion to queue and avoided prep, my mistake 100%. There was no misunderstanding as far as I'm concerned, the list wasn't ready and needed some updates so I removed it (i.e. undid my own mistake) and hoped for further improvement. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify what I was saying (which might be still dumb). Don't go off the hitcounts for the article as featured (that will depend on seasonality and picture and etc.) Go off the page views of the article BEFORE it gets to Main Page. A list getting 500 views per day >> than a list getting 20 views per day. It becomes a measure of reader interest in the topic.TCO (reviews needed) 19:51, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That is an excellent (yet very simple) point. —WFC— 20:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Couple quick thoughts on what's been brought up above:

• The biggest weakness of the system is that we just don't have enough reviewers to handle the massive volume of lists that have been nominated. There always seems to be a point at these processes where the number of articles becomes too much for the reviewing base to handle. The submissions page has almost 60 lists on it, which is clearly too many. If FLC is straining a bit at the 40-list mark, there's no way the newer submissions page can handle 60. This gridlock is tough to solve because we don't want to discourage nominations.
• I have a feeling our reader base is being overestimated by many editors, in terms of wanting "encyclopedic" topics. If we put up pop culture or sports-related lists every so often, I guarantee they would find an audience. The trick is to not have them up every week, so as to showcase the diversity we have. We've featured a wide variety of lists so far, and I hope to see this continue. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:56, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I would readily trade "non pop culture" for "running notable topics". IOW, please run list of Gold Glove winners, NOT list of Macedonian handball champions. Run, what readers show they want. the front page of the newspaper has higher profile stuff, the back pages lower. It's more efficient.

Not sure if you are talking about the regular FL process or about TFL with the number of submissions. If it is TFL, just pick what you want and don't sweat the submissions. If FL, start by director fiat, looking at submissions and if it's obvious quick pass that the thing is pretty messy, just send them away and say don't come back without a major upgrade. You all are elected directors, have seen a lot of stuff, act as a bit of a filter here. We don't have unlimited reviewers. And I don't even care if you make an occisaional mistake...what matters is running a process that works.TCO (reviews needed) 17:01, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we're walking more or less the right line with popular culture, based on the lists that have been scheduled so far, and there's certainly scope to increase the sporting frequency slightly. TCO has a point with regards to popular culture. Stuff like List of Watford F.C. seasons should be submitted, but is likely to take a back seat in the short term to more mainstream content; things like the List of World Series champions and Ballon d'Or are what we're truly after.

With reviews, I think we need to find a way of identifying lists that are up to 2011 standards, so that they can be highlighted, looked at reasonably quickly by a core of editors, and forwarded on to prep. This should reduce the number of unreviewed submissions, which in turn would make it less daunting to weigh in on one or two. I will make a suggestion over the next couple of days on how we can do this: it's in my head, but I haven't got all the nuts and bolts worked out, and am desperate to keep it as simple as possible. —WFC— 17:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

May I sugest having two levels of lists. Like WP:FA and WP:GA for articles. At present there is no equivalanet of GA for lists. The WP:GA process is scalable in quantity in that nominators also review, so for that process you don't have a lack of reviewers. If you had such a process for GA lists you both won't get as many submissions to FLC and also those lists that would arrive at FLC would likely be of a better state. Regards, SunCreator 19:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not a terrible idea by any means, but the idea of a "Good list" has been rejected numerous times. My main issue with GA is that it's possible to pass it by using a single editor, with no directorship, and as such, many terrible articles get GA by default. I'm currently happy to quick-fail lists that are nominated prematurely, we tend to recommend peer review for these, and that does seem to help. We're not (yet) overwhelmed at FLC, of course the more reviewers the better, but we're surviving right now. Heading for a GL process is really not required in my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the size of the gap between a modern FA and FL – some feel that there isn't one at all – it has undeniably been closing for some time. However, it is still fair to say that the very worst FLs are a lot poorer than the very worst FAs. When we are confident that this is no longer the case (and I think we are at least a year from that point), it might be worth looking again into the possibility of Good Lists. —WFC— TFL notices 20:32, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I think of an FL as about like a "good" GA (not some buddy signoff, but one of the ballbuster FA-lite ones). I would not say that it is just prose either, but some of the FLs still have messy tables or poor choices in table versus prose versus bullets, or comprehensiveness and facts. Not saying this to be negative. Just my quick view. Some of them of course are stunning (like the list of Lemurs...actually better than the somewhat similar FA on Lemur taxonomy)!TCO (reviews needed) 21:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Urgent suggestion - List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar

There is a strong possibility that Sachin Tendulkar will score his 100th international cricket century during the current series against England. It would seem to me to be worth having List of international cricket centuries by Sachin Tendulkar on standby so that it can be slotted in at TFL as quickly as possible if and when he reaches that landmark. Thoughts? Bencherlite 06:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't usually be in favour of this sort of queue jumping. But given that there will never be a better opportunity to run that list, I'm on board. —WFC— TFL notices 12:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

One small move to declutter the main page?

It would need consensus here on a matter I've raised but not pushed with TFA (I don't think the issue got through to them, except there was one direct and favourable comment): do we really need to clutter the bottom of the blurb with direct links to three past TFLs as well as a link to the month's archives?

"Recently featured: People with hepatitis C – Rawlings Gold Glove Award – Female United States Cabinet Secretaries" could just be removed, with "Archive" changed to "The month's archives".

If you can imagine this version with "This month's archives" instead of the cryptic "Archive", against the existing version.

Just a thought. Tony (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

One day hopefully, but not today. A large minority of Wikipedians are still ignorant about the quality and diversity of lists that TFL is running, as evidenced by the recent main page RfC. Because doing ten seconds' worth of research is not a prerequisite to an opinion being taken seriously on this site, I see no option but to continue ramming recently featured lists down these peoples throats until it is clear that the entire community knows what we're about. —WFC— TFL notices 13:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Caps

How about having the submission page look like WP:FLC, i.e. with capped entries? bamse (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. It could increase load times for the page but I live in a modern era of decent broadband. Others may not...! The Rambling Man (talk) 09:31, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not essential, was just wondering since there are more TFL submissions than entries at FLC. bamse (talk) 13:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"Today" to "This week"

Since we assign TFLs by week instead of day, can we change "Today's featured list" to "This week's featured list"? Apologies if this has been discussed before. Ragettho (talk) 06:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that's a bit misleading since the FL only stays up for one day, not a whole week. — KV5 • Talk • 11:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

And we'd like, in due course, to expand to more than one day a week, so we'd need a name change at that point, probably back to Today's featured list.. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

But why do you post a TFL for only one day? Can't you just keep the TFL box on the main page every day, and just change the featured list when you're ready? Ragettho (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

It was a community-wide decision. Many dozens of people got involved. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

State reptiles

Could we get it moved up in queue?TCO (talk) 03:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank FL peeps, "State reptile" on the front page

Thanks, FL program.TCO (Reviews needed) 03:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy call

Hi, everyone. Just back from a four-month wikibreak so I thought I'd pop by TFL to wish everyone here a happy new year. I'm pleased to see TFL still going strong and doubly pleased that one of my lists has been queued for a Main Page appearance soon. Best wishes, all. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:45, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

April 1: discussion initiated

Interested parties may wish to contribute here. Kevin McE (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but TFL is only on one day a week and it's not 1 April so there's nothing for us to worry about. Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, our place, on the 2nd, is currently slated to feature List of mergers and acquisitions by Microsoft. Hardly a barrel of (hidden, or otherwise) laughs. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

April 1st, 2013 is Monday, though. Perhaps TFL could start preparing for it already? 88.148.249.186 (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Good one. Indeed, by April 2013, TFL would be looking to be more than a once-a-week experience. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Renaming and re-stylizing Today's Featured List?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages proposals Misplaced Pages style and naming When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Sometimes, I'm tired about waiting for "Today's Featured List" every Monday.

Rather than "Today's Featured List", how about "This Week's Featured List", so it can appear for every seven days until the next Featured List? In other words, this week's Featured List, List of national parks of the United States, can appear during the whole week (March 5–11, 2012) rather than only Monday, March 5, 2012; would this help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 21:00, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• A knee-jerk comment – I think running featured lists more than once a week (say twice) is certainly a viable prospect right now, we've outdone the Today's featured article a couple of times lately with page views, and we've kept our standards high. We still need more reviewers, as do all of the featured processes, but we have a reasonable amount of backlogged FLs to manage two a week. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced this is the right place for this discussion. As this would affect the Main Page, and the FL RFC was originally done there, shouldn't this be at Talk:Main Page? Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 22:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  Should I move this discussion or add notice there? --George Ho (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  I'd move it there, personally - a notice there will be archived relatively quickly and might be archived before discussion here ends. Bencherlite 22:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  Since I'm undecisive, let's wait for administrators to decide. --George Ho (talk) 22:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Never mind. I'm afraid mass support on this proposal would inspire substantial changes, such as "WP:This week's featured list/<subpage name, such as April 2012>". I must say; I will add notice in Talk:Main Page soon. --George Ho (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  I'll be honest and say I have no idea what you're trying to express with that statement. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 03:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  Sorry, I haven't clarified enough. How about this: "Yes, this proposal may affect "Main page", but this discussion is better suitable here than for Talk:Main page because, even though the proposal may affect the Main page, it affects this Misplaced Pages page, as well." I hope it clarifies more, doesn't it? --George Ho (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  I disagree. You're proposing a major change to Main Page (affecting the Misplaced Pages community at large), which far outweighs the minor (and localized) change that you describe above. —David Levy 03:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

• ITN's frequent stagnancy is an unfortunate problem, not something that we should seek to emulate. I strongly oppose the idea of purposely retaining dynamic content for seven days.
  The idea is to start with one day and branch out, just as we did with featured pictures (which originally appeared only on weekends). As discussed above, it's possible that featured lists will expand to a second day in the near future.
  Also, the original plan called for featured sounds to share the space. (This has been put on hold, but it remains a long-term goal.)
  TFL is a worthy addition to the main page, and I support the current approach. —David Levy 03:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  What's wrong with displaying the same Featured List for seven days? I thought searching for " Featured List" is inconvenient for general readers after Monday. I'm too lazy to remember what Monday's Featured List is or to search any Featured List. And I remember it is some list of forests, but I don't need to go through the OP to remember what Monday's FL is, do I? --George Ho (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  May I re-insert "Consensus" heading again; why was it necessarily removed? --George Ho (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  What's wrong with displaying the same Featured List for seven days?
  As noted above, stagnancy is undesirable.
  The featured list isn't occupying space that otherwise goes to waste; it pushes down the featured picture, which shouldn't be done without a good reason. Displaying featured content for the standard day is a good reason. Displaying the same material for six additional days is not.
  If readers see that the section is stale, some might not bother to scroll past it to the featured picture.
  May I re-insert "Consensus" heading again; why was it necessarily removed?
  You described the subsection with the text "vote and argument together here", which are basic elements of discussion (i.e. this section). Consensus is a result of discussion.
  What distinction are you attempting to draw? —David Levy 09:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  What distinction are you attempting to draw?
  ...Editing convenience; see Talk:It's Great to Be Alive (disambiguation).
  It pushes down the featured picture, which shouldn't be done without a good reason
  Why does Featured List appear above Featured Picture instead of below? Or a sidebar, like "In the News"?
  If readers see that the section is stale, some might not bother to scroll past it to the featured picture.
  If Featured List could appear above Featured Picture in Monday, can it appear as a sidebar or the same just below Featured Picture or the very bottom of Main Page in other days? --George Ho (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  ...Editing convenience; see Talk:It's Great to Be Alive (disambiguation).
  That labeling is confusing too. I still don't understand what distinction is supposed to exist between the misleadingly named "Consensus" section and the one directly above it.
  Why does Featured List appear above Featured Picture instead of below?
  Both options were considered. The prevailing rationales were:
  1) The featured list is primarily textual, so it makes sense for it to appear alongside the other primarily textual sections (instead of being separated from them by the featured picture, thereby making the featured list seem like a tacked-on afterthought).
  2) Readers are accustomed to seeing the featured picture, so they know to scroll past the featured list to find it. Conversely, if the featured list were to appear below the featured picture, many readers might not realize that it exists.
  Or a sidebar, like "In the News"?
  That isn't feasible without removing or adding a section.
  If Featured List could appear above Featured Picture in Monday, can it appear as a sidebar or the same just below Featured Picture or the very bottom of Main Page in other days?
  That would be highly confusing. We aim to maintain as much consistency as possible. That's why the plan calls for the extra section (either the featured list or the featured sound) to simply come and go without otherwise affecting the everyday sections' placement. (An alternative proposal, which entailed modifying the usual layout on certain days, was rejected.) —David Levy 10:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  I still don't understand what distinction is supposed to exist between the misleadingly named "Consensus" section and the one directly above it.
  Split "Discussion" into "Comments" and "Consensus"? Any other ideas? --George Ho (talk) 11:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

  I still don't understand what distinction is supposed to exist between the two sections.
  Again, consensus is an outcome of discussion, not a type of discussion. Editors' comments contribute to the consensus-building process. —David Levy 11:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposals

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment