Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/Long range requests

TFA request reform
In reference to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/requests, I think we should go ahead and create a long range TFA request page. See Long range TFA requests. This is essentially grassroots activism for changing the TFA process, as opposed to waiting for a change to be imposed from above. Basically, what we are doing is the reverse of Today's featured article/requests – instead of trying to get an article TFA'ed sooner, we're saying, Hold off on TFA'ing this article until this relevant anniversary comes up. This is in accordance with the spirit of the comment left at Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_featured_article/requests. I propose that as we create FAs, we start adding them to this list and if a lot of people do so, then it will be indicative of a forming consensus that this is a good system for requesting TFAs to supplement the existing system.

See also Featured_articles_that_haven%27t_been_on_the_Main_Page. Given that there is a queue of 737 FAs waiting for TFA, an average of half a year is not a long time to wait. Obviously not everyone is going to get their way if there are competing requests but I think this is a good way of organizing and expressing preferences as to which date to put FAs on the main page. Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This will quickly get right back to the 200 requests Raul has repeatedly said he doesn't want. How about a mechanism to limit this, by finding a way to remove less valid requests?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see what's wrong with 200 requests, if they're spread out across the year. Divided by 12 months, that's only 17 per month. Raul and/or his assistants can weed out the less valid requests and/or prioritize to pare it down to some reasonable number that allows for balancing date requests with other waiting articles that don't have obvious date linkages. Sarsaparilla (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, then I'll try to explain from the (hopefully) point of view of the person who has to read through all of this while scheduling the main page, and I'll pick your example. You put up a date for UNPA almost a year away.  From your point of view, that makes sense, and it's a worthy request.  Now, look at Raul's job.  When this page gets to 200+ requests, this means whenever he's scheduling the mainpage, he would have to look at this page and sort through several hundred requests to realize that you don't want UNPA scheduled sooner.  So, Raul would still has to sort through hundreds of requests each time he schedules the mainpage.  And that's on top of all the other considerations that go into the job he does.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's time to delegate some of those roles? TFA is still only one article per day, so it shouldn't be too overwhelming for someone to look at the requests and decide what to put in the queue. This page might even provide useful info for making the decision (e.g. "I have three other articles pending on this page that I was the primary contributor to; this article became featured on _____; the 150th anniversary of this guy's birthday is on this date") which might be helpful for the decision. If Raul doesn't want to use this page, he doesn't have to... consensus hasn't crystallized as to whether we as an encyclopedia want to go this route... Sarsaparilla (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, Raul has already clearly said many times he isn't likely to use a page like this. Raul does a fine job of scheduling the main page, committee decisions would just stall the decisions and create another top-heavy process, and I don't see current reason to be concerned about Raul's time commitments.  I also don't think it would be useful to delegate a one-person task to a committee, particularly not when those same people could be using their time to do more necessary tasks on Wiki, like reviewing articles at FAC so we can actually generate more featured content.  But that's just my bias :-)  On the other hand, Raul has said he does take nominator desires into consideration, so maybe he can use this page somehow.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ultimately the policy decisions are up to the community; if this page takes off and people make a demand for change, then I suppose it will have to go in that direction; on the other hand, if the page stagnates then that will pretty much be evidence that we need to try something else or stick with what we have. No, I wasn't suggesting a committee-based system, just a more request-driven one. I thought you were the one saying it would be cumbersome for him to deal with the requests? Ah, I think I see what you're saying now. It's not that he doesn't have the time, you're just saying that it would be difficult to sort through/factor in all those inputs going into the TFA decision, if I understand correctly. Sarsaparilla (talk) 16:25, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right ... I'm pointing out that this page is not substantially different than the previous page, that required Raul to sort through hundreds of requests. It doesn't look that way yet, because it's not full, but if it fills up, it's right back to where we were months ago.   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:39, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

How-to
Should a TFA box that has a lead and a picture be added or just a link and reason? – thedemonhog   talk •  edits  03:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Good question - I suppose if we had hundreds, the page would get kinda crowded. Moreover, if the request is for several months out, the lead might become outdated by then. How about a link along with an explanation of the request? (On the other hand, if the subject is obscure, people might not immediately realize what it's about without a TFA box; they would have to click on the link.)


 * Maybe what we can do is, at first just have the link and rationale, and then as time passes and the article enters the 60-day window before the requested TFA date, put the full TFA box. That will provide helpful info for deciding between competing requests as it gets close to time to add stuff to the queue. Sarsaparilla (talk) 03:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions
While I think this is a good idea, I would further subdivide it into sections for each day of each month as I believe this will make it easier to look at and use, especially if it attracts noms from most of the FAs that have not yet appeared as TFA. I suggested something similar a while ago on the TFA requests talk page and I also wonder if it would be useful for a thirteenth category, namely dates that are movable. This could apply to things like Eid, Passover, Easter, Thanksgiving, and anything that does not have a fixed date. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 17:31, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Be bold and add it if you so desire. If we do holidays with movable dates, I think it should be accompanied by an explanation of how that date is figured, and/or the specific upcoming dates for the next few years. Sarsaparilla (talk) 18:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Organization
I'm trying to think of the most logical way to organize this page. It seems like if we could format this like an Excel spreadsheet, it would be really easy. Just have one column for the TFA request date; one for the article promotion date; one for the number of articles pending by that submitter; and possibly one for the subject category. Then you could just sort by column and say, "Hmm, here are all the articles that have been pending for more than 2 years... let's add one of those to the queue... now let's sort by TFA date; here are all the ones that have a request date coming up, so let's add one of those to the queue... let's sort by number of articles pending by the submitter... here are a bunch whose submitter has more than 5 articles pending, let's pick one of those..." I was thinking that as we get to the point where there are thousands and thousands, that kind of sorting might be the best way to keep track of everything and balance the different criteria without letting anything get too behind... that's how I would do it anyway... Should we reorganize this into a table, then, for ease of import/export into spreadsheets? Sarsaparilla (talk) 00:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm very much against granting special mainpage priviliges to articles just because they were written by the same user(s) and I disagree that time spent waiting on a request list should be anything but a marginal factor. Articles should be judged on their own merits in conjunction with their appropriateness for a certain date. The spreadsheet format seems like a good idea, though.
 * Peter Isotalo 07:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)