Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TonyTheTiger (talk | contribs) at 16:20, 27 March 2007 (→New Nominees (sample layout): add italics). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This project page or section is in a state of significant expansion or restructuring. You are welcome to assist in its construction by editing it as well. If this project page has not been edited in several days, please remove this template. If you are the editor who added this template and you are actively editing, please be sure to replace this template with {{in use}} during the active editing session. Click on the link for template parameters to use. This page was last edited by TonyTheTiger (talk | contribs) 17 years ago. (Update timer)

It has been proposed below that Today's featured article procedures be amended. The original proposal was rejected at as per discussion at the archive.
Discussion is not currently open on the incomplete amended proposal 2 below. When it is support or oppose the amendment should be on the proposal page, under the heading "Survey". If, after a few days, a clear consensus for the amendment is reached, please notify the administrators noticeboard for further assistance.

Source Misplaced Pages:Today's_featured_article/requests

Given the problem with the growing backlog, the main page FA process needs to be changed to

1. fairly accommodate an FA production rate of more than 30/month;
2. fairly accommodate a large backlog of promoted FAs;
3. fairly accommodate a continually increasing FA production rate;
4. fairly include a desirable pool of selectors for TFAs;
5. be a positive experience for as many participants as possible (by introducing them to other articles, introducing them to new techniques such as wikitables, etc.);
6. appease those whose hard work in the FA promotion process does not result in a TFA.
7. retain the integrity of WP:FA, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR.
8. uphold the collaborative values of wikipedia (especially pursuit of betterment of the encyclopedia).
9. ratain the support of the majority of those involved in the process and not just a select few trying to WP:OWN the process.
10. maintain a TFA balance between the proportion of mainstream popular topics and specialized topics selected.
11. retain, if not augment, the prestige of TFA selection.

Summary

The chart above documents a problem that is resulting from extremely successful WP:FA production (data from WP:TFA/R). Statistics at Misplaced Pages:Featured article statistics are deceptive because ΔFA = new FA promotions - FAR demotions. Thus, although there were over 100 new FA promotions according to Goings-on in the first two months of 2007, ΔFA only totals 60 (suggesting numerous new WP:FFAs). Thus FA promotion growth which is causing the backlog is not shown. Obviously as the number of FAs grows the number of articles eligible for WP:FAR grows. Similarly, as wikipedia grows FA production grows. However, the difference may seem constant. The backlog growth over the last 9 months points to this fact. I have been informed that the recent rate of FA promotion is about 1.85/day. This is a minor concern in comparison to the fact that this rate is accelerating. Two years ago the rate was about 1/day. Two years from now the new FA promotion rate could be 3.5-4/day. Solutions of slowing FA promotion and speeding TFA (multiple TFAs per day) have been mentioned. Both would delay the time when the promotion rate is too high, but not eliminate its likelihood in the future. I don't think either will be feasible with continued FA promotion rate growth. Suppose growth continues and FA promotion is 10 what it is today at some time in the future. At 18.5 promotions per day (500+/month) neither of those solutions will still solve the problem. Therefore, I think selective TFA choice where not all applicants are promoted to TFA is a better alternative. I propose a selective method.

Furthermore, currently, more distributed and democratic processes seem to dominate wikipedia through vote, comment, and administrative duty at WP:AFD, WP:CFD, WP:TFD, WP:RFD, WP:UCFD, WP:RM, WP:FLC ,WP:FAC, WP:FPC, etc. Much main page content process has less voting involvment, but does have comment and administrative judgement such as WP:ITN, WP:DYK, WP:SA and WP:TFA. With less voting much of the burden (possibly pleasurable) falls on the administrators. More input is generally a better thing on wikipedia. I have a proposal to increase the input in the process.

Below is my proposal to refine the main page FA selection procedure to account for the huge backlog of FA class articles at Misplaced Pages:Today's_featured_article/requests and for the continuing growth of Misplaced Pages which is likely to lead to a regular pattern of more articles being promoted to FA class status than there are days in the month. I propose that as soon as April 1st this policy be instituted. In short, the procedure would be to have 4 post-FAC FA statuses (FA, TFA, TFAC or FTFAC) in addition to FFAC. The two new statuses, TFAC and FTFAC, are specifically for featured article class articles that have been nominated to become main page TFAs. This class will eventually be a large proportion of successful FAs as wikipedia grows. These statuses do not affect statuses associated with WP:FAR. The current FAC status would be a status where articles are evaluated based on general policy guidelines for worthiness just as it is now. From there candidates either become FFACs or FAs. FAs could then attempt to become TFAs or become FTFACs by going through a TFAC process.

There will be some detractors who say it is unfair designate any article promoted to WP:FA as ineligible for WP:TFA for a year based solely on the collective consensus of all of those who are concerned about main page content. Many of those would rather all FAs that have never become TFAs always be eligible to become so regardless of whether there are hundreds or thousands of such articles at any given time. Many of those detractors would prefer not to give TFA selection power to the people and retain it for a select few (possibly themselves). Some do not trust the judgment of authors who have produced FAs to judge good desirable articles for TFA fearing such authors may turn the selection into a popularity contest. Also, there is concern for those whose articles are considered less desirable to the collective consensus of all of those who are concerned about main page content. They argue that it would be better to consider those articles deemed less desirable for main page inclusion by the collective consensus of all of those who are concerned about main page content as seriously for main page inclusion as those articles deemed more desirable because they are all perfectly fine FAs.

Personally, I believe the collective consensus of the authors of a the top 0.075% of all Misplaced Pages articles should be viewed somewhat like the collective decisions of a Law Review board for a law journal or an Editorial Board of a refereed science journal. There may be a mild popularity bias. However, a small minority of authors with a common interest (possibly from a particular WikiProject), should by coordinating votes (within the rules of Wikiproject postings as related to Canvassing) be able to keep an article from being designated as FTFAC.

It should be noted that the person with the greatest expertise on the process, Raul654, expresses concern over maintaining the hopes of aspiring contributors for selection. By allowing each person only a few votes, it increases the possibility that a smaller interest group could successfully gain acknowledgement for an important and interesting editorial contribution. As an example, suppose we allow each voter 15 votes, and suppose a WikiProject that is likely to have several TFACs every month such as WP Biography decides to cast their votes for the 15 highest priority biographies every month. If 20 active Wikipedians from this group follow this approach the 15 highest priority bios will get 20 automatic votes every month. This makes it difficult for smaller WPs to promote their high priority articles. However, if each of these voters only has 3 votes, the top 15 priority WP bios will on average only get 4 votes from these people. Of course, if the bios are important, they will still get many other votes. However, with a small vote allotment organized voting by interest groups won't crowd out the smaller interest groups. In truth, I had initially planned to only allow two votes per voter. However, it is unclear whether sufficient participation and variation would arise to distinguish the 30 selections and the 30 carryovers. I would actually hope to eventually reduce votes to 2 per voter to improve the possibilities for more esoteric topics. As further protection to more esoteric topics, carryovers should be listed at the top so that people will note articles that it may take them more effort to familiarize themselves with. A final protection for esoteric topics will be an exemption that in each month with 31 days the 31st selection will be the carryover with greatest tenure (exceeding 3 months, ties broken by total votes during the carryover tenure). Also, over time the number of carryovers may have to be altered if WP continues its growth. Voting patterns and results will be monitored by the administrators of this process and modifications will be made as necessary.

I believe converting the TFA/R process to a competitive TFAC process will help editors realize they have to make their articles better relative to other TFACs rather than wait their turn. This change in mindset may help improve the quality of TFACs. Also, the attention given to carryover TFACs may bring them editorial assistance. Furthermore, recall that all articles can be evaluated on both a quality and a priority scale. (See for example the WP:BIO priority scale). For simplicity, let us assume that it is equally possible for low, mid, top, and high priority to achieve FA status. Should they all have equal chance to become TFAs? I think in a selective system, higher priority articles would have a deserved advantage. I think this would serve to motivate people to spend more time cleaning up higher priority articles. Of course, if there were a scale for fan favorites, it might not exactly parallel the priority scale. However, it will be close. It is my belief that in my proposed system an article like Michael Jordan would, based on its true priority level (Top) and fan favoriteness have an advantage over say George Washington Dixon. I think we should want a system that places greater emphasis on higher priority articles if we truly believe they are higher priority articles.

There is some concern about the policy of date requests, but I see little reason why a higher finishing article with no date preference should block a lower finishing TFA from a desired date. I would assign all articles with non-conflicting date preferences to their preferred dates before allowing date choice by quintile among the top 30. Conflicting date preferences would be decided by vote totals as first tie breaker. The newer selection would get the date as a second tie breaker (so that an article achieving TFA on its first attempt would have priority over an article it tied with that got promoted on its third attempt, for example).

On March 14, 2007, I modified the procedure to add an element of prestige to the process. Some discussion predating this modification may seem out of sync as a result. The change is that I now use TFAC and FTFAC instead of FAN and FFAN. I also feel that by having a cutoff date for nominations precluding mid month nominations, we can add an additional element of prestige. This would occur because we could assess the “best” TFA of the month (highest vote recipient) and possibly have yearend TFA of the year elections among the 12 TFA of the months. Each month 1 of the 30 TFAs may be designated as TMFA and each year one TMFA could be promoted to TYFA.

Proposed format

Procedure

Any eligible FA may be nominated as a below as a TFAC to become a main page TFAs. Add the proper information following the format below to next month's TFAC process. TFACs should be listed in reverse seniority order with the most recently promoted articles listed first. With rare exceptions, images are limited to 100px. No mid month nominations will be allowed. In any month TFAC nominations can only be made for the following month. Depending on the number of calendar days in the following month between 28 and 31 top vote getters will advance to main page FA status. The next 30 top vote getters (and all those tied for 30th runner up) will retain TFAC status and again be eligible next month. All other articles will become FTFACs and will not be eligible for renomination as a TFAC for another year. An article must receive at least one vote from someone other than its nominator to retain its TFAC status in any full month of eligibility.

All nominating users must vote for three articles (likely their own nominee and two other articles). Failing to cast a total of three unique votes will make a nominator's votes invalid. Any other registered user may also cast three unique votes. Voting runs from the beginning of the month through the twentieth day of the month. Simply type your nominee votes in the Votes section below. Then increase the vote count for each of the articles in the nominees section that you have voted for by 1. Reciprocal voting (where 2 parties mutually agree to vote for each other’s nominees without considering the merits of other articles) is discouraged. Any indication of reciprocal voting (as determined by an administrator) especially from user talk pages will cancel both votes. However, coincidental identical votes naturally occur (especially from members of the same WikiProjects). Also, canvassing as determined by an administrator will make a TFAC ineligible for promotion and cause its candidacy to be delayed by one month. Friendly notices would generally be considered canvassing if they go to parties other than WikiProjects that were on an articles talk page prior to promotion to TFAC status. For each word over the word limit a nominee will be penalized 1 vote. Abusive incessant block voting (as determined by an administrator) will also be penalized.

The successful TFACs will select their own main page dates in the following month’s queue based on their finish in the voting. The top 6 places choose their dates during the first 2 days after voting ends. The next 6 the following 2 days and so on until the end of the month.

FTFACs are must wait to regain TFAC status. They must wait one year from the close of voting. They must have retained FA class status. They must confirm support from the majority of those who supported their original FAC candidacy. All TFACs and FTFACs would be subject to FAR and FARC procedures.

Under the previous TFA/R format date requests were accomodated. This format does not accomodate such requests as easily. However, if there is a solid reason why a specific date in the month for which a TFAC is being nominated up to 5 words could be added in parenthesis following the (more) parentheses. Any additional words would count against the word limit. Examples would be (June 24 subject Birthday), (May 5 War Start Date), (June 20 League Championship Date), (August 23 Movie/album release date), (June 15 author Birthday), (May 12 author wikipedia anniversary), & (Feb is Black History Month).

Nominees and Votes

Carryover Nominees (sample layout)

Image	Today's Featured Article Candidate	Nominating User	Date of FAC closure	Nomination (50 words or less)	Vote Count	Previous TFAC Places (# votes)
	Celine Dion	Foo3	Date tagged {{TFAC}}	Céline Marie Claudette Dion is a French Canadian Grammy and Juno award winning pop singer/songwriter. During the 1990s she achieved worldwide fame and success, peaking with "My Heart Will Go On" (1998), the Titanic theme. By 2004, she had sold 175 million records, becoming the world's Best-selling Female Artist. (More...)	7	T39(6) T45(5) T53(4)
	Girl Scouts of the USA	Foo4	Date tagged {{TFAC}}	Girl Scouts of the United States of America (GSUSA) is a youth organization for United States girls and American girls abroad. It helps girls build character and skills for adult success. The program, a female counterpart to the Boy Scouts of America, was founded by Juliette Gordon Low in 1912. (More...)	6	T48(5) T57(4)

New Nominees (sample layout)

Image	Today's Featured Article Candidate	Nominating User	Date of FAC closure	Nomination (50 words or less)	Vote Count
	Cell nucleus	FooYu2	Date tagged {{TFAC}}	In cell biology, the nucleus is a membrane-enclosed organelle found in most eukaryotic cells. It contains most of the cell's genetic material, organized as multiple long linear DNA molecules in complex with various proteins such as histones to form chromosomes. The nucleus was the first cellular organelle to be discovered. ((More...))	12
File:Dien Bien Phu.jpg	Battle of Dien Bien Phu	FooYu	Date tagged {{TFAC}}	Battle of Dien Bien Phu was the last major battle in the First Indochina War between the military forces of France and the Vietnamese revolutionary forces called, Viet Minh. The battle culminated in a massive French defeat that effectively ended the war. It is an amazing part of Military History. (more...)	7
	Military brat (U.S. subculture)	Balloonman	Date tagged {{TFAC}}	A "military brat" is a person whose parent(s) served full-time in the armed forces during the person's childhood. Conventionally, the word "brat" is derogatory; in a military context, however, it is neither a subjective nor a judgmental term. It is a term in which the military community takes pride. (more...)	8
	Bill Russell	FooFoo	Date tagged {{TFAC}}	William Felton "Bill" Russell is a retired American professional basketball player who played center for the Boston Celtics of the NBA. A five-time NBA Most Valuable Player Awardee and a twelve-time All-Star, Russell was the centerpiece of the Celtics dynasty that won eleven NBA Championships during Russell's thirteen-year career. (more...)	9
File:Campbells Soup Cans MOMA reduced 80%.jpg	Campbell's Soup Cans	FooUOnce	Date tagged {{TFAC}}	Campbell's Soup Cans, 1962, was Andy Warhol's first one-man gallery exhibition as a fine artist and pop art's West Coast debut. It's semi-mechanized production process, non-painterly style, and commercial subject conflicted abstract expressionism. Subsequent similar works, made Warhol the most-renowned American pop art artist and the highest-priced living American artist. (more...)	9

See a sample nomination edit.

Votes (sample layout)

Battle of Dien Bien Phu, Calvin Coolidge, Arctic Tern User:Foo 09:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill Russell, Charles Darwin, The Simpsons User:FooUTwice 16:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Dien Bien Phu, Bill Russell, Military brat (U.S. subculture) User:FooBoo 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Celine Dion, Campbell's Soup Cans, Cell Nucleus TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 16:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See a sample voting edit.

Survey

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 move

Survey - in opposition to the move

Discussion

To see the original proposal and discussion see the archive

Too complicated

Apart from any specific objections to this proposal, it is just too complicated. Like all Misplaced Pages processes, it needs to be simple to have a chance of working. Otherwise it will get bogged down in bureaucracy. The voting system in particular is fiendishly complicated. Why not try something more like the system they have over at Misplaced Pages:Article Creation and Improvement Drive. That is really quite a simple system, and easier to understand than the system you are proposing. Carcharoth 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)