Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

DYK?

Hi All,

While the GA review process for Entertainment is proceeding, I started on Writer, which is another article on the list. You can see it is nowhere near finished but it's coming along. I have lots more to do, but I am pretty sure it already meets the five times increase criteria for DYK. However, I am running out of time as I started last Tuesday. So if you think we could get a DYK for it, could someone nominate it? By the time someone reviews it, I should have been able to fill in the evident gaps but I did not have the time this week. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The only problem is that DYKs must be nominated within 5 days of creation/expansion, and since you stated that you started last Tuesday, which was 6 days ago, we barely passed the nomination deadline. ZappaOMati 05:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I had it in my head it was a week, so I was thinking seven days. However, the article has indeed been increased by 5x within a specific 5-day period, I am just a day late in actually listing it. Does this make a difference? Do you think they would see this as an extenuating circumstance? I enjoy doing content creation on WP, and I appreciate other people's help with the rules and tech. Would it be possible to nominate this? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion occurring at Talk:Main Page

• See Talk:Main Page#Today's article for improvement on the Main Page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Large discussion. Can you summarize? Do you need help? -—Kvng 18:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are several problems with implementing.

• With respect to placing the section, the consensus was to put it under DYK, but there are also proposals to put it under the OTD or as a section of its own, spanning both sides of the page.
• The main problem is on how to balance the sections. Adding a new section for TAFI will add several lines to the Left side of the Main page, which will need to be balanced by reducing the number of lines in TFA, DYK or TAFI; or by increasing the number of blurbs in OTD or ITN (or more than one of these). There is no discussion or agreement to reduce TFA. DYK seems unlikely to be reduced. ITN may be increased; but OTD has its own problems (Some days of the year have few notable events even currently; and another blurb will increase this problems for those days).
• A third question is what the section should be. There is disagreement on whether to add "Help Wikipedia and join fellow editors in building _______ - one of today's Article for Improvement" or something similar before the section. There is disagreement on whether to add a button to purge the page, by means of a "More selections" link. There is disagreement on whether or not to have another line of description about the article which is selected. There is disagreement over how many articles to display. Also, there is disagreement over whether or not to add an image.
• When we approached the technical VP, it was also suggested that there be another RfC finalising everything. Also, there are versions of the section which are not community approved, which might be problematic in itself.
• Finally, and most importantly, everyone has their own perfect version of the section; and nobody seems to be interested in anybody else's version. Which leads to no result whatsoever on how to go forward.

So yes. We need help. We really need someone to bring the discussion all together, and make it more forward. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

We're now waiting for a bot request to be approved. I'm wondering if there is anything else. Does anyone know whether the layout issues discussed above were resolved? -—Kvng 15:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsuccessful Nominations

What makes a nomination unsuccessful? It doesn't say anything about what makes a nomination unsuccessful on the coordination page or any of the pages, and I think it will be helpful for newcomers to that. Thank you.Horai 551 07:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thus far, it's been if nominations don't receive 3 supports after a considerable amount of time has passed. Here is some background regarding a proposal for archiving nominations, which is general, and can be adjusted: Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement/Archive 2#(Tentative) proposal for archiving guidelines. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

We probably need a better-defined failure criteria. Editors are starting to leave negative supports (Oppose) on nominations. I think this is a helpful development. Certainly if there are a few of those, the nomination should be considered failed. -—Kvng 14:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

TAFI template

I am not impressed with having the imposing {{TAFI}} template at the top of article pages for weeks on end. TAFI is of no interest to readers who are by far the largest group of visitors to WP articles. They don't need assaulting with yet another banner. I assume that readers will see the template. If so can it be an editor only thing, like a hidden category perhaps? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually the template will only remain on the current week's group of TAFI articles, then it is replaced on the talk page with the {{former TAFI}} tag. The only reason the current batch has had the TAFI tag for a long time is that the schedule has been on hold while we've been waiting for the final approval and implementation on the Main Page. It appears no one has the gall to give us the go-ahead. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 12:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice: TAFI template is being discussed for deletion. Please discuss this matter at the template's entry here. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 08:52, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Good Article

The review for Entertainment is completed. I have incorporated the suggestions and fixed various things. We now have a Good Article! Whiteghost.ink (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! – Ypnypn (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely great job. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for raining on your parade, but some concerns have been raised about the referencing used in this article at my talk page. I don't want to take away from the achievement that this article currently is, but they are valid concerns. AIRcorn (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Extra references added. More on the way. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Chach Nama

As many editors here are interested in the cleanup of needy articles, I thought I'd propose the articles revolving around the Chach Nama. This is a 7th-century Persian chronicle of events occurring in Sindh earlier in the century, including a myriad of internecine conflicts, invasions, and palace intrigue. I have made a preliminary list of a few needy articles at User:DCI2026/Chach Nama table. You really don't need any experience to edit effectively in these areas, and help is appreciated. I've notified several other projects and will soon be notifying WP:WikiProject Cleanup. dci | TALK 18:48, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:TAFI

Template:TAFI has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

• The result of the discussion was keep. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Main Page deployment, or not?

Wasn't TAFI supposed to go live on the Main Page once the purging bot was approved? Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Joe's Null Bot 2, it has been, but the Main Page talk page is archived so fast that everyone seems to have forgotten about TAFI already over there. When can we get this moving? ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 19:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, the bot was the final hurdle. I suggest that some editor involved with this project (not me) write up a brief list of the project milestones for Talk:Main Page (nomination system, the random article feature, approval of the bot, solution to formatting issues with ITN and OTD, ect.) and explain that the project has completed the challenges with implementation. Then place {{adminhelp}} on your talk page to get the attention of an uninvolved administrator, or use another venue to attract an uninvolved admin. I think we have gone as far as we can with this, now we need to get another admin involved to actually place things to on the Main Page and start it up. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:16, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Here are links to the Village pump discussions:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 97#Editor recruitment with TAFI
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Unanswered questions - TAFI

Here's some links to (archived) posts from Talk:Main Page:

• Talk:Main Page/Archive 171#WP:TAFI
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 172#WP:TAFI proposal
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 173#Today's article for improvement on the Main Page
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 174#Why has TAFI not been implemented?

Here's the Main page sandbox page: Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox

User:David Levy, an admin, was involved in these discussions and with moving forward, so I've placed a talkback template on their talk page to this discussion. It would be nice for all of the work involved from multiple editors to come into fruition. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi! If we're shooting for a main page debut on 18 March, we need to have the next set of article links ready to go at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/12. (At this point, however, a 25 March debut probably is more feasible.) We also need to make sure that the bot task is operational. Has anyone been in touch with Joe Decker? (I see no relevant messages on his talk page.) —David Levy 08:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello David, I left a talkback template to here on User:Joe Decker's talk page. Atop their talk page it's stated that they they're away on business (et al.) until about March 17th, so there may be a delay in their responding here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think we should discuss this at the MP Talk or the VP so that more editors & admins will be aware about this. --Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 09:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A concern is that content is archived at Talk:Main Page after 3 days when posts cease. Therefore, I've posted a link there to this discussion (See this link). Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:59, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Archiving can be avoided or delayed using the {{DNAU}} or {{Bump}} templates - Evad37 (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Switch to next list?

I think it has been too long that we have stayed with the current batch of 10 articles as our TAFI. I think we should switch to Group 2 now, with the same conditions as we had for the current group (Wait until its on the main page etc etc)

Also, what is the update on getting us to the main page? Last thing I remember, the brfa was pending for the bot to clear the main page cache every 15 mins. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Joe's Null Bot 2 was approved to purge the Main Page every 15 minutes, but one of the reviewers said that the Javascript solution would be a lot more likely to prevent edit conflicts, and wanted to see a mock-up of that instead. Does anyone know who did the Javascript for the 2008 presidential election articles on the main page? 75.166.210.107 (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Some searching showed that User:Cyde may be the one who was doing the Javascript, but I can't be too sure. Also, I see no reason why we can't start TAFI on the main page on a temporary basis using Null Bot 2 so we can try and gauge the rest of the problems. Javascript, if it is feasible, will be a better option. But we may as well start with the approved option. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Whoa, I was? That's news to me. Do you have a link? Maybe I said it, but since forgot? --Cyde Weys 19:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This gave me the impression that you were the one who may have done the javascript portions. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

That's something completely different. During the final day of the 2008 election we had dual featured articles on the Main Page, Barack Obama and John McCain. Some people expressed concern that it was potentially leading to bias because one was always on top, so I committed a very temporary JavaScript hack that randomized the order that those articles displayed on the main page. That JS hack was undone a day or two later and was highly specific to that situation of having two featured articles. It has nothing to do with switching out groups of articles for Articles for improvement. --Cyde Weys 21:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually that is very close to what we require. We were looking for ways to randomise the articles which are displayed on the Main Page without resorting to Null Bot (Which purges the cache of the Main Page every 15 minutes.) It was suggested that JS might be one of the options to do so and it appears to be better than our current option. So if your JS can be modified to meet our current situation specifications, that will be perfect. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Moving onward to the next group (Group 2) scheduled in the queue at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Schedule, which is functional to keep things moving. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely that could be done in JavaScript. It wouldn't a modification of what I wrote though, it'd just be a new script. There would be several alternatives:

1. Display all groups of articles on the main page (with display: none; set on all but one), then set which one is viewable randomly using JavaScript. Disadvantages: If someone has JS disabled they're always just going to see the one group that is set to visible in CSS. Also, you're downloading a lot more data than is displayed, which could be bad.
2. Have an asynchronous call made in JS that fires off when the page is loaded that grabs the article text from a random group of articles and displays it. Disadvantages: The articles for improvement won't be displayed until some point after the rest of the page content loads, and will require another network connection. Also, if a user doesn't have JS enabled, they won't see anything.

Purging the main page cache every 15 minutes might truthfully be the best option. I'm assuming you'd have some code in a template to select a random group and display that, then every time you purged the main page cache another set of articles would be displayed at random? Is there some requirement that this displayed list be different on every page load and for every user? --Cyde Weys 18:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Main Page deployment

Note: Added Request for comment above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

At this time, what is necessary to close TAFI for its Main page entry? Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Having, admittedly, forgotten about this, I was pinged by Northamerica1000. I will need to go over the discussions that took place to help get things going.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 12:53, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

While I have the Null Bot ready, I need to move it to a machine that's on 24/7, and it'll take me a few hours today to install all the infrastructure on the desktop. Working.  :) Sorry that the Utah trip got in the way of this. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

You and your "real life"... ;) —Theopolisme (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Null Bot task 2 (the relevant task here) is now in operation. --j⚛e decker^talk 18:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the need to get some things in order and the prudence of testing everything before the main page deployment, I think that 25 March seems like our best bet. If, for some reason, that doesn't pan out, let's avoid a 1 April debut (which would seem like an April Fools' Day joke). —David Levy 16:16, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think an April 1 debut is much better than any other one. Google released Gmail on the same day. Launching TAFI in all seriousness on a day when nothing is supposed to be might be good. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I would agree if I were confident in the community's ability to take a 1 April launch seriously. Sadly, past April Fools' Days have shown that such an expectation is unrealistic. Debuting the section on that date would encourage users to vandalise the articles with jokey nonsense instead of improving them. (In fact, that's a good reason to consider waiting until 8 April.) —David Levy 18:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree David. April first is a bad time to debut a new feature. Thanks for keeping up with this.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:54, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I feel we should be able to get things finalized for a March 25th debut. We will just have to be diligent on April 1st to watch the article, and perhaps do a 24 hour semiprotect. I will draw up documentation on how to generate the subpages, so that everyone is capable of doing it, and when we have established the start date, I can generate the correct subpages. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I have made instructions available here for setting up the schedule pages. If you are going to edit them, they are actually located on the schedule page. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Given the emphasis on attracting new editors, semi-protection seems far from ideal. It would be preferable, I think, to simply omit the section for 24 hours. —David Levy 03:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Uhm....so let me get this straight. If implemented before the 1St you plan on omitting every single feature on the main page? Because surely you are not suggesting that this feature alone would be left off.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm suggesting. Other articles linked from the main page (most of which will be specially selected for April Fools' Day) can be semi-protected if needed. Conversely, semi-protecting the TAFI articles would cause considerable frustration, disappointment and discouragement among new editors invited to improve them and immediately turned away. I can think of no easier method of sabotaging a week-old main page section.

Also note that the need to occasionally omit TAFI, primarily due to space constraints, has been discussed. —David Levy 03:53, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I get your point now. I suggest we implement after the first to avoid any frustration. I know Jimbo was asking about having some originality this year so I hope we have something fun planned for April Fools Day.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Keeping things simple, what are the things left to do before TAFI comes to the main page?

• • The required bot to purge the main page is up and running.
  • We are yet to check up on a javascript option
  • I prefer we switch to Group 2 before we hit the main page.
  • We need to find an uninvolved admin to hit the switch.
  • We need to be ready for the impending onslaught, and make sure the notifications are there on the Mian page talk, VP, Jimmy's talk page, this page, the Teahouse, and preferably all members of TAFI.
  • We should preferably be organising ourselves into groups which could monitor the articles. Atleast one person must ideally be there on the lookout at all times, welcoming users, directing them to the Teahouse etc.

Is there anything else? If so, please do add them. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:31, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Has anything been discussed regarding how to assess whether the experiment is successful? ie does it lead to readers converting into editors? are pages improved by being highlighted or do they deteriorate? do some types of article work better than others? are places like the Teahouse being overwhelmed? &c&c Espresso Addict (talk) 02:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

In preparation for the upcoming implementation, I have requested and been granted rollback privileges. I felt that I needed to become more active in fighting vandalism just in case.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there anyone who could be helping us in gathering data on the same? Someone who is experienced enough to help in such data collection? I am sure we could ask if the Teahouse could be monitoring the number of questions they face, but we might find it better to have someone do the rest too. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:39, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it's critical that the TAFI project is continuously assessing the issues related to the TAFI articles, and I'm concerned that this hasn't been set up in advance. My guess (based on many years' experience with DYK) is that many highlighted articles will deteriorate through being highlighted on the main page, or at best require disproportionate amounts of work by existing editors to the positive new material added by genuine newbies. I would expect that some types of articles are more likely to be improved than others.

The Teahouse already monitors total number of questions per month (Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host lounge/Metrics). The stats are produced by a bot, so it would require human intervention to assess whether any increase in questions might be related to the TAFI articles. The editor associated with this monitoring appears to be User:Jtmorgan, who is a research strategist for WMF and might be a good person to contact regarding help in monitoring editor conversion. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:06, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's all basically good to go, so when interested Wikipedia administrators volunteer their time to publish TAFI on Main page, then it will be there. There isn't much more that non-admins can do at this time to publish TAFI on main page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:03, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

In response to your talkback note, I'll reiterate my preference that an uninvolved administrator add TAFI to the main page. Some backlash is likely ("What?! I didn't see the discussions. Take it down!"), and it will be greatly amplified if a TAFI participant pulled the trigger. —David Levy 17:01, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there any particular admin we are waiting on? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 17:09, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. —David Levy 17:14, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I can only anticipate the backlash will be huge and wildly hilarious. Everyone should be prepared for the onslaught of plainly obvious questions that have been answered multiple times. Anyways, since we're going with the April 8th day, I will setup the appropriate subpages for Group 2 for that start date. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not entirely uninvolved, I fear I'm a poor choice to press any relevant buttons for that reason. Maybe put out a call at WP:AN? It might make sense to draw up a quick set of notes for precisely what admin actions are being requested. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:24, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

I doubt if AN is a good venue. My experience is that the people there like to pick apart and criticize new ideas instead of doing anything useful with them. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • AAPT) 01:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest using either {{Edit protected|Main Page}} or {{admin help}}, with a set of implementation notes. An uninvolved admin isn't likely to just stumble across this page. - Evad37 (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll ask around at the Teahouse, and see if there is some admin there willing to press the button for us. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Just saw the message at the teahouse, and came to see what this is all about (I honestly had no idea since I was away from WP for some time). I gather that consensus was established a while back, but I'd suggest announcing the change on a more visited page like WP:AN or WT:MAIN (with a specific agreed date etc) before actually making it. As others have noted, some backlash in inevitable, and it will only be increased if you suddenly made the change on the main page after a discussion only on this wikiproject talk page. In my opinion, if you make the change like this, it will give the impression that it was done "in secret" without the community's knowledge as a whole, which won't do much to help the project. Chamal ^T•C 14:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

We have already agreed upon the date, in my opinion. We are set for an April 8 start. As for the discussion, we already discussed the entire issue on VP, Main page talk, here, advertised it via an Rfc, cent, Jimbo's own page etc. Even the main page talk contains a link to this discussion. But I agree we need to advertise again just so everyone knows (again) that we are ready. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Commencing on April 8 appears to be in order, and is also realistic at this time. I've added a Request for comment template to the top of this section. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

For background and context, here's a repost of links to discussions that have occurred regarding TAFI's main page slot. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:34, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• Village pump discussions:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 97#Editor recruitment with TAFI
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Unanswered questions - TAFI

• Archived posts from Talk:Main Page:

• Talk:Main Page/Archive 171#WP:TAFI
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 172#WP:TAFI proposal
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 173#Today's article for improvement on the Main Page
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 174#Why has TAFI not been implemented?

• Main page sandbox page: Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox

Someone should get the sandbox version working again - I think it needs the relevant subpages set up. Plus the link should probably be to a previous revision, as an IP has been modifying the code for Other areas of Wikipedia / Wikipedia's sister projects / Wikipedia languages. - Evad37 (talk) 17:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

• This verson seems to be the last Main Page sandbox edit with respect to TAFI. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:26, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added this discussion to WP:CENT. We might expect some people to come in and start commenting. I suggest someone ping all the VPs, the AN, Jimbo's talk page, and all wikiprojects on the main page so nobody is left out of the discussion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Announced at Jimbo's talk page, AN & VPR --Ushau97 ^talk 17:57, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I will not have as much spare time in the coming weeks as in the past. Perhaps someone else can setup the subpages for Group 2, according to the documentation available at the bottom of the schedule page. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done till Week 15. To make a group functional, the specified portions on the week page need to be uncommented. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems to be a good idea, thus I support the proposal. TBrandley 18:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Week 13 has been deployed; and so the formatting at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox is currently functional. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:44, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support. Excellent project, solid implementation, widespread involvement. TheOriginalSoni has also asked me to comment a little bit on assessing the impact of TAFI. If you want to track whether new editors edited TAFI articles (and you totally should!), how much editing they did, whether it had an impact on retention, etc. these data can all be gathered and analyzed after the fact as long as you keep a good record of which articles were listed as TAFI collaborations, and when they were listed & delisted. Happy to discuss more research considerations more after the project has been launched (tho I'm only semi-active right now). - J-Mo ^{Talk to Me} _{Email Me} 23:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Cascading protection

Has anyone fully tested how this performs under cascading protection? I have not looked carefully at how it is implemented, but on first glance looking at how the links are on individual sub templates like this, there might be an issue. Every time the main page is purged, the MediaWiki system resets the cascading protection on all templates used on there i.e. any template that is moved off the main page has its cascading protection removed. Unless these individual link templates are protected on their own, or a central queue page like Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/13 is cascade protected, those individual link templates are vulnerable to vandals if they are not currently showing on the main page, Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Nominations and imminent implementation

I see that the nominations page has slowed down dramatically, probably because we have approved over 130 articles to be TAFI. I'm not going to archive any of the current nominations until some time after we go live on the Main Page, so we don't have a completely empty page. I would suggest that we begin acquiring some articles to nominate either around the time of April 8th, so editors drawn here can see what it is that we are doing. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Nominate is one thing, get it fixed is another. I looked at couple by chance and they still need work. I think no article with less than 3,000 views a month should be nominated, because there are a lot of obscure pages on that list. Get the key items fixed first then worry about obscure pages. That way improvements will have focus. History2007 (talk) 23:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I fully understand what you mean. While I agree that there are some articles that got approved which are a little lame, in my opinion the quality of the approved nominations has increased with time. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 07:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

My main point was to focus on articles with "higher visibility" and/or encyclopedic value and "lower quality". That was why I suggested the Library at Alexandria etc. If an article gets less than 3,000 views a month it should not be part of this process for now, I think. The real issue is that tens of thousands of new articles get added every month, and the supply of "active editors" is stable (or slightly declining). The long and short of it is that there will be many far flung articles that no one has even time to double check. So the only solution is to hope to fix the core encyclopedic articles. The rest will just sit there, and do not even get a rating in many cases. History2007 (talk) 17:46, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Maybe we should add certain article view requirements for each nomination, such as requiring that the article needs at least 300 article views or something to be nominated. --Horai 551 10:11, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that was exactly my suggestion. I think really obscure articles should not be taking away precious clicks that could go into improving major articles that need help. You could probably build a simple formula that uses:

• F = view frequency, scaled to 0-100 so less than 3000 per month gets score 0 and greater than 10,000 gets 100. So an article with 6,500 views a month gets score F=50, etc.
• R = shape/rating reverse scaled, (and I would suggest re-rating before submission), and give R=100 for stub, 80 for start, 60 for C, 40 for B, 0 for FA, etc. GA articles are excluded.
• V = encyclopedic value (a subjective value set by this project) so Charlie Sheen gets a lower score than Shakespear - if controversial this item may be ignored.

Then average these and set a threshold. I think a 50% threshold may be ok. So a C-rated article with 6,500 views a month gets score 55% (excluding V) and qualifies. And at any given time, articles with higher score get priority. History2007 (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Good luck enforcing all of these new rules, should they (hopefully not) come into fruition. Seems to be rather bureaucratic, and against the spirit of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, which states "If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." Restrictions against posts will just lead to lessened participation, which has already been noticeably dwindling. This in turn will lessen the probability of the encyclopedia being improved. I think people should be able to post whatever article they want to, and then simply let the processes of consensus lead to what articles are chosen to be TAFI entries, rather than more rules and restrictions. People shouldn't be required to check and analyze page hits prior to posting ideas; it's counterproductive to collaboration. The notion of creating restrictions at this time when TAFI may be included on Main page in the near future certainly won't encourage editors to participate, particularly newer ones. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:19, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

/Peer review

What exactly is the Peer Review part of this project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ypnypn (talk • contribs) 00:59, 29 March 2013‎

As far as I am aware no peer review has been discussed or set up. Why?--Amadscientist (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

(S)he was referring to WP:TAFI/PR which is probably not active. Anyways, what does the page do? It has not been serving the purpose it was created for. Not a single article has been there. --Ushau97 ^talk 10:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProjects have a number of different functions. Some will have a Peer Review page, and assessment page for articles. NorthAmerica100 set that up and is very active with the projects. It may have simply been created as part of the overall pages that projects would normally create but neither assessment or peer review is required for a project. I agree that it does seem a bit confusing. I am not clear how a peer review would work in this project and whether or not the page is needed at all. But NorthAmerica100 would be better able to explain if they had a direction they felt the page should take.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I've left a TB at Northamerica1000's talk page. Northamerica1000, could you please explain the purpose of the page and suggest how we can make the page more active? --Ushau97 ^talk 12:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello all: I figured that since this project is about improving articles, some may be further worked upon after they are listed for a week if people are interested in doing so, and the peer review page provides a space for editors to further collaborate on articles if they so desire. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:57, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope the page can be used for the purpose it was created after TAFI is implemented on the main page. Hopefully, after the implementation we will get more editors to work on the articles selected as TAFI. Cheers --Ushau97 ^talk 12:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

What other purpose would the peer review page be utilized for? Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a question

I haven't been around this part of WP in a long time: Is this essentially the old collaboration of the week but with a new name? --Golbez (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

• I believe so. Only that this project has a specific purpose of getting the vital topics and related articles which would garner general interest. Also, it is also aimed to make editors out of the general readers of the Wiki. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Well, COTW predated that link above by a good clip, it wasn't always a Wikiproject, it was something more central. Then it seemed to just fade away. It was vital to the early days, nice to see it back. --Golbez (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
    • No, COTW was begun in 2005 by User:119 and was, I believe, to be more along the lines of the project collaboration of the month sort of thing. This project was created in July of 2012 by User:Fuhghettaboutit and was intended for the main page.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
      • • No, just to keep our history clear: "Wikipedia:Article of the week" was suggested by User:Tom- in April 2004 (not a WikiProject as Golbez said) and later this process was moved to COTW. See Archive 1. Rmhermen (talk) 14:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note about the founding members. While the current list of members shows myself and one other as the first two members, in reality there were 5 (with additional members closely following):

1. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
3. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 05:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 05:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Amadscientist (talk) 06:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

For whatever reason we have lost the first three of the more active members in those early stages. I wish they would return (Although Autostikeout is still active), but respect their decisions for whatever reason. This isn't to say that these are the most active members to date, but that this project was a completely different project than the above. AutomaticStrikeout is probably one of the most active here with NorthAmerica100 and TheOriginalSoni providing a great deal of work. Sorry if I have overlooked anyone. Just a mention of the differences between the projects. But the credit to much of this does go to last three mentioned.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

NickPenguin has also been very active in helping around. Also, Coin has been nominating many pages; while Whiteghost.ink has been our most active person actually improving the articles. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:12, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Like--Amadscientist (talk) 00:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Entries are being erased!

I have restored two entries thus far that were erased from the nomination page without being properly archived (diff1, diff 2). Both entries also received recent support !votes. Hopefully this won't become a problem with this project; entries simply being erased without due process. All entries that are removed should be archived at one of the appropriate archive pages for this project. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• Both articles have been moved into the Holding Area, and hence the erasing! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Supreme facepalm of destiny Please disregard this thread. Sorry, I forgot to check that they were moved to the holding area, I didn't think they would pass that soon. Wow, nice participation here! Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:46, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Just another reason I love TAFI. Braden 23:15, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Let the deployment begin?

We are just 3 days away from D-DAY, when we go live on the Main Page on 8th April. I think we should get an administrator now to confirm them pushing the button for us.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

We're about 13.5 hours into 8 April, in Wikipedia time. When is the feature due to appear? --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I know, maybe we should open another RFC about it, just to make double sure there's a consensus to deploy. </sarcasm> ∴ ZX95 ^[discuss] 16:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There is consensus to implement Today's articles for improvement on the main page:

• Village pump discussions:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 97#Editor recruitment with TAFI
• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Unanswered questions - TAFI

• Archived posts from Talk:Main Page:

• Talk:Main Page/Archive 171#WP:TAFI
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 172#WP:TAFI proposal
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 173#Today's article for improvement on the Main Page
• Talk:Main Page/Archive 174#Why has TAFI not been implemented?

See also the above discussions with no objections, which have been advertised on Talk:Main Page (with code to prevent archiving), Jimbo's talk page, AN, VPR, and via an RFC.

The code to be implemented is on this verson of the Main Page sandbox (just below Did you know?) - Evad37 (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

See below for the code to be implemented - Evad37 (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Could someone check that the sandbox is correct, the version in there has a number of table formatting differences relative to the current Main Page that I don't think are part of the intended upgrade. Dragons flight (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reset/updated the sandbox with the appropriate code (permanent link). —David Levy 00:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

But I strongly suggest that the deployment not occur now, as random timing would seem rather sloppy. Also, the WP:TAFI master list (to which readers are sent) appears to be outdated.

The introduction should occur on 15 April, ideally at 00:00 (UTC). Via temporary code, that can be set up in advance. —David Levy 00:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The master list will now be auto-updated. Template:TAFI picture box should have the appropriate picture and caption added to it every week. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

This code can be copied to the main page now. While having no immediate effect, it will set up TAFI's automatic addition on 15 April at 00:00 (UTC). Then this code (with the conditional trigger removed) can replace it at any point on that date. —David Levy 01:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As implemented, the conditional trigger {{#ifeq:{{CURRENTDAY}}|15|{{Wikipedia:Main Page/TAFI}}}} only looks at a single day. I'm expect that you or someone else is intending to remove the conditional on the 15th, to make TAFI permanent, but lest someone forget I'd prefer a conditional that doesn't automatically expire after one day. Dragons flight (talk) 18:12, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

For example, I think {{#ifexpr: {{#time: U | now }} >= {{#time: U | 2013-04-15 }}|{{Wikipedia:Main Page/TAFI}}}} would work. Presently:

{{#time: U | now }} = 1714512815

{{#time: U | 2013-04-15 }} = 1365984000

{{#ifexpr: {{#time: U | now }} >= {{#time: U | 2013-04-15 }} | true | false }} = true

{{#ifexpr: {{#time: U | now + 5 days }} >= {{#time: U | 2013-04-15 }} | true | false }} = true

Someone should probably double check that those values are correct for UTC time, though. Dragons flight (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

{{admin-help}} Can any admin actually implement this? We've already missed one approved deadline because of nobody implementing it. Since the code workds only after 15th, there shouldn't be any problems with putting the code now itself. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Both editors above - David Levy and Dragons flight are admins - suggest you talk to them direct.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Could someone do a quick copy of all subpages at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/15 to Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/16, and move those at 16 to 17? Extending the current list by a week seems logical. 117.194.80.230 (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I've added the code that will launch TAFI on April 15 to the Main Page. At some point, perhaps on Sunday, the millions of other Main Page-related pages need to be updated. (And I have no problem contributing to that...). -- tariqabjotu 13:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm inclined to revert that code; it will trigger on the 15th, and only on the 15th (of every month). Also, the code for the main page table is now fragmented across different pages; all table code should remain on the main page. May I asume this all will be fixed on the 15th? OK, I see that is the intention. — Edokter (talk) — 14:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It will obviously be modified on April 15 so that it doesn't just disappear on April 16. The code could be modified as a fail-safe, so that it doesn't disappear if someone forgets to do so. But: (a) Why? You really think someone will forget? (b) If someone does forget, the Main Page doesn't break. And certainly someone will notice the section disappearing after one day. No harm, just as there's no harm in the many situations POTD doesn't appear until a couple hours after 00:00 (UTC) [although that's not preferable]. (c) The code for that modification is unnecessarily complex.

Also, as the second set of code shown by David Levy demonstrates, the final code will have all the table code on the Main Page. It has to be in a separate template for now (or at least in a conditional) so that we don't see an extra header show up prior to the launch date. They've been working on the TAFI launch for awhile now, having been sent back to the drawing board a couple months ago. Can we just trust them now? -- tariqabjotu 15:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone is welcome to look at the code, which is essentially just a copy+pasted version of the Featured Article code, which then displays 3 random pages using the {{Random subpage}} template. If there's something missing, I'm not seeing it. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I shifted the table code to a transclusion because my attempt to include it directly (within the conditional code) was confusing MediaWiki and breaking the page's layout. There might be some way around that, but this was simpler and easier (and as Tariqabjotu noted, it's temporary).

Thanks for adding the code, Tariq. —David Levy 15:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Updated schedule and nominations

I have updated next weeks subpages to display the same articles as the current weeks, since it got missed. I also pushed next weeks to the week after, and updated the text in the schedule to reflect that. I have also moved the oldest 30 supported articles into the schedule. The method I used for this was to write down any of the articles that were promoted in January (which numbered 28) and then add two from the two least represented categories (geography and natural sciences). Then I went down the list top to bottom and put each articles into the next group (article 1 went into group a, article 2 went into group b, article 3 went into group c, article 4 went into group a, etc). Hopefully the distribution of topics is sufficiently random.

I have also begun adding some of my collection of articles to nominate to the nominations page. I'll wait until later to archive all the older nominations, so everyone can have one last crack at it if they want to support something.

Looking forward to having this implemented. A three month journey, no less. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work here NickPenguin, and I agree that the current nominations should remain for awhile (with the exception of successful entries that have gained 3 support !votes with relatively little objection, which can then be moved to the project's holding area). When the project goes live on Main page, it's hopeful that participation will increase. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not worried about the rate of participation. As it is, there's still over a hundred articles in the holding area to be moved into the schedule, that will bring us well into August. If we have to start renominating articles en mass, I'm sure we can. As it is, poaching has already turned up for a renom, and rightfully so, it didn't really get the exposure it needed to adequately improve. I will probably archive any extremely old or uncommented nominations in about 10 hours time, just to tidy it up a bit. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 13:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The nominations page has been cleaned up, and I added a batch of fresh nominations to get things rolling again. Also, I have started to notice a more diverse participation than our core membership, as well as more nominations for, shal we say developed articles that are in need of improvement. Hopefully that is saying something about the maturity of this project and it's aims. I am looking forward to seeing where this goes, I am very optimistic. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Header template

I tried to make Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Header have a bit more visual contrast, because with the all-blue background it was a bit overwhelming and confusing. If you don't like it, feel free to revert; I don't mind. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Tax Day

I realize that this is a last-minute idea, but with TAFI making its main page debut tomorrow, might it be feasible to replace one of the week's articles with Tax Day (which has been omitted from tomorrow's OTD section because of a {{refimprove}} tag)?

If so, I suggest bumping George M. Dallas (to avoid using two American topics simultaneously) and swapping Writer and Cartoonist (thereby enabling the use of File:Cartoonist.jpg at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement). —David Levy 11:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Good concept, but I think we should begin by upholding the standards we have set for ourselves; articles are nominated, garner sufficient support, and get integrated into the schedule. I agree it would be a good idea to fast track certain articles into the schedule to coincide with a certain date, but I don't think we should bypass the process. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

My hope was to expedite the process (not bypass it) by soliciting the usual scrutiny here, but I was aware that this might not be realistic on such short notice. When I have time, I'll look ahead and seek date-related topics further in advance. —David Levy 23:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Protected TAFI?

I just removed semi-protection from Wonders of the World, one of today's articles for improvement, per request at WP:RPP. It seemed counter intuitive to me to invite people from the main page to "improve" a semi-protected article. For future reference, what is TAFI practice on this? Shouldn't you guys get them unprotected before they go up? Chamal ^T•C 01:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That is indeed what should be done. Someone should make a list of everything that is to be done at the end of every week, so there is nothing left out. Also, Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/15 and all pages under it should be protected. 223.180.174.172 (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, no current TAFI article should be protected or semi-protected unless it's absolutely necessary (e.g. because a legal issue has arisen), in which case a different article should be substituted.

We actually are on Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/16. (Week 15's page is a duplicate because the main page deployment was delayed.)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow automatically cascade-protects the parent queue page one day before it's used on the actual main page. I set up Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Protection to cascade-protect the subpages simultaneously. —David Levy 11:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

When should articles that are protected become unprotected? The day before? The week before? As soon as they enter the holding area? Braden 14:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It depends on the circumstances. If the protection is no longer need, it should be removed as soon as it's noticed. If the protection is needed, the article's scheduling probably should be postponed. If some extra eyes on the article would mitigate the need for protection, the day before seems about right. —David Levy 15:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've also removed the protection from hammer. -- tariqabjotu 19:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I was very pleased today to discover that TAFI has been added to the main page. This project overcame many obstacles to make it to this point. I would like to thank and congratulate everyone who made this possible! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 20:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Selecting pictures for the TAFI blurb template

I was thinking about something in response to what David Levy said, and I wonder how we should choose the pictures to go in the TAFI blurb. The last bunch have been high quality, but should we just pick a random one and put it in a thumbnail under the relevant week in the schedule, or should there be some sort of discussion on this talk page for each week? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that we regularly check successfully nominated articles, compile a list of the ones containing the most suitable images, and then make sure to schedule at least one per week (with whatever discussion is desired along the way). Otherwise, we're likely to have weeks in which several articles contain suitable images (and only one gets used) and weeks in which no articles contain suitable images. —David Levy 23:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess that raises the larger question as to the best method for selecting a schedule group. What guidelines should we be following? Perhaps when an article moves into the holding area, it's support/comment section becomes a list of attributes about the article? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:37, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps upon admittance to the holding area, we should label whether or not an article has pictures. The week prior to a group becoming the articles for improvement photo's from the articles can be nominated, voted upon, and discussed. Braden 19:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The {{TAFI nom}} template has been modified to have an addition parameter named "pic". This will add 2 additional words for picture being present or not present. Please modify the relevent doc and instructions for the same. The effect of the template can be seen in the first few articles from the holding area. 223.176.222.186 (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that will work for labeling. Will it accept any two words? If it does, we should probably set a guideline for that, or make it a yes/no parameter. Once an article is labeled to have a picture, where do you propose we discuss it? Directly beneath the {{TAFI nom}} template? If an article has multiple pictures, do we label different sections for different pictures, and if we do, how do we label it? "First picture, Second picture, etc." or do we provide a description of the picture? Braden 13:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The parameter is indeed a yes/no one. It will accept "Y", "y", "Yes", "yes" and "1" and display "Pictured", and display "No Picture" for all other possibilities.

The extra parameter is only to make sure at least 1 article in a given week has a picture (so the TAFI Main page can display the picture). And since there will only be one picture displayed at any time, there appears to be no use for labelling multiple pictures in an article.

I think it ought to be done by the one scheduling the groups. The discussion, IMO, will be strictly limited to which article gets the "picture position", and would add that, and the transcript every time the week changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.117.228 (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of labeling multiple pictures in an article would have been for discussion, and so when discussing we could carry a discussion about different pictures, but one article. However, if we leave the task of picture selection up to the schedule compiler, then there is certainly no purpose in labeling multiple pictures. Braden 17:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I see no point in displaying the text "No Picture" for a quadzillion old nominations on the noms page, so I've boldly removed it—now, "Picture available" only displays if the picture param is set...otherwise, nothing appears. Feel free to rv and discuss if you're so inclined. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I added a a copy of the current picture to the schedule, as well as a potential picture for next weeks articles. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we can get a better picture for next week. The picture we choose should be very directly associated with the article, so as to create a direct impact. For the next week, I prefer we use this image - File:Highsteaks.jpg, with the text "A cartoonist is a person who draws cartoons, such as the one above." The image can also be added to the article.

In case we do not select the above image, I support a map of Niger as the most straightforward option for the article Geography of Niger. 110.227.239.137 (talk) 06:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we have a vote on the matter? Braden 21:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Highsteaks.jpg is not a suitable picture as it is a non-free media file. Per WP:NFCCP#9, "Non-free content is allowed only in articles ... and only in article namespace". Any non-free image would also fail WP:NFCCP#1, as I can't imagine that there would be no free content that would serve the purpose (illustrating TAFI blurb template). - Evad37 (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

So, now we're at a map of Niger, or "Randy's Donuts"? Braden 00:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It's too bad Earth Day doesn't have an appropriate image to use, that would be ideal with it coming up next week, and now being part of the schedule. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

How about editing an original image of the Earth, and adding the words "Earth Day" and "April 22" to it? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• I just uploaded this image in the hopes of making it a possible picture for our next week. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Earth Day

Is this working at all?

Has a single one of these pages been edited by an new user yet – and if not, is anyone at least trying to edit? -- 184.75.33.92 (talk) 21:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Patience is the keyword here. It took a long time to get TAFI going at all, let alone on the main page. Give it some time and see what happens. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 22:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Appears to be encouraging editing thus far. Check out the Revision history page for the Writer article. It appears to have received some contributions after TAFI's debut on Main page on April 15th from editors that haven't previously contributed to the article recently (prior to TAFI's debut). Of course, some of this could be coincidental, but perhaps it is not. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Successful Nomination Archives

What's up with those? Are we using them? Braden 21:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think those are necessary, and I have not been using them. The unsuccessful archive is useful tho. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 22:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Should they be deleted? Braden 00:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It makes sense to retain successful nominations as a log to document the process of how successful entries are delineated here. There is currently no shortage of server space, and it seems prudent to retain the information at this time. The removal of stated content could lead to people questioning the process of how successful entries are decided. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

But aren't all the successful nominations in the holding area, the schedule or the archived schedule? It would seem that those are the archives of the successful nominations. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Where are we now?

The first day was quite a drag, but it seemed that the second day did get a few edits. So we do seem to be starting something, although it is early to say how successful we have been until now. But now that we are seeing a good amount of participation on this page (I see about 7 users here already), why don't we start editing the articles too? We have worked so hard to get this on the Main Page. We can now also focus our combined energies to improve some of these articles substantially.

Lets get another one on the GA list please! :)

P.S. I have requested for an interview on the Signpost. Lets see what happens with that. Also, there is a proposal at the Teahouse host lounge to add a banner about the TAFI at the Teahouse. This would be the most optimal target audience for our project. Please join the discussion there to give your views on the same.

110.227.239.137 (talk) 07:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The project's Peer review page is a great place to start collaborations. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

ATTN: A bot will now handle article tagging and de-tagging

Theo's Little Bot has been approved for a trial of doing the following tasks for WP:TAFI:

• adding and removing {{TAFI}} from articles every Monday at 00:01 UTC
• adding {{Former TAFI}} to the talk pages of all articles it removes {{TAFI}} from

The bot will do its trial run on Monday as the next set of TAFIs comes out--so please don't tag articles yourself! Cheers, —Theopolisme (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I updated the instructions at the schedule to reflect this. Awesome (and quick) work. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Could anyone modify the former tafi template so it does not break down when the date and diff parameters are not mentioned. Alternately, they can re-add the former tafi template at the batch of 10 articles which stayed as a 1 month interim (the group with Notability). TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:26, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

 Already done. —Theopolisme (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Archival

I think the number of sections we currently have is way more than we should have been having, as most of the older discussions are over; and their topic of discussion already implemented. I think we should switch to a lesser number of days before archival, or use something like "Archive Now" templates. [I believe these templates are available only for Cluebot, in which case we might consider switching bots] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

At the rate new sections are coming in, 30 days is too long. We should cut it down to ten or fifteen. </thoughts> Braden 22:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Anybody who disagrees/wants to discuss further may revert and discuss here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What did you cut it down to? Should the archive box at the top of the page be edited to reflect this change? In addition, where did the table of contents go? _{Nevermind. It's back.} Braden 23:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

15 days.  Done. Nowhere. It is still there. Maybe you clicked on the "Hide" button TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

It was gone earlier this morning. I am quite sure I didn't hit the hide button, because I went on a manhunt for the table of contents, and they just showed up now. I don't remember the last time I hit the hide button. Braden 23:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure why that would happen. It looks fine now, so that ought not to be a problem TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That was my fault. I accidentally transcluded code that hid the table of contents. I fixed the problem as soon as I noticed it. My apologies. —David Levy 00:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. As long as I'm not developing some sort of disorder, that's all that matters. Braden 11:57, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the archive pages, how can they be better organized/formatted? Perhaps they can be streamlined. Regarding the archiving of nomination entries, sure around two weeks may be in order, but let's also be prudent; it may be too early at this time to set strict limits for the archiving of nominations and other content right after this project has began to appear on Main page. Regarding the latter notion, it may be easier to go with the flow, rather than limiting the flow from the start. Also, it's very important to allow some time for the process to occur – some users only log on every few days or so, and often it is lesser; we shouldn't expect immediate input to entries here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

For the time being, archiving articles after 15 days seems appropriate, due to the sheer volume of new sections due to deployment on the main page. However, I can see how retaining them on the notion that we'd want to have these discussions logged in plain sight on such a large matter. Braden 00:00, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Talk page template?

Should there be a talk page template displaying when an article was "Today's articles for improvement", much like we have for "Today's featured article", "In the news", etc.? It would be nice to be able to tell from an article's talk page when it was featured on the main page. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

It already exists: {{Former TAFI}} - Evad37 (talk) 23:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Earth Day to next week?

Currently in nominations queue, Earth Day happens to fall on April 22, this Monday. It could be a wonderful opportunity to shed more light on the other TAFI articles, if we could bypass the long queue for selection (because of this being a special occasion/event), and get Earth Day to be our TAFI for the next week onwards (Week 17).

Any thoughts?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Great idea. Just go for it. I'm sure noone will have any serious objections. :)--Coin945 (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is yet to see a third support. Even after it gets one, I'd rather wait to see what others say before I try doing it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

A similar discussion was had at talk:TAFI, #Tax Day Braden 17:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. But Earth Day has already recieved 3 supports, which will make its promotion just a speeding up of the process, rather than the case with Tax Day. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Great idea, be bold, put it in the schedule and remove one item and replace it in the holding area. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. If there is any changes to be done in the archives, please take care of them. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - It is sensible to have Earth Day appear on TAFI on April 22nd, when Earth Day occurs! Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
• This is getting weirder, but what if we have Earth Day as a permanent inclusion for just April 22nd? We could achieve that by either fixing it among the three articles, or by making the total number of articles for Monday to 4. Anyone in favour of doing so? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:14, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  

  Earth Day

  Don't forget that Earth Day will also be in the OTD section for April 22, per the main page queue - Evad37 (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  Is there any precedent that allows/disallows articles to appear in more than 1 section on the Main Page on a given day? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  Yes, we routinely confine topics to one section at a time. For example, if one is the subject of the featured article or featured picture, we omit it from OTD. However, I'm not sure that it would make sense to extend this practice to TAFI. —David Levy 15:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

  This means we shall be going forward with the Earth Day TAFI, right?? If so, I propose this image [or some similar substitute that can be easily made in a few minutes] to be our picture for the picture box (Even though I mentioned it above, mentioning in this section makes much more sense) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support from me. Fast-tracking Earth Day and using the picture TheOriginalSoni submitted seems to be an excellent idea, as long as there is no conflict. Braden 23:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent plan. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I also support using the Earth Day image presented herein. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

• Not a big fan of the Earth Day picture given, due to the text color and layout—seems awkward and haphazard, no offense of course to TOS. —Theopolisme (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I am certainly not the best person for pictures and colours, and I welcome any alternate images suggested by anyone. 223.176.210.215 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

April 22 is Earth Day.

Why not just the Blue marble picture with no text? It is the Earth, it is an easily recognisable symbol. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Support as the easiest solution. —Theopolisme (talk) 02:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• The layout on the bottom-right was published (performed by other editors) and at this time appears at this project's home page at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement. Looks fine to me! Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Slang

So this is what we've gotten (or not gotten) so far on the article. It's resulted in removal of text, and no additions (plus a fair amount of vandalism). How do we keep this from happening in the future? First, is it possible that we picked an article that can't easily be improved? "Slang" isn't really a topic that was created for encyclopedic writing. Alternatively, we could create some sort of collapsible to do list on the TAFI template, or a link from the template that to a todo list that is put on the talk page of all of the articles. It would require more work from the project, but I believe it would be easier for readers to help improve the article if we had structure. Some of this could be suggesting the creation of certain templates. I also think it might be a good idea to create a talk page section on every article for readers who are good at finding sources to list them under, even if they don't edit. Ryan Vesey 15:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I did try to float an idea of a To Do list, but it went down after some time.

The rest of the ideas are great, and we could have a special "Workstation" or something to take care of all these details (Finding sources, making to-do lists etc) for every next week. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I actually did generate todo lists for the first round of ten articles, although only myself and two other editors took part in that exercise. And it was extremely tedious. The original version of the {{TAFI nom}} did have a link to the nom's todo list, however that was removed because it generated 'too many red links' on the nominations page.

I'm all for coming up with todo lists, however in one of the discussions about putting this on the Main Page, I believe it was established that todo lists were welcomed but not required. It would certainly guide the improvement drives, maybe having a todo list generated should be a requirement for it moving out of the holding area and into the schedule, and the people primarily 'responsible' for this task are the article nominator and those who support the article?

Todo list aside, I think we will find that there are some articles we think would be really awesome to improve, and in fact turn out to completely suck. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:07, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

We've also been kicking around the idea of notifying the relevant WikiProjects about the improvement drive, is there any way we could get a bot to grab the WikiProject links from the talk page of each article, then post a generic announcement on the WikiProject's talk page a day or two before it goes live? Theo seems to be the kind of code ninja that could work something link this. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It sounds as though you want User:AAlertBot to add a section to its article alerts to Wikiprojects, for which the request page is Wikipedia talk:Article alerts/Feature requests. Bencherlite^Talk 15:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Next Week

I have created a list/checklist for the things that are required to be done every week at TAFI. I hope to make this page as a bulletin board to ensure smooth transition from one week to another .Feel free to make any changes and improvements, and leave your thoughts below. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Earth Day and vandalism

While it did receive some improvement over the course of the 22nd, I would say 75% of the roughly 200 edits were vandalism. In cases like that, I feel the page should have been semi protected. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Altering how TAFI appears on the Main Page

Yeahhhhh.... it looks really lame at the moment, as I thought it would. But it was such an uphill battle to even get TAFI passed I left the issue alone. But now that we've got it up there, I think we can all agree that in its current state, it is extremely unappealing, and rather bland. I would say have only one of the 10 articles with a short snappy definition that would encourage browsers to stop, take a second, and perhaps want to find out more. 3 words does jack to me when I see TAFI on the main page, and I doubt it will mean anything to anybody else. Maybe "more selections' could be changed to "the other 9 selections" or something like that.

Discuss: :D--Coin945 (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Short article descriptions would be a nice improvement, but in previous discussions there were significant considerations regarding how this would offset the left side of Main page, in which it would be too long compared to content on the right column of the page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I looked at how the main page was yesterday and today, and both the times, the left side was shorter by atleast 1 line. Now both are even (due to DYK I assume). Tomorrow its one line longer though. So I would have less worries about which side is longer. We could leave a note for OTD, just in case. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and obviously you'd have the 10 articles on rotation on the main page - each with their own little snappy description.--Coin945 (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

What you see ≠ what everyone sees. The left side has been shorter for some users because TAFI's addition apparently has resulted in greater variability across different display configurations, leading administrators to perform corrections that actually worsen the balance for some users. —David Levy 01:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Could we list the articles vertically, expand the TAFI section across the entire page, and provide descriptions? I don't know what kind of limits we have here, or if that would work, but I don't see why it wouldn't, especially if the descriptions could fit on one line. Braden 13:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that actually is a viable option, but only with the community's approval. I would have suggested such a layout if I'd seen the discussion before it concluded.

Specifically, we could use the horizontal pink box, which appears on Monday to accommodate the featured list. TAFI could occupy the box from Tuesday to Sunday (with the understanding that we might eventually need to turn over one or more days to other material, such as featured sounds). That would provide sufficient space for multiple blurbs (and probably an image too), with no risk of affecting the columns' balance. —David Levy 01:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Given that the one-word restriction is ONLY for the Main Page, I'll start working on making those snappy descriptions right now at User:TheOriginalSoni/Snappy. Once we are done with them, I am pretty sure we could use them for good advertising. [My mind is already working on a perfect banner at the Teahouse] Feel free to jump in after I'm done, and play around! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Feel free to jump in with other/more one-liners, and figure out ways to place them. I have not currently formatted or linked any of the lines, but everyone is free to give a hand! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Any change that would significantly alter the layout of the main page (such as having them as a vertical list or giving description for each of them) requires much wider discussion IMHO, because that would mean other projects like DYK/ITN/OTD will have to either increase or decrease their length to balance the main page. Based on past experience, such suggestions are traditionally met with some stiff resistance... Something like changing the "more selections" phrase would be more or less harmless though. Chamal ^T•C 13:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The main problem with adding a line was because the Left side was generally longer than the right side. Today we see the reverse happening, making it quite plausible that it is easy enough to adjust the levels, especially fot ITN. Regardless of how we are displayed at the front page, there is no reason for us to not use these one line descriptions at other places, including on TAFI home page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

What you see ≠ what everyone sees. You're describing a problem caused by TAFI's addition, which apparently has resulted in greater variability across different display configurations. So when administrators correct the balance on their ends, it has the opposite effect for some other users. You're seeing a longer right-hand column because extra content was inserted there (thereby balancing the columns for some users while overfilling the right-hand column for others, including you and me.) —David Levy 01:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

User:TheOriginalSoni/TAFI ad box Tell me how awesome this box looks! :D TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I am done for now. I'll come back later to see what else can we do about it. Also, the article you are seeing is randomised. So based on how many times you purge the page, you'll see a different article. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Is that awesome, or is that awesome? (I'll give you a clue...it's awesome :P). See? We're given one or two lines available on the main page. I don't see why we can't swap whatever the heck we've got at the moment for something like this. As bare text, it takes up 2 lines too, and as long as the descriptions don't get to convoluted, we should be good.--Coin945 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be almost perfected. (It's awesome.) Can we use that on the main page? Braden 15:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

TheOriginalSoni, you say that having 2 lines will throw out the balance of the Main Page, but im sorry... i'm just not seeing it. It looks like you could fit 2 lines, even 3 in that small space. Compare to the same region on the opposite side of the page, which is taken up by 2 lines of fullsize text, and then 1 line of small text:

• More anniversaries: April 16 – April 17 – April 18
• Archive – By email – List of historical anniversaries
• It is now April 17, 2013 (UTC) – Reload this page

--Coin945 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

What you see ≠ what everyone sees. We're already having difficulty compensating for TAFI's addition, and you're shrugging off the suggestion that doubling its size might cause problems. —David Levy 01:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Per the settings I currently see on the Main Page, it appears that both the sections are evenly balanced. According to David Levy and the other admins monitoring the various sections on the Main Page, we cannot increase the number of lines unless both sections are more-or less balanced, and the left side apparently is longer and harder to shorten. I personally prefer an extension from 1 line to 2, but I don't know what the others think about it; and as far as I know, it would not be passed unless there is strong support in favour. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

...I hate bureaucracy.... :/--Coin945 (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Me too. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeahhhhh.... it looks really lame at the moment, as I thought it would. But it was such an uphill battle to even get TAFI passed I left the issue alone. But now that we've got it up there, I think we can all agree that in its current state, it is extremely unappealing, and rather bland.

No, I don't agree. If you wish to nonchalantly denigrate others' work, at least speak for yourself. —David Levy 01:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't agree? That's a shame. Any experience with getting people to become interested in things they wouldn't ordinarily think to give up their time and effort about, would tell you that merely stating 3 random articles with a random more selections" link is one of the most ineffective ways to do it. Think of it as a marketing project. We're trying to sell our product to our customers to make them "buy" it (i.e. click on the links and get involved in TAFI). As head of advertising at the great corporation of Wikipedia (in this scenario), what would you propose we do?--Coin945 (talk) 02:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't agree? That's a shame.

It's a shame that I disagree that the layout I worked hard to create "looks really lame" and "is extremely unappealing and rather bland"?

I did my best, given the constraints (which you appear not to fully understand). I'm sorry that you dislike the results.

As head of advertising at the great corporation of Wikipedia (in this scenario), what would you propose we do?

As I've stated several times (including during the planning stages), I like the idea of including descriptive blurbs (and possibly an image). It simply isn't feasible to do so in one of the columns. A viable option is to use the full-width box occupied by the featured list on Monday (with TAFI appearing from Tuesday to Sunday), but this would require the community's approval. —David Levy 15:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Hatting as this conversation is leading nowhere productive TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

You hatted my messages, but not the original message to which I replied (thereby creating the appearance that I didn't, which I assume wasn't your intention). —David Levy 00:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Changing the number of lines allotted for TAFI

The current one-line format is certainly not being able to attract our editors attention. It also fails to do anything much to explain what TAFI is all about. As we have already seen, the Main Page is not limited to having the Left side longer, and it has to be balanced almost any day, regardless of which side is longer. It is clear that we will be seeing an immense benefit if we choose to add an extra line, possibly the way it is given in the box above. Considering that, i think it will be worth a little bit of adjustments possibly required to make sure the sections are not very uneven.

I therefore propose a one-week interim change from a one-line blurb to a two-line one, along similar lines to what we have above. If it does not yield any substantial benefits, or ends up creating a huge problem, it may be revoked at a later point of time, but for the current time being, a one-week trial seems only fair.

Please discuss your own views on the same TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'd be strongly opposed to this. I've just had to make two adjustments to OTD & DYK to get the main page columns to even begin to line up, and there's a stale entry at ITN from the 9th that needs removing but can't go because of balance. I don't get the impression that editors here have much visibility of how much disruption adding TAFI at the existing size is causing. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Espresso Addict. The project has successfully been implemented on the Main Page, which was the primary goal. Now that has been achieved, I don't think five days is a reasonable length of time to assess the programs effectiveness, or make changes to how it is displayed. While I think we should explore alternative display methods, things should run as is for at least four weeks to get feedback from admins on how the program affects their work, as well as some data gathering on how effective TAFI is on actually improving articles. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, anyone interested in this sort of thing might also be interested in the proposed Main Page redesign, in which stuff like TAFI may feature predominantly. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Espresso Addict is right, guys. TAFI's addition has caused more balance issues than expected (and we knew that the impact would be non-trivial). Most troubling is that it appears to have resulted in greater variability across different display configurations, leading administrators to perform corrections that actually worsen the balance for some users.

If anything, we might need to rethink TAFI's current location (as discussed above). If it remains column-based, increasing its size certainly isn't a viable option. —David Levy 01:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Every time I look at the German Main Page it always looks unbalanced to me, some days more than most. And you'd think if they can get the trains to run on time, they could get the Main Page to balance... Is 'balanced' a desired, or required aesthetic? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:07, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what's expected at other Wikipedias, but main page column imbalance certainly generates complaints at the English Wikipedia. —David Levy 02:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, if that's the standard, then any modification should adhere to that standard. Thus, it is both desired and required. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Guys, guys, guys, let's get this conversation back on track. My original suggestion was to exchange the stating of the article names (as TAFI is on the main page atm), with 1 of the TAFI areticles followed by a short snappy definition. Why can't this take place on 1 line? Sure, 2 lines would be awesome, but I'm sure it would be feasible to have the entire TAFI message take up only one line, and then the problem would be solved. :D--Coin945 (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As I've stated several times (as plainly and clearly as I know how to), what you see on your screen isn't what everyone sees. As noted in earlier discussions, under certain settings, that "one line" would wrap to two. (I personally tested such a format.) —David Levy 15:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

TAFI layout on Main Page

Here's a repost of ideas I posted at Talk:Main Page/Archive 173#As a bar across the page (the first 2 tables listed below, the tables below the first 2 were posted here by TheOriginalSoni (talk)). Having TAFI posted for the entire length on Main page would solve the problem of uneven columns between TAFI and information in the right column. Of course, this can be modified to include three entries, etc. We would need to attain consensus to implement this, but it is a viable option. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• With a purge option - Format 1

Today's articles for improvement Foobar is one of today's articles for improvement. You can help! Example image The terms foobar, fubar, or foo, bar, baz and qux (alternatively quux) are sometimes used as placeholder names (also referred to as metasyntactic variables) in computer programming or computer-related documentation. (Full article...)

• Without a purge option - Format 2

Today's articles for improvement Foobar is one of today's articles for improvement. You can help! Example image The terms foobar, fubar, or foo, bar, baz and qux (alternatively quux) are sometimes used as placeholder names (also referred to as metasyntactic variables) in computer programming or computer-related documentation. (Full article...)

• Two articles - Without a purge option - Format 3

Today's articles for improvement Foobar and Foobar are some of today's articles for improvement. You can help! Example image Example image The terms foobar are sometimes used as placeholder names The terms foobar are sometimes used as placeholder names

• Two articles - With a purge option - Format 4

Today's articles for improvement Foobar and Foobar are some of today's articles for improvement. You can help! Example image Example image The terms foobar are sometimes used as placeholder names The terms foobar are sometimes used as placeholder names

TAFI layout discussion

I think that with the current length of synopsis we have, a multiple article breakdown will be better. If someone can figure out how to divide the box into left and right halves, that will be great. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

As noted above, this could occupy the pink box (used for the featured list on Monday) from Tuesday to Sunday. (I've adjusted the coloration accordingly.)
The purge link's behavior is confusing, and its two purposes have been superseded by the bot task (which ensures that the page is refreshed at least every fifteen minutes) and the "More selections..." link (which enables easy access to the complete list, instead of forcing the user to reload the page repeatedly).
The "More selections..." link should be right-justified (not centered) for consistency with the rest of the main page. If multiple blurbs are included, they should be stacked vertically (which they actually are in your two lowest examples, though that doesn't appear to have been the intention) and left-aligned, thereby maintaining consistency with other main page sections and ensuring compatibility with lower display resolutions.
"Format 2" seems about right. Additional blurbs could simply be stacked below. —David Levy 15:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I wondered if it was possible to break the TAFI into left and right halves, so that we could have two article blurbs. In my opinion, Formats 1 and 2, as they currently are, have much of their spaces as avoidable whitespace, which we should try to avoid. If we dont, it either becomes too long a prose, and uninteresting enough to catch the interest of the reader, or it has too much of space, and looks bad IMO. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I seem to be having difficulty conveying the fact that what you or I see isn't necessarily the same as what others (with different display settings) see.

At higher resolutions, the main page contains significant whitespace. This is essential, as it prevents the page's formatting from breaking at lower resolutions. (This is an oversimplification, as text size and window size also are variables.) —David Levy 00:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

So, with the main page as it currently stands, is it perfect on every single display setting? If the answer is no, I would ask you how changing the layout would make any difference - almost all users have their browsers on the standard setting anyways, and those that don't probably wouldn't care about a bit of white space. And it the answer is yes, I can only assume that the Main Page code has been carefully and thoroughly calibrated in order to ensure there is no white space gaps on any settings (similar to how you can artificially add blank lines to articles in order to avoid annoying situations where images jut out at weird places due to the contents panel etc.). My response to that would then be to reconfigure the main page to cater for the new TAFI panel. If any of my logic is faulty, please don't hesistate to put me in my place. Remember, you will see no diplomas in computer engineering on my user page. My expertise rests in the creative side of things.--Coin945 (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

You appear to have misread my reply. I noted that the main page does contain white space at higher resolutions, which is necessary to avoid breaking the layout at lower resolutions (wherein elements are packed more tightly). The above discussion pertains to the idea of eliminating white space, which would cause problems.

No, it isn't possible to achieve perfection on every single display setting. That's my point. It's why I keep stressing that what's displayed for you or me isn't what's displayed for everyone. You (and others) keep commenting that you perceive deficiencies or see plenty of extra room and don't understand why it can't be utilized. I'm trying to explain that these things are nonexistent on some users' screens. We can't optimize the main page for your display settings or mine; we need to ensure that it works well across the board.

I don't know what you mean by "almost all users have their browsers on the standard setting". To what "standard setting" are you referring? Multiple display resolutions are widely used, with the browser window set to full-screen or not. —David Levy 15:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I regularly view the wiki on my widescreen 1680x1050 desktop monitor, my Lenovo 1024x768 tablet, and my Nexus S 480x800. These give wildly different appearances. Can it be demonstrated that a proposed change resolves appropriately on all of these resolutions? Also, TAFI shares space on the Main Page, it is not taking it over. The idea that we should reconfigure the main page to cater for the new TAFI panel is misguided. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm taking a mini-break from a fairly long Wikibreak, having seen TAFI on the Main Page.

I'm torn on this. TFL and TAFI are the two main page sections I have the most interest in, and I see the potential for the content at TAFI and TFL to indirectly help one another out.

But while in principle I strongly support the idea, in practise I'm worried about the potential impact on TFL. Once the slot is taken TFL would most likely never get the opportunity to expand to two days a week, which before I went on break seemed a realistic possibility. At the other end of the spectrum, there is also the risk of TFL becoming a casualty of TAFI's success: would TAFI settle for five or six days, if some of its stronger proponents felt there was an opportunity to use the slot all week round?

My concerns would be largely eliminated if there was some clearly defined flexibility for date relevant TFLs to be posted on a day other than Monday. Well-timed lists can generate tens of thousands of hits, which would help protect TFL's position as well as raise awareness of the TAFI/TFL slot. In non date-specific weeks, TFL's default Monday slot would continue to give all featured lists the chance for exposure that they deserve. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 01:08, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

You've raised an important point. Once something has been added to the main page, it becomes regarded as the default and can be extremely difficult to remove. (A lack of consensus is spun as "no consensus for change", with the status quo retained.) Consequently, the community is reluctant to give new things a try.

I touched on this issue above, noting that the proposed TAFI layout should be considered "with the understanding that we might eventually need to turn over one or more days to other material". (At one point, we planned to use the space for featured sounds on weekends.) Stipulating this upfront should address your reluctance (and others') and prevent us from essentially locking in a format that shuts out other worthy content. —David Levy 20:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

David, by breaking into left and right sections, I implied a tabular break. Could we have some way to ensure two smaller TAFI boxes appearing side by side? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:31, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The box could be divided into two columns, but I see no good reason to. It would be inconsistent with the rest of the sections (in which separate items are stacked vertically) and provide no intrinsic whitespace reduction. (You might see less whitespace, but others might see the same amount or more.) —David Levy 20:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)