This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Two featured articles at a time?
I vaguely remember when Barack Obama and John McCain were featured on the main page together on Election Day, 2008. I don't, however, recall any other time when the TFA blurb was shared, and I have a suitable anniversary in mind for a possible second time. June 23, 2016 will be the twenty-fifth anniversary of Sonic the Hedgehog - the character, the Sega Genesis game, and the franchise. I raised Sonic the Hedgehog (1991 video game) to GA status last month and am planning to put it up at FA sometime this coming year, and I was thinking of doing similar work with Sonic the Hedgehog (2006 video game), which was itself produced for the original game's 15th anniversary. I think it'd be cool to show two very different entries in the series that nonetheless share the same, unrevealing name, side-by-side, but am open to other suggestions - I think it'd be a shame to limit this TFA to one Sonic article, if any is chosen at all. Thoughts? Tezero (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- It wouldn't be the second time, but it still would be an unusual thing to do - see WP:Today's featured article oddities. Good luck in your improvement efforts - you've got plenty of time to get there. BencherliteTalk 09:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Notice of intention to stand to down as TFA coordinator
I have been scheduling TFAs for nearly 2 years now and it has reached a stage where I am finding it to be less rewarding and more of a chore. I have lots of articles that I would like to write, or improve, but virtually all of my on-wiki time at present is taken up with scheduling articles and the like – and my on-wiki time is getting increasingly squeezed by work and family commitments, which must of course take priority.
So I have decided that it's time for me to give notice of my intention to stand down as TFA co-ordinator as soon as my replacement(s) can be found. The first step will probably need to be to decide on a process for choosing a TFA coordinator, since no new appointments have been made to the FAC/FAR/TFA processes since we stopped having an FA director. I expect that this will take some time, particularly as Arbcom elections will attract lots of attention in the next few weeks and then we are into the Christmas period. There is no immediate rush – I will carry on scheduling until my services are no longer required.
It may surprise you to learn that most days nobody makes any suggestion for what to run – I am left to my own devices, helped only by resources such as WP:FADC (which I have spent a lot of time completing and keeping up-to-date) and WP:TFAREC (ditto). This can be great fun, and I have on occasions used the freedom to schedule allegedly amusing runs of articles (see WP:TFAO), or articles that I have particularly enjoyed reading. I have spent many happy hours reading the very best that Wikipedia has to offer the world, and am left in awe of those who can produce superb articles on such a wide variety of topics – particularly those who can seemingly write an FA in the time it takes me to tie my shoelaces!
I won't pretend that the last two years have been problem-free. I have made mistakes, inevitably, and no doubt different people would come up with differing lists of them. But I have done my best and I think that TFA/TFAR is a rather different place to what it was two years ago. I hasten to add that I can only take a small part of the credit for that – there are lot of regular contributors who have worked hard to help improve the general atmosphere at TFAR and improve the TFA process, by nominating articles, commenting upon nominations (whether in favour or against), improving blurbs, adding or fixing images, notifying editors of forthcoming TFA appearances, operating bots, and the like. Particular thanks to those who, by manual edits or creating a bot, are doing their best to replace the bots that used to operate in the TFA field but that are now sadly offline. And that's without even starting to think about all those involved in the FAC / FAR processes with which TFA is inextricably linked. I'm not going to start naming names because any such list would be invidiously incomplete. Thank you all. Without you all, the job would have been impossible.
I'm sure that whoever takes over (and I would suggest that perhaps it's a job for more than one person in future) will enjoy the continued goodwill of the community. They will, of course, have any advice and support from me that they need. I have really enjoyed scheduling and feel very privileged to have been allowed to do it at all, let alone for two years. Yours demob-happily, BencherliteTalk 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your service. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for what you did, planning ahead enough and adding humour to the process. - I hope we will keep that, finding a new way which hopefully rests on more shoulders than any single person. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, Bencherlite. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I want to add my thanks to Bencherlite for the work he put into making things runs so smoothly. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you from someone who hasn't participated in this area of Wikipedia but who recognizes the importance of the work you have done. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Adding my voice to all above. You can be proud of what you've done. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for your services, Bencherlite. Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the immense work you did put in. I'm sorry it became so disagreeable, though I suppose that tends to happen with time. Tezero (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks very much for the brilliant job you have done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- TFA is indeed a different place these days and you've definitely left a very positive mark on it, Bench, not least for streamlining the mechanics of the nomination process. I'm very sorry to see you step down but quite understand, and hope you have even more fun being able to spend more time on writing and reviewing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for the hard work you have done to not only maintain, but to improve the process.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks also from me for your outstanding work in this role Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for everything you have done. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Many thanks for all the work you've done over the years. I don't spend much time around TFA/FAC, but it's clear that you've done an excellent job. Modest Genius talk 11:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for everything you have done, Bencerlite. Whomever replaces you has large shoes to fill. Resolute 15:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- My thanks for a job well done are belated, because although I saw the announcement on other pages, I did not realize I did not have this page watchlisted, and could not understand why the community was ignoring Bencherlite's excellent service and his announcement. :) I only realized I did not have this (the lowest trafficed page of all the FA pages) watchlisted this morning,[1] when I added an announcement to the highest traffic FA page. Thank you for everything you have done, and how well you did it for so long! I hope the FA pages can count on your continued dedication no matter the role you serve. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Mucho thanks for your efforts (and for putting up several FAs I helped worked on as TFA). Montanabw(talk) 20:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I confess I stalked your user subpages for a while, and it showed me how much work you put into it. Thanks for your service. --Rschen7754 02:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Alternative way forward
Rather than appoint another coordinator, or team, I propose that we find a way to allow the community to develop consensus, much as we do for, say DYK. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
- A team of editors is a good idea to share the load (similar to what we currently have at WP:FAC), but I don't think a process similar to DYK is the best route to go for Today's Featured article. — Cirt (talk) 00:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- No. Some things are not suitable for endless bickering. Take the fuck articles as an example—in the end someone has to say "yes" or "no" and we all have to live with their judgment. Strong leadership is much better than fighting until "consensus" emerges for issues like this. There is no reliable source or policy that can decide what to do on the main page—it's just judgment. A TFA director is not expected to always make the right decision, and it is likely that a bitterly fought RFC for every sentence every day would produce worse results. Even simple things like whether some articles should be repeated (like the Whitlam TFA) have no objective correct outcome, and they benefit from a reasonably quick yes/no. Johnuniq (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, Johnuniq, although I think a team like the group of coordinators at WP:FAC including Ucucha, Graham Beards, and Ian Rose, could work quite well. — Cirt (talk) 02:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I extremely strongly disagree about the fuck articles. (I personally voted no.) A tally vote, at the very least, is better than simply one trumping vote, which really isn't necessarily any more valid than any of the community's votes, especially if the topic is emotionally provocative. Tezero (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Cirt: Yes, a small team who can make a decision would be good. No more than three!
- @Tezero: This is the Internet where a large proportion of people like displaying their courage and notcensored views, so there will be plenty more opportunities to discuss the merits of featuring such articles (search for my user name at the liberty discussion to see my oppose). However, the point is that people argue about which dash to use, and whether my last comma should be removed. They will do that for nearly every main page section on nearly every day. It is not helpful or sustainable. A director who made many wrong decisions would be much better than a knock-down-winner-takes-all democracy for something which needs to work every day. Johnuniq (talk) 03:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- This position needs to be handed to someone who is respected and competent. Elections will result in a vacillating coordinator unwilling to make difficult calls. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think a small panel of two or three coordinators, as has already been suggested, makes sense. My initial thought would be to see if at least one of those spots could be filled by someone currently serving as a Featured Content coordinator (no, not me, I'm quite happy with my FAC duties!), augmented by one or two other experienced editors as appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Two or three TFA co-ordinators, yes, to share the workload. I don't see any particular advantage in loading this duty on to a current FAC co-ordinator. The only requirements should be {a} that the persons appointed have reasonable knowledge and experience of the FA process; (b) they have the general confidence of the community and (c) they have fairly thick skins. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, I didn’t suggest the possibility of a FAC coordinator (unless Graham or Ucucha are feeling keen!) but rather FC coordinator(s), which covers a much larger array of people in trusted positions -- one or two of whom may be willing and able to step across without adversely affecting their current areas of responsibility -- as well as one or two others not currently holding office but who are, as you say, familiar with FA and trusted in the FC community (and possessing of think skins)! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Think skins? Well...maybe? Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, spelling-and-grammar checker obviously doesn't have "thick skin" in its known phrases list... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'd like to see some fresh blood in the positions. We have people experienced in TFA, I see no need to ask a FC coordinator from another area to step across. Let's find two or three who are capable and broadly acceptable, and get on with things. Possibly even make it for a set term, but I fear that endless complications will result once we start going down that road.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Wehwalt - new faces would be good - surely we can do this by discussion and not elections. Also fixed terms not good idea. It should be informal and no big deal, as long as the person has some common sense. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Brian, Wehwalt and Cas, you are all obvious contenders. Would any of you be interested? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Knowing myself, I am a big-picture person but can gloss over details/errors not infrequently. For that reason, a better choice would be someone (a) with a good eye for detail and (b) somewhat firm on errors etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Someone who'd be firm on best work - ? - The Rambling Man, Sandy or...Fram - all would be focussed on minimising mistakes. Nikkimaria is another who'd be good to ensure nothing silly ended up mainpaged. I guess I am thinking the person is the last checkpoint so needs to be thorough. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe Bishonen? Experienced and quite capable of dealing with any silliness? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Brian, Wehwalt and Cas, you are all obvious contenders. Would any of you be interested? SlimVirgin (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Agree with Wehwalt - new faces would be good - surely we can do this by discussion and not elections. Also fixed terms not good idea. It should be informal and no big deal, as long as the person has some common sense. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'd like to see some fresh blood in the positions. We have people experienced in TFA, I see no need to ask a FC coordinator from another area to step across. Let's find two or three who are capable and broadly acceptable, and get on with things. Possibly even make it for a set term, but I fear that endless complications will result once we start going down that road.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, spelling-and-grammar checker obviously doesn't have "thick skin" in its known phrases list... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Think skins? Well...maybe? Brianboulton (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, I didn’t suggest the possibility of a FAC coordinator (unless Graham or Ucucha are feeling keen!) but rather FC coordinator(s), which covers a much larger array of people in trusted positions -- one or two of whom may be willing and able to step across without adversely affecting their current areas of responsibility -- as well as one or two others not currently holding office but who are, as you say, familiar with FA and trusted in the FC community (and possessing of think skins)! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Two or three TFA co-ordinators, yes, to share the workload. I don't see any particular advantage in loading this duty on to a current FAC co-ordinator. The only requirements should be {a} that the persons appointed have reasonable knowledge and experience of the FA process; (b) they have the general confidence of the community and (c) they have fairly thick skins. Brianboulton (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I think a small panel of two or three coordinators, as has already been suggested, makes sense. My initial thought would be to see if at least one of those spots could be filled by someone currently serving as a Featured Content coordinator (no, not me, I'm quite happy with my FAC duties!), augmented by one or two other experienced editors as appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- This position needs to be handed to someone who is respected and competent. Elections will result in a vacillating coordinator unwilling to make difficult calls. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
- Doesn't the TFAR delegate need to be an admin? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not essential. Move-protection on scheduling is applied automatically by a bot. A non-admin wouldn't be able to edit today's or tomorrow's blurbs if changes needed to be made late in the day but there are always those around who can do so if needed (or who can reset move protection if the queue is changed). BencherliteTalk 19:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is a line on MediaWiki:Titleblacklist that essentially semi-protects all future and archived TFA blurbs indefinitely. Of course, we would want anybody scheduling TFAs to be autoconfirmed anyway. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Not essential. Move-protection on scheduling is applied automatically by a bot. A non-admin wouldn't be able to edit today's or tomorrow's blurbs if changes needed to be made late in the day but there are always those around who can do so if needed (or who can reset move protection if the queue is changed). BencherliteTalk 19:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
I imagine a team of respected editors would be a nice solution, so we don't have to have only one person running around and doing all the TFA scheduling like Bencherlite has been doing for the past couple years. Canuck89 (have words with me) 04:00, November 25, 2014 (UTC)
- I would not be interested in the position. I respect Cas's views on his own service, and as for myself, am reasonably convinced I wouldn't do nearly as well a job as Bencherlite has (or as Cas would), so what's the point? That's so even as a member of a team. Brian would be good, and I think non-controversial (the same could not be said of some of the names mentioned, including my own).--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Folks could take it in turns - look, if no-one wants to do it, then I am happy to do it for six months, from, say, Jan 1 to June 30 or earlier if Bencherlite wants - then someone else can have a go. Not fussed either way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:38, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I would not be interested in the position. I respect Cas's views on his own service, and as for myself, am reasonably convinced I wouldn't do nearly as well a job as Bencherlite has (or as Cas would), so what's the point? That's so even as a member of a team. Brian would be good, and I think non-controversial (the same could not be said of some of the names mentioned, including my own).--Wehwalt (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- My thinking is to have staggered terms, always someone experienced, but also always someone new. Montanabw(talk) 20:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Proposed TFA coord team
Hi all, the current and former TFA/FAC/FAR coordinators would like to put forward Brianboulton, Crisco 1492 and Dank as the TFA Coordinator team. They've all indicated a willingness to serve, and I think we'd all agree that between them they represent great depth and breadth of experience in TFA, Featured Content and WP as a whole. They can also call on Bencherlite for advice as they settle in and work out between them how best to share the workload. I hope the community will get behind this team and help them build upon the great work Bencherlite has done over the past couple of years. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know if this is supposed to be a vote, but I support all three of these dedicated, motivated, and knowledgeable editors for the position. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Great news. This will provide a strong way forward for the TFA process and it will be in good hands. Thanks to Bencherlite for his fair and effective coordination of this page. --Laser brain (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Excellent news that all three have agreed to take on this role. BencherliteTalk 12:29, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Good to have three people with knowledge and experience acting together, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- These editors are each strong with their own unique qualities. Good selection. — Cirt (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Great news - thinks this will work out just fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I am pleased that they have offered their services. Great news indeed. Graham Beards (talk) 14:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose No reflection on the three named individuals, but as I suggested above, we should not delegate the authority of the community - achieved through consensus - to individuals or small teams in this manner. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I would agree with that statement in almost any context, but not in this one. Consensus should play a role, but at the end of the day, we need someone (or a small team) to carry out firm decisions. The idea of making the TFA process more like that of DYK (as you suggested above) sends shivers down my spine. —David Levy 17:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Such a significant issue deserves wider discussion. Please see the RfC, below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I would agree with that statement in almost any context, but not in this one. Consensus should play a role, but at the end of the day, we need someone (or a small team) to carry out firm decisions. The idea of making the TFA process more like that of DYK (as you suggested above) sends shivers down my spine. —David Levy 17:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support sometimes we should actively help the community, this is one such case. A good team who will not let us (or the community) down. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- If they are willing to serve, that seems like a good plan. The process of selecting the coordinators should be open. If there are more volunteers than spots, then some kind of discussion should occur to select those who will serve, or there should be a rotation of members so everybody who is qualified gets a chance. (You may not recognize me, but I hang out at your neighboring section, In the News, and overheard the discussion here.) Jehochman Talk 14:22, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Good choices. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support. I'm relieved to learn that a qualified team of editors is prepared to assume the role that Bencherlite has filled admirably. —David Levy 17:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Whatever settles out, I suggest staggered terms, make the initial group having one person with a one year term, one for two, one for three, and then a new person coming on each year as the old person goes off. (I have no position at present on whether an existing team member could choose to re-up or re-up after a break in service. ) Montanabw(talk) 20:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support The idea sounded like a loser to me until you named those three. That would work. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support Sharing the workload is an excellent idea, and these are highly qualified editors to handle it (both in terms of their FA experience and collaborative and good humoured approach to editing) - thanks for volunteering. Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support no concerns. --Rschen7754 02:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Full support TFA has run smoothly for years with a single person, or small group of people, or czar-and-helper, or whatever. I see no reason to stop a working system, and the proposed troika are the right people to the job. Good idea! --Jayron32 03:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support very dedicated editors, no qualms here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support. An odd number is ideal for resolving disputes quickly, and these three are among the most accomplished and promising editors available for the job. Tezero (talk) 03:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support. Three people I am well acquainted with and I know all of them to be very well-suited to such a position. I have no doubt they will make a very fine triumvirate. — Cliftonian (talk) 13:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support. This team should follow wonderfully on the foundation laid by Bencherlite's excellent service, and I am confident, along with all of my coworkers who are active current and former coordinators and delegates, that the three will work out how to share the workload. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support in part The nominees are veterans who have been through the trenches, and fall under what I earlier stated I would like to see in coordinators. However, I would have preferred to have seen first a decision on the manner Bencherlite (whom I thank for his service) was to be replaced, with a less abrupt nomination process and election (if necessary) procedure to follow. The nominees are fully aware of my regard for them, so I need not wrap my support in a cloud of unctuousness (that floating just above this post is no responsibility of mine).--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support with thanks! Johnuniq (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Support for the named triumvirate. I'm sure all three will be excellent in the role - and they have a tough act to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 16:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Working out "how best to share the workload" took some time because of difficulties with email servers and time zone differences; all three proposed coordinators have agreed that Brian will act as lead coordinator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Struck, see below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- That's news to me, and Brian, Crisco and I have already traded emails on the subject. I'd prefer that we not make any announcements related to coordship until these threads have come to some kind of conclusion. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed. We've been discussing it, off and on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
That you two agreed there would be a lead was communicated to the rest of us via Ian, and my role was to confirm email receipts with Brian, who was having email issues. Please take this up with Ian. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)See below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)- Okay, my apologies for misunderstanding or miscommunication, I suggest we let the three people we've put up for TFA coords pursue their discussions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am glad that a miscommunication -- not atypical of what often occurs with the written word on the internet, so different than face-to-face interaction-- was so quickly cleared up! Happy Thanksgiving to all. Best to all, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, my apologies for misunderstanding or miscommunication, I suggest we let the three people we've put up for TFA coords pursue their discussions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:08, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Could the discussion go public as soon as possible? This is part of what is concerning me, too much is happening behind the scenes. Surely the question of whether there should be a lead co-ordinator goes beyond mere internal division of labor, and who it should be is a matter on which interested community members may well have valuable input to offer, but you won't know if you don't let us know the issues being considered.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
RfC: Team of coordinators, or consensus-building
Should decisions on the selection and timing of the main page's daily "From today's featured article" slot be made by a team of three coordinators (as proposed above), or by the regular community consensus-building process, used elsewhere on Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Team
- Three person team, but with a clearly defined selection process, scope of responsibility, staggered terms per my comment in discussion below. Montanabw(talk) 20:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Consensus-building
- As requester; per my comment above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Nominal support—but see my more detailed comments below. Imzadi 1979 → 00:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose this poll
- I've added this option to express my strong disagreement with the question itself. It'a false dichotomy based on the incorrect premise that the "team" option precludes consensus-building – something that Bencherlite has gone out of his way to promote.
However, if the two concepts were mutually exclusive, I'd have to go with the "team" option anyway, as the community has demonstrated (via its unresponsiveness to Bencherlite's continual participation requests) that it doesn't even want to take on this responsibility (to say nothing of the endless problems that likely would arise if it did want to). —David Levy 22:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)- You refer above to what you perceive to be a need for
"someone (or a small team) to carry out firm decisions"
. That's not "consensus-building", as carried out else where on Wikipedia. (And your comment properly belongs in the "discussion" section, below.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)You refer above to what you perceive to be a need for "someone (or a small team) to carry out firm decisions".
Indeed. And in no way does this preclude a consensus-building process underlying said decisions. As noted above, Bencherlite has tried his darndest to incorporate one. He resorts to wholly unilateral scheduling on dates for which no one suggests anything – which, despite his pleas, occurs most of the time. And yet, you believe that the Wikipedia community at large is prepared to handle not just the requests that we already fail to make, but the entire TFA scheduling process. I disagree. —David Levy 00:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)- Anyone may make a "wholly unilateral" edit under our usual consensus model; it's called being bold. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and such edits are subject to reversion by any editor in good standing. Bencherlite's scheduling decisions are not, so it's important to note that he makes them unilaterally when he's left with no alternative. —David Levy 19:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- If such unilaterlal edits are not subject to reversion, then this is not "a consensus-building process". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I'm describing a situation that arises when no one else chooses to participate in the selection process. What do you expect Bencherlite (or future TFA coordinators) to do in that circumstance? Alternatively, what would happen under your preferred system? Someone has to schedule an article – whether a consensus-building discussion has occurred or not. And in the latter case, that decision mustn't be subject to reversion by any random editor who happens to disagree (leaving us with no article scheduled for that date). What, exactly, do you advocate? —David Levy 21:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- If Bencherite, or future TFA coordinators, act, then the statement "no one chooses to participate" is false. No special role, and no "revert exemption", is required. The claim "that decision mustn't be subject to reversion" is false in any case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
If Bencherite, or future TFA coordinators, act, then the statement "no one chooses to participate" is false.
That's why I described the situation as one in which "no one else chooses to participate" (emphasis added). Why have you materially altered my statement and labeled the resultant misquotation "false"?No special role, and no 'revert exemption', is required.
What do you mean? What specific process do you have in mind? Do you have one in mind?The claim "that decision mustn't be subject to reversion" is false in any case.
Please elaborate. Under the system that you envision (if, in fact, you envision one), how would we ensure that articles are scheduled reliably? —David Levy 13:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- If Bencherite, or future TFA coordinators, act, then the statement "no one chooses to participate" is false. No special role, and no "revert exemption", is required. The claim "that decision mustn't be subject to reversion" is false in any case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I'm describing a situation that arises when no one else chooses to participate in the selection process. What do you expect Bencherlite (or future TFA coordinators) to do in that circumstance? Alternatively, what would happen under your preferred system? Someone has to schedule an article – whether a consensus-building discussion has occurred or not. And in the latter case, that decision mustn't be subject to reversion by any random editor who happens to disagree (leaving us with no article scheduled for that date). What, exactly, do you advocate? —David Levy 21:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- If such unilaterlal edits are not subject to reversion, then this is not "a consensus-building process". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, and such edits are subject to reversion by any editor in good standing. Bencherlite's scheduling decisions are not, so it's important to note that he makes them unilaterally when he's left with no alternative. —David Levy 19:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Anyone may make a "wholly unilateral" edit under our usual consensus model; it's called being bold. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- You refer above to what you perceive to be a need for
- I agree, this RfC presents a false dichotomy. We've had a mixed system for several years that has worked, so it's not an either/or proposition as presented. Imzadi 1979 → 00:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I also agree - the proposal to have a team of coordinators made above is to share the workload which Bencherlite has been handling by themselves up to now. Bencherlite's approach has always been consensus-based, and there are no proposals do change the processes. Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Me too - this is a solution in search of a (non existent) problem. It has all been discussed collaboratively and productively and already resolved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Per Cas and the others. I don't see what this has to add to anything. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- This RfC is pointless but it is good that it was started because it perfectly illustrates how unhelpful it would be to rely on the "regular community consensus-building process, used elsewhere on Wikipedia". Imagine the procedure—every day, all the material to be posted on the main page must be ready before midnight. Meanwhile, someone would start an RfC on whether the featured article for tomorrow should be replaced due to some new argument they've thought of, while another RfC would debate whether the last RfC was closed correctly. Democracy is great but delegation of responsibility for day-to-day events is essential. Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- This process is pointless and not needed. Can we snow close it as an unhelpful distraction? - SchroCat (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Discussion
If a team is appointed, what is their remit; their term of office; and their recall process? [I have posted a pointer to this RfC on {{Centralized discussion}}.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Team concept proposal: Per my !vote above, I propose the following ( Montanabw(talk) 20:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)):
- Three person team of coordinators
- Selection process by a community consensus or vote (Not sure details yet, probably a more-than 50% !approval by voters in a limited time period, but not an endless "consensus" discussion) - maybe 2/3 !vote majority with the voting system a one-person-one !vote as is used for arbcom. (I'm thinking an amalgam taking the best of both of ArbCom elections & the RfA process, each of which have their weaknesses). Some method that is prompt, minimal drama, doesn't allow a few disgruntled trolls to derail it, but results in responsible, qualified people. I'm not particularly wedded to this system, just throwing it out there.
- Staggered three-year terms, one person up each year. The first group will have one person serving one year, one for two years and one for three so that the staggered terms are created. (If Bencher were to stand, Bencher probably would want the one-year term)
- If anyone steps down in the middle of their term, their replacement may be selected by the remaining two to finish out that term and then may stand for selection on their own.
- Removal for misconduct could be the same as a desysop of an admin or other community sanctions. I oppose a recall process independent of this because it's troll bait.
- TFA proposals not supported by community consensus would require a unanimous public vote by the coordinators to run
- Close calls or highly controversial proposals for TFA (i.e. the "fuck" articles and the like) require agreement by 2 of the 3 coordinators.
- I am throwing this out as a proposal to the community. I am open to modification of any of the above ideas. Montanabw(talk) 20:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose that idea as strongly as I've opposed anything at Wikipedia in the nearly ten years I've been an editor. The last thing we need is a complex system of governance – built around elections (with editors casting "support" and "oppose" votes based on the answers to questions like "Would you run an article with 'fuck' in its title?") – invented to solve an entirely nonexistent problem with a non-broken process. —David Levy 22:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- The current system has worked for years, and I think formalized elections would do more harm than good. The point that this RfC in general misses is that it's a nearly 50-50 split as to how many TFAs are suggested by the community, and how many have to be selected by the delegate/coordinator/"whatever the title is called this year". If we went to a purely consensus-driven model, what happens the first time when we're facing a 12 midnight UTC deadline with no TFA selected? What about the next day when another hard 12 midnight UTC deadline approaches and the community is still arguing over the day before? Who determines consensus in the discussions on every nomination? Do we really need to have a minimum of 365 (or 366) discussions. Unlike DYK, FAs have already been reviewed by multiple editors to assess their suitability for the bronze star, and it doesn't always take another review to verify that an article still meets the criteria.
- One potential problem I see about multiple coordinators is the ability for each of them to assume another one has a day covered when in reality no one has. We had a few unscheduled days because of that situation. I trust that any new coordinator "team" will take on the teamwork aspect of things and coordinate amongst themselves to avoid scheduling issues of that sort.
- If we set up a formalized election system as above, we still have other issues. David Levy already mentioned one. However, there is at least another. Montanabw's scheme is very rigid, and it doesn't seem to allow the coordinators to take vacations. Point 6 requires unanimity, yet we can't always guarantee that all three coordinators will be available to vote. That also sets up the dilemma that they can't trade off responsibility amongst themselves to fill in the scheduling gaps left by the community proposals. The proposal would also seem to disallow the community to appoint a fourth (or fifth) coordinator on a temporary basis to allow one of the permanent team to take a leave of absence to deal with real-world considerations or to just take a well-deserved break. Sure, we could remove that person from office, but Point 5 implies we could only do that for misconduct, so if a coordinator needed a short-term break, he or she would have to resign and lose the ability to come back in a few weeks.
- In short, the current system has evolved in such a way that it just plain works to ensure that we have a TFA each day, and it takes into account suggestions from the community. It has been flexible enough to deal with circumstances. We even have a set of emergency TFAs ready in case an admin has to step in during extraordinary circumstances that require immediate action. Therefore, I 'oppose a community-consensus-only model and formalized elections. Imzadi 1979 → 00:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree completely with David: the TFA process has been working very well, and there's no need to over-complicate things. Sharing the workload is a good idea IMO, but the process should be kept simple and as drama-free as possible (as has always been the tradition in the featured content coordination processes). Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I also agree. There is no need for a complex governance process, and I have grave reservations about community processes. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- I oppose that idea as strongly as I've opposed anything at Wikipedia in the nearly ten years I've been an editor. The last thing we need is a complex system of governance – built around elections (with editors casting "support" and "oppose" votes based on the answers to questions like "Would you run an article with 'fuck' in its title?") – invented to solve an entirely nonexistent problem with a non-broken process. —David Levy 22:26, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose per above. No need to fix what isn't broken. --Rschen7754 02:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protection?
Might it be worth semi-protecting articles while they're featured on the Main Page? I doesn't make sense to me to have there be a lot of views and a lot of vandalism at the same time. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi professor ... Btw, you probably know this, but I don't see a notification on your talk page ... Natchez revolt will hit the Main Page on Nov. 30. - Dank (push to talk) 01:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- See the Perennial proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, hearing about the Natchez revolt TFA led me to wonder about this. Well, I hope that vandalism to TFAs always gets reverted very promptly (good thing we have bots); otherwise, it's not worth leaving featured articles wide-open to IP vandalism and unlikely to be improved by IP editors. Jsayre64 (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)