Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Chores

It is great to have the page started up. Some of the things that need to be done now would include:

1. Finishing out the page
2. Nominating/approving articles
3. Figuring out where advertising will occur
4. Making a talk page template  Done
5. Making an invitation template  Done

(Items on this list can be checked off to help measure progress. Feel free to expand list.)

I would recommend that we begin putting articles on the schedule a week before the first TAFI has its day. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Shortcut

Also, I would agree with WP:TAFI as a shortcut. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

What about also adding WP:TODAY as a shortcut? Wikipedia:Task of the Day where it currently redirects to is marked as inactive. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea as well. However, I would wait until we have firmly decided that we will use one day instead of a longer time span. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Game element

As I remarked in the original proposal, I don't think this will be effective unless there is a game element involved; a race between at least two articles to be improved during one day or 8 hour period... Jane (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Status?

What is the current status of this project? Can we move forward with this? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 18:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that Fuhghettaboutit was waiting on it for awhile, but the project is not dead. Feel free to try moving it forward. I don't know how much help I can be, but you can always ask for assistance. I'd like to see this idea come to fruition. AutomaticStrikeout 18:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure whether I am getting how this is supposed to work. Where exactly is an article to be listed? Perhaps we should make a link somewhere for creating a new section. And what about a template? Should we perhaps have a template to be put at the top of the concerned article (or maybe the talk page)? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, a template is a good idea. I would suggest putting a template at the top of the concerned article while it is TAFI, and then another template on the talk page afterward documenting that it is a former TAFI. I believe that the idea was to promote the project on the main page, which would look like this. I guess articles would have to be nominated, approved, and then placed on a schedule. Also, we would have to find a way to get permission for the main page aspect. AutomaticStrikeout 19:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Part of the reason I have been procrastinating is that this is a big undertaking and in thinking about it and doing some searches I saw there was a lot similar proposals in the past that failed. Those past discussions need to be studied in order to figure out how to do this in a way that addresses past objection and barriers and incorporates the suggestions made. A lot of though needs to go into the criteria and manner of article selection. I want this to work, but I hope I am not expected to be a one man show! As a next small step, I have created {{TAFI}}. Please do improve it. As I mentioned at the pump this will need a well structured edit notice to be added to the article at the same time. Initially I am thinking it will have links to the Wikipedia:Tutorial and referencing for beginners among its instructions. The more I think about it, the more I think this cannot, at least initially, be a one day thing. We don't have the resources I don't think to even pull that off. But keeping its name as "today's" even if it's kept up for three days or more might not be a bad idea (after all, each day, it's still "today's" technically). Regarding the mock up main page strikeout linked above, I made that as a suggestion but I am not nearly a good enough coder to make that look at its best. We need someone with more skills. I especially don't like that it's so close to the text on the left. I want it to be more right justified to float at the edge of the rectangular box above the featured article. Anyway, that's just an idea and a place to play with placement. But if people really object to such prominence, we could settle for maybe a link and short explanation under "Other areas of Wikipedia" near the bottom of the main page.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you that this likely cannot be a one-day-per-article thing, at least at the start. I like the article template, and I would also suggest that we look into having the project listed on the sidebar, perhaps under the random article link. AutomaticStrikeout 22:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've created {{Former TAFI}} but the space for the date(s) is not right. I don't know how to do that part of it. AutomaticStrikeout 22:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Creating a functionality that dates a template is kind of tricky. I suggest to create the date using a parameter. See Template:NFCC issue note for a dated template I created where this is used. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:55, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe Fuhghettaboutit fixed the problem nicely. Now that those templates are done, what do we do next? AutomaticStrikeout 16:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

It says "To nominate an article, add .... at the top of the list of candidates". Where exactly is that? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 22:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

It's here, I just created it after seeing your question. AutomaticStrikeout 23:53, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I have created the shortcut (WP:TAFI), a page for nominations to be reviewed, and a page to serve as the schedule. Of course, there is plenty more to do, but we have made some progress. AutomaticStrikeout 18:01, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, looks very good to me. Also like the templates. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. However, looking at the project front page it talks about how it is the place where we review nominations and schedule articles. Obviously, that is no longer the case and needs to be changed. Also, we need to figure out how to link to the nominations page and schedule on the project front page. Maybe you have a good idea? AutomaticStrikeout 19:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest to make the stuff that is currently there a template, transclude it onto the page (like the instructions at the top of the Help and Reference desks) and place the reviews below. Also I started Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/Eligibility criteria. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 19:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not very good at that but if nobody else wants to do it I'll try. AutomaticStrikeout 20:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

However, I think it would be good if somebody else who knows how to do that did it instead. By the way, we have an invitation template here. I'm not sure it's completely ready for use, and we may not be ready to start mass inviting people yet, however I'd like to know if anyone would object to me dropping a note on a few user talk pages for people who might be a help. AutomaticStrikeout 21:26, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Is one day really enough?

I wondered whether having only 24 hours for each article is really enough. For example, there are articles which have been tagged for cleanup or additional citations or something similar for years. How are we going to improve those articles that did not get beyond a state where the tag is no longer appropriate in years in a mere 24 hours? Or is that not the kind of articles this project is going to deal with? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 10:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I think the plan is to do three days per article, however the name remains the same as the article will still be Today's article for improvement each day that it is featured. AutomaticStrikeout 16:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week

I suggest that we do a collaboration of the week. I remembered seeing it on Talk:Dinosaur so I followed the link and found Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week, it was superceded by Wikipedia:Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. Both of these are defunct. I like the week long concept, so I'd prefer something similar to the Collaboration of the week drive. At the same time, that was only for stubs. I disagree with that concept and I think we can continue with the new framework. (Sometimes it's easier to start over than pick up something that was left). Ryan Vesey 03:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

At this point, as you can see on the project main page, we have only three members listed (including myself). Right now, it's taking us a fair amount of time to get this thing underway, and who knows if it will ever happen? We have yet to make a hard and fast decision on how long each article will be a TAFI. Whatever time span is chosen, I don't think the project will need to be renamed, because it will still technically be correct. However, it might be a good idea to iron out a specific amount of time and a week sounds good to me. AutomaticStrikeout 03:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Former TAFI

Does anyone know enough to replace the diff link with an oldid1 and an oldid2 paramater? One for the beginning state and one for the ending state? In addition, it would be great if it supported both the full link and just the oldid. Ryan Vesey 03:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

(Edited reply) User:Ryan Vesey has updated the template and can now be used by simply placing {{Former TAFI|page=|oldid1=|oldid2=}} and then filling in the proper information to produce:

--Amadscientist (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

One question about the date. Is that markup going to cause the date to be viewed permantly as the day the template was placed or will it change to fit the date it is viewed?--Amadscientist (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryan (and I) modified the template, so now the date paramater will be actually whatever is plugged in as the |date variable, and, secondly, it will say "for a period of one week" after it to clarify how long the TAFI lasted. Theopolisme _:) 21:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

As a note, it will accept most date formats, but will always produce mdy. If we want to get really particular, we could make that mdy so someone could set it to dmy or something different. Ryan Vesey 22:00, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Stuff like 04-10-2012 really confuses me: is it 4th of October or 10th of April? benzband (talk) 22:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hehe -- I think you do raise a bit of a point, though... May we should write the whole thing out? Theopolisme _:) 22:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

_{It's the 10th of April.} Theopolisme _:) 22:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, so now the transcluded coding is as follows: {{Former TAFI|date=|page=|oldid1=|oldid2=}} to produce:

Woohoo! Thank you for letting me collaborate on this!--Amadscientist (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Would we like original artwork for the template or do you think we should stick with the standard files?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If you want to create something, by all means go ahead. Ryan Vesey 22:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is... but if you're a budding designer or something, feel free! Theopolisme _:) 22:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll propose something. Perhaps a couple of things and we can see where it leads. No rush...the coding was the important part.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Placement

I'll start off by saying that I'm only 50% convinced on putting this on the main page. At a minimum, I'd suggest holding off until we know it is working. One place it should go for sure is the currently unused community portal. I'll let Maryana (WMF) know about this since she's planning on revitalizing the community portal. Ryan Vesey 03:30, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but what do you mean by when we know it is working? I'm not sure this can work if it doesn't get the publicity of being on the main page. AutomaticStrikeout 03:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

One way to measure if it's working is to look at the number of clicks it's getting as compared to pageviews, which is what I'm currently doing on the open tasks list on the Community portal. The CP gets viewed about 10,000 times a day, yet the current clickrate on open tasks is only 3% or so (and the number of edits to those tasks is virtually nonexistent!). I'm guessing that's because the number of links on that page are pretty overwhelming – but having one prominent link to a featured collaboration might be way more effective at drawing eyes and hands to a single task. I'd definitely love to test something like this out on the CP for a week, and to get data on clicks and edits on the way. It's not quite the Main page in terms of visibility, but 10,000 pageviews is nothing to sneeze at :) And if it's really popular, who knows, maybe the Main page wouldn't be so crazy after all... Maryana (WMF) (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems this being on the main page would be a great way of getting new editors involved. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It also seems to me like one of the ways to get the word out to experienced editors as well. Do you know of other ways we could accomplish this, like perhaps a watchlist notice? AutomaticStrikeout 19:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see this on the community portal and advertised with a watchlist notice. Once there is evidence that the process can work and will be used, then we can put it on the main page. I don't want to put this on the main page now, because if it flops, we will have advertised it to the world. Ryan Vesey 19:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point. By the way, do you know how to transclude the list of nominations and the schedule to the main project page? AutomaticStrikeout 19:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You would just enclose the title of the page in curly brackets. Where is the list of nominations and schedule? We should probably start by taking articles from Wikipedia:Vital articles that are currently start class. Some possibilities are Bow and arrow, Fiction, Orchestra, Tower, Rock (geology), etc. Back to the idea of putting them on the main page, I just had an idea. What about displaying the article on the Community Portal, then after the improvement is completed, we could mention the article on the main page with a link the section on the Community Portal for the next article. If anything did go onto the main page, we'd have to discuss it at Talk:Main page first. Ryan Vesey 19:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The nominations and the schedule. Also, your idea sounds like a very good one. AutomaticStrikeout 19:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That looks good. However, we need to find a way for people to nominate articles and access the schedule from the main project page. As of now, it's only a transcluded template there. AutomaticStrikeout 19:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What do you think of it now? Ryan Vesey 19:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I like it! Thanks a ton, I've been involved in starting two projects (the other being the umps task force) and you've been instrumental in getting things going both times! Anyway, I guess the next step is to look into a watchlist notice and to start sending out invitations. I don't know much about watchlist notices, but I can do the inviting. However, is there a way to make the invitation a SUBST-whatever thing so that I don't have to copy the whole thing every time? AutomaticStrikeout 20:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Advertising the project

I think we should advertise the project before we start advertising the specific articles that are chosen. I left this note at the community portal. Should I advertise at User talk:Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)? Ryan Vesey 20:07, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Certainly! But first, do you know how to fix the invite to make it easier to send? AutomaticStrikeout 20:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What's difficult right now? Ryan Vesey 20:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, as you can see here, there is not a subst-whatever to copy, so I'd instead have to copy the entire thing. It's not that I can't do that, but it might be a good idea to make something where all I have to copy is a template. (Sorry, I'm not very literate with this terminology). As an aside, I'm going to notify the 4 other members that we have a nomination to vote on. AutomaticStrikeout 20:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think I understood you. Check it out. Ryan Vesey 20:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you understood me. Looks great. I'll be sending out the invitations. AutomaticStrikeout 20:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Template placement

Sorry for the barrage of sections, but I'd like to make sure I understand where templates will be placed. Will {{TAFI}} be placed on the article page directly or is it meant to go on the talk page? I'm sure {{Former TAFI}} will go on the talk page. Ryan Vesey 21:23, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

My intention was for the {{TAFI}} template to be at the top of the article itself. AutomaticStrikeout 21:26, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ooh, good point. It's kind of an obtrusive template, don't you think? I'm leaning towards the talk page, simply because from my understanding, the TAFI notices are not meant to be seen when you're actually on the article, but rather for when you're looking for something to edit... am I correct? Theopolisme _:) 21:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

It should probably be on both the talk and the article. If the template is on the article itself, it draws attention to this project, perhaps bringing new users, and it helps readers to see that we care about article quality. AutomaticStrikeout 21:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict){{TAFI}} is written like it is supposed to be used on the article page. And I like the idea of it. It encourages readers to be bold. I like the concept, especially on articles that are visible. If we did include it on the article page, I'd like to see the size reduced by half. Readers will understand that they are only seeing the template because the page is being improved, but we should make it as small as possible. We could even hide some of it. It could be "This article has been selected as Today's article for improvement, click show to learn more". We'd also need to modify it somehow so readers understand that the template will still be there tomorrow. Ryan Vesey 21:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Point made, I agree. Would some sort of TAFI Bot make sense? The only reason I say a bot is to have a timely placement and removal (removal of which is especially important, as we don't want to lie to someone!) from the article, as well as an automated change from {{TAFI}} to {{Former TAFI}} (of course without the diffs, which would have to plugged in later by a human) on the talks... hm. The bot could also change the template that says what the "current TAFI" is (which would then be transcluded (potentially) onto the main page)? Theopolisme _:) 21:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

We're going to need more templates

Here is what I propose. First, the {{TAFI}} template should be used as is, on the talk page during the week the artcile is being collaborated on, and then use the {{Former TAFI}} after the collaboration has completed and the final version of the collaboration determined (again, on the talkpage). I suggest a new slimlined version for the article page. The first one is far to large and should be similar in size to a merge proposal tag or any other tag placed on an article. But not so obtrusive as to push the article itself to far down. In fact, really, we'd want a nomination tag to go on the article first, while being nominated and would be something like this Template:Merge and then, if it is chosen to be collaborated on, the tag is replaced with the template stating that the article has been selected, is being worked on, how long, etc.. Something like Template:Afd-merge to.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to run, but i started {{TAFI_Nom}}... please assist! Theopolisme _:) 23:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't put a nomination template on the page. It could be considered for the talk page. We don't really want to put behind the scenes things on an article page. Ryan Vesey 23:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that. No need to be obtrusive.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)--Amadscientist (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What it probably should be for nominations here, templated on the talkpage, is something similar to a GA nomination. As a form of promoting both this project and the continued work on the article I would propose that it work almost the same as a GA nomination, where a template is placed with correct parameters that expand it to say something along the lines of "This article has been nominated for Today's article for improvement collaboration, please add your input to the discussion to determine which article should be featured on the main page". Maybe a nomination symbol on the left. If chosen, we add the template {{TAFI}} below and the nomination template gets a changed to {{Former TAFI}}. For article's nominated but not chosen the first template would simply have a parameter change and it shows something like: "This article was nominated to be featured on the mainpage for "Today's article for improvement collaboration". At the time it did not have enough support to be chosen. If you would like to re-nominate this page, please allow one month before resubmitting". (the last part is just something I am guessing we would have)--Amadscientist (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't necessarily know that this will be featured on the main page. Even if we decided that it would be the better option, there is virtually no chance it could be pushed through Talk:Main page. Ryan Vesey 00:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. This is all just proposing how this would work and wording is just speculative.--Amadscientist (talk) 00:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

How many supports are required to decide to actually work on an article?

As the project has a limited reach right now, I think the question posed in the header of this is an important one - should it be some sort of cut-off (i.e. immediately when it reaches x supports, we do it), a cut-off+timeframe (it must reach x supports in x days, for example), or something completely different? Just yet another question from your favorite Theo! Theopolisme _:) 21:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this does need to be ironed out. I'd suggest when an article gets 10 supports, it can be approved and when it reaches 10 opposes, it is rejected. However, that number could change drastically depending on how many people become involved here. When and if Culture passes, we'll have to determine what start date we want. AutomaticStrikeout 21:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to see a couple more articles get thrown up there so we can have at least a month on the schedule before any articles are improved. I'd hate to see culture improved and then have everybody pat eachother on the backs and walk away. Ryan Vesey21:35, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a question wrongly asked-- perhaps whether an article passes or not it should not be about an absolute number of users who support it, but whether 1) There are multiple editors willing to improve an article and more importantly, 2) evidence that the article can be improved it (e.g. sources, ability to identify at least some concrete issues in article, have thought out solutions to tackle those issues, can respond to issues in GA or FA reviews). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh...I'm not walking away from this article, but this raises a good point. Under the directory that we have created, it appears to be project related by subject. Could this nomination process somehow include...I don't know, like the Project council in some way that allows a more visible nomination process through the WikiProjects main pages? I could actually see a template box being created for this project that might give the option of a standardized collaboration template box for all projects that could be adapted individualy as need. Perhaps, if we begin through a template on such a visible part of Wikipedia, using the very collaborative groups already existing, we can both raise the level collaborative edting to improve articles, help raise activity in the projects themselves.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and I am not assuming that "Culture" is the current collaboration by the way. I just used it as an example for the template illustration above.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Timeframe when article is TAFI

I think a timespan needs to be specified for when an article is supposed to be TAFI. Say we have five nominations there, then it needs to be clear in which order they will be TAFI. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What about making them TAFI in the order that they get selected? Changes could be made after discussion (if we wanted to focus on a particular category or something like that). Ryan Vesey 21:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think each section at the project page should clearly specify the timespan the article is TAFI after the necessary support was achieved. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with both Toshio and Ryan. We also, like DYKs, might consider special TAFIs for certain holidays or occasions (for instance, the C-Class article Plant on Arbor Day or Earth Day). I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Good ideas on both. I'd say that we could assume the articles would appear in the order they are approved, but we could use the comments section for special cases. It would also allow us some flexibility on time. For example, during Christmas, we could decide to tackle a different Christmas themed article every day. Ryan Vesey 22:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good idea. AutomaticStrikeout 01:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Changing order of nominations

Can we change the order so that the newest nomination is at the bottom instead of at the top of the list? I personally would prefer that, not sure whether others agree though. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a good idea. Also, it would be nice if we could enact some sort of limit on active nominations at one time so that we don't get inundated to the point where we can't process all of them. AutomaticStrikeout 16:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposals regarding length of period, possible specific collaborations, and if possible getting editors with free databank subscriptions involved

First, I personally think a collaboration of this sort is a great idea. A few questions and ideas come to mind.

• 1) I think some clarification of the second paragraph might help. "Once an article is selected to be a TAFI, which we attempt to have take place at least one week in advance of its appearance on the main page," seems to me a bit confusing. And exactly how long should the collaboration take place? Personally, I might like to see the collaboration on the article officially continue for a week after the TAFI appearance.
• 2) Personally, I might like to see maybe the idea expanded to include a few WikiProjects. So, for instance, WikiProject Religion, which might not have enough people to work on Rainbow Serpent (for instance), as a collaboration on its own, might be able to have an irregular or semi-regular collaboration as a part of this drive. Perhaps, maybe selecting every twentieth article or something. The same might hold for a few other WikiProjects with major scope but not so many members.
• 3) Does anyone know how to get the editors who have gotten the free databank subscriptions to maybe be willing to once in a while take part here? I have a feeling, particularly for some of the articles that might be harder, they might be among the people with the best chance of getting some of the harder articles improved.
  • 3A) As a subpoint to the above, maybe, and this is just a maybe, make a separate or potentially regularly included collaboration, a collaboration which might focus on sourcing articles that don't have either enough referencing or enough high-quality referencing. For most of the major articles, I think those with the databanks subscriptions, if they can be gotten involved, might help a lot here. John Carter (talk) 18:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I like these points a lot. I think that the WikiProject involvement is a good idea - question though: Would it still involve the voting element, or would it be a separate system? Theopolisme 18:48, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict):To answer your first question, I have tried to make the wording a little more clear. The article will be featured as a TAFI for a period to determined on a thread above ("Formal Length Discussion"). As for your second point, you can nominate articles in a field you think needs more attention, however please be aware that a sizable backlog of nominations is not necessarily desirable. If you are talking about creating separate branches in this project, that's not a bad idea, however I'd prefer to wait until this is underway and running smoothly for a while. Lastly, if you find anyone with a free databank subscription, you could give them an invitation. AutomaticStrikeout 18:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Formal length discussion

I want to have a formal length discussion to make sure that is ironed out. I'll start with my proposal, others can add their proposals as well. Ryan Vesey 21:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

1 week

Support

1. I think this is the best solution. It offers a length of time that can allow an article to be researched and improved. It is also beneficial for those who only edit on weekends or only edit on weekdays. Ryan Vesey 21:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
2. I think one week if fine - see AutomaticStrikeout's comments on my talk as well. Theopolisme _:) 21:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
3. Yes, this is a good option, at least for now. Perhaps if this project takes off very well we could change the dates, but one week is good for now. AutomaticStrikeout 21:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
4. I'm fine with this as the default, but I think it should be possible to extend this by consensus to over 1 week if needed. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 21:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
5. Workable in general, but I see some problems if, for instance, an editor finds himself involved with ArbCom suddenly. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1 month, multiple articles

Reasoning: Like I indicated above, today, much to my surprise, I might find myself laid off, physically sick, called before ArbCom, or any number of other things which make me basically unable to contribute to an article in this short of a period. As an option, admittedly a more complicated one involving other things as well, I might prefer something like this:

1) The drive includes multiple articles, from unrelated fields, for a given month. So, for instance, maybe one article from each of the WP:1.0 categories might be included. This might also draw in more editors. There might be a "specific focus" on perhaps two articles per week, drawing primary attention to them.

2) The entire month is open for editing these articles. Given the fact of there being a full month, editors who face emeregencies are less likely to feel "left out" by emergencies.

3) Voting takes into account quid pro quo participation in the drive, somewhat like WP:DYK. So, for instance, every wikipedia editor is automatically entitled to one vote per month for a single selection for the next month, getting one additional vote for every article they made a substantial contribution in the last or current month.

Support

1. John Carter (talk) 15:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

1. I'm not sure about this concept. It's not a bad suggestion, but we don't want to over-complicate things while we are just getting the project going. As participation hopefully increases and we begin to see results, we can make determinations as to ways in which the project could be improved. Perhaps we could try giving the first article one week and seeing what happens. If there is significant improvement made, we could move on to something else in need of attention. If the results are not satisfactory, we can consider giving it more time. Personally, I think that if this project succeeds, it may motivate some of the specific WikiProjects to start one of their own, leading to smaller branches of this project being formed. However, we don't way to bite off more that we can chew right of the bat, I'd advise that we start slowly and make gradual changes based on the results. AutomaticStrikeout 16:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this a good idea?

Whilst interesting to see; I am unconvinced this is a good idea in terms of getting articles improved. For several reasons; firstly it would be worth talking to featured article writers who's work has appeared on the main page - they tend to complain of the influx of bad additions, vandalism and other mess that such a thing can cause. Secondly; do we want to attract front page readers who are likely unskilled with Wikipedia editing? It's not necessarily a good environment to ease them into editing - where they are competing with many other newbies and are at significant risk of being caught with warnings etc. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good idea. Your concerns about front page readers are well-founded and there is no guarantee this will ever wind up on the Main Page. As for an influx of vandalism and unhelpful content, there should be plenty of eyes watching any TAFI ready to quickly revert anything unconstructive. AutomaticStrikeout 16:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the concerns about newer editors jumping right into a page that is being heavily watched is the most valid. If we keep this off of the main page I think this will be an arena populated by experienced editors. We also have a couple of WER editors signed on who should be able to help out some of the newer editors. Ryan Vesey 17:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Which is whi I suggest this be made as a template to offer the projects to add along with their project collaborations. It could even be proposed for other pages eventualy, besides the main page, but starting with something that has a placement goal somewhere at least follows the logic that the projects are involved.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Archives?

At some point, it will be a good idea to create an archive for past nominations, I'd be interested to hear any ideas for how to go about doing that. Also, it will eventually be advisable to create archives for this talk page as well. AutomaticStrikeout 18:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I've done quite a bit of archive setup (STiki, CVUA, my own talk, etc) - I'll be happy to configure MiszaBot for the talk page to archive after, say, 10 days -- as far as for the noms, I don't know how we want to go about doing that. Is there some sort of template we can use to denote when a vote is complete? How about we say something like,

10 days after starting a nomination, if enough - broadly construed - supports are present, and the oppositions - or their reasoning - do not outweight the supports, then someone (anyone involved in the project, in order to stay away from any sort of bureaucracy) can close it as successful/unsuccessful using one of the {{archive top}} template combos (we could even do a custom one). That person would also go to the Schedule page and add that item to the list (either after the previous one or for a special date, for example December 25th.) Then, the bot would (using the archivenow parameter) archive any level 3 (or whatever they are) thread that had the {{archive top}} (or our custom one) in it to /Archives/MonthName.

Does that make sense? Thoughts? Theopolisme 19:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like this talk page has been taken care of. Your idea for the nominations sounds workable. AutomaticStrikeout 19:13, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I shall make a {{TAFI Nom Top}} and {{TAFI Nom Bottom}} now. Theopolisme 19:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! AutomaticStrikeout 19:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I went ahead exactly the way Theo said (10 days). benzband (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Alright, here's what I've done:

Example Thread

Thoughts? Likes? Dislikes? Comments? Theopolisme 19:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely love it! AutomaticStrikeout 19:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I like this as well. Have we given any thought as to who will close it? It obviously shouldn't be someone who took part. I thought I'd make this comment here, can we shoot for September 1-September 7 as being the first article? We'll obviously need a bot and transclusion at some point, but manual efforts will work for now. Ryan Vesey 19:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That time span works. As for closures, any member listed on the project main page who did not participate in the !vote should be allowed to close provided that consensus is clear. AutomaticStrikeout 19:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I like it! --Activism1234 20:25, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree-- this looks nice and clear. I think that any admin should also be able to close these discussions, even if they are not explicitly in the project. Of course, this may not be applicable until this project has a bit more visibility. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would admins need to close them? Just wondering. Theopolisme 20:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha I'd be more than happy to sacrifice not contributing to nominations here in favor of being able to close and post them, but it seems that with most things like this (such as ITN, DYK, etc), it's always the trusted admin that makes the final call (which makes sense). --Activism1234 20:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Main page

Can we completely disassociate this project with the main page in any form for the time being. I think it is pretty clear that this project can't affect the main page right out of the bat, if ever. The association with the main page is causing issues that I believe will keep this project from getting off of the ground. Ryan Vesey 18:55, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

For the time being, yes. AutomaticStrikeout 18:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the goal is admirable and ambitious. I don't think we should completely abandon it, but I agree with Ryan that it is preventing people from putting their foot in the door. We might return to it when we have a bit more visibility and participation in the general goals. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the main goal is to have placement somewhere. Start small and see how it goes. Main page as a possible proposal is very difficult, but a goal of placement somewhere is not.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Should we remove mention of Main page in invitations and other places now?--Amadscientist (talk) 08:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we should. The main page is not still a main concern at this time. We need to get this project running smoothly before we call that much attention to it. AutomaticStrikeout 16:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Way, way too early

Picking an article that might be the project's theoretical first article at some point way down the road is fine but gets us just about nowhere. To actually say, "now, let's advertise and go forward" just because an article is proposed seems to me obviously and massively premature, given that no structured proposal whatever is actually in place. The whole point is to put in place the proposed process and methodology in a fully written out proposal project page of how articles are chosen, how they will be advertised on the main page, the specific manner in which it would appear on the main page, example proposals of how it would actually look, reasons why doing so is desirable, why the many opposition bases leveled in the past for the very same type of proposal should discounted for this proposal because X, Y and Z (explaining what the past opposition bases were and riposting) and so on. Then a process of advertising for large scale consensus (because that is what is needed for any change to the main page) would need to be initiated in say a really well advertised RFC -- as aforesaid, with the process proposal already well developed to the point where people have a structured methodology with specifics in front of them to sink there teeth into and support – not a cipher as we have now. Again, such theoretical proposals have been rejected gain and again. History will just repeat itself. So I don't get the idea of moving forward before the proposal is written, unless you're proposing to scrap what I thought was the entire idea here of having, for the very first time, a "behind the scenes editing item" on the main page, when the mantra has been that the main page is maximized for readers only and no behind the scenes editing items should ever intrude. If this incredibly inchoate project is just going to be another article improvement of the day/week/month, and not be on the main page, I wouldn't bother. They don't work. I know I said or implied I might try to tackle writing that proposal, and haven't done so yet, and it's been quite some time since. Sorry. I simply have not had the concentration level, motivation and free time since then to dedicate the many hours of concentrated effort I envision it will take take to tackle this. But going forward with something now, given that no real proposal has been written, is a boondoggle in my opinion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but I got tired of waiting and waiting while nothing was happening. I don't see how this is way too early, if we hadn't started now I don't know if we ever would have. I think we can get going, perhaps on a somewhat small scale for now, while we iron out the policies. AutomaticStrikeout 02:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Started at what? This is some other project entirely. Just the same name, completely re-purposed, and something that's been been done multiple times before and failed every time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

So, let's say the project fails entirely. Considering we already have concrete plans about what needs to be fixed about Culture, the worst thing that could happen is that we make improvements to an article. And judging by the nominations, several will receive at least some attention. What a travesty! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 03:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of the project is gone. Once it's some other process, a rehash of what's been done multiple times before, it has momentum as that other process. Now that this is being taken in another direction entirely, I doubt it will ever be re-purposed back and doing so is much more difficult. Rather than throw out the entire idea behind this, just restart WP:COTW with Culture as the first.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If i could have access to the content of your head, i might write it. :P benzband (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the Main page really that lofty a goal? Am I crazy or did they just add a new section to the Main page. I don't remember seeing "Featured List" just the other day.....--Amadscientist (talk) 08:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Featured lists appear every Monday. On other days, there's a featured article instead. benzband (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• You could put it on the Community portal right this second. In fact, I think you should! The collaborations listed there are dead as dodos. WP:BOLD :D Maryana (WMF) (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• The project is already on the Community portal. The collaboration should go up once one is definitively picked. Ryan Vesey 14:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Archives

Verbatim from Theopolisme's talk...

With regards to your plans for archiving the nominations, both successful and otherwise, would it be a good idea for me to make Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/Archives/Successful Nominations and Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/Archives/Unsuccessful Nominations blue links? Would doing so interfere with your plans for archiving by month? AutomaticStrikeout 23:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't think those would really "work", if you know what I mean... Wouldn't we just want to have an archive for each month? Maintaining those pages would require some complicated moving around/transclusions/maybe a bot/who-knows-what - I think the easiest thing to do is just have a bot archive completed requests to /Archives/MONTH... Theopolisme 23:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Rather than setting an archive date, I think we should set the archive to one year (or something similar). Then, when something is closed place User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow around it. Ryan Vesey 23:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, we could use those pages as "headquarters" for the archives, with links to monthly archives there. My feeling is that it would be helpful to have a central place where one can access all the archives, even if it's just a list containing links to the monthly archives. When a nomination passes or fails, it can be removed from the current nominations page, and added to either the successful or unsuccessful archives (whatever the case may be) for that month. The redlinks above will contain links to the monthly archives. We might also want to keep a record of the schedules, for future reference. AutomaticStrikeout23:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should discuss this on the project talk page instead? AutomaticStrikeout 23:56, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ryan, I thought the idea was to set archive now to the {{TAFI Nom Top}} template. As far as Automatic's idea ... I like it, actually. The only thing it would require is probably manual archiving, unless someone wrote a bot specifically for it (as it has the different pages/etc) Also, I've closed the nom for Culture - do we have some sort of "Future TAFI" template, or do we just wait until it actually starts? Theopolisme 23:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless there is an objection, I'm going to make the redlinks above blue, and I'll manually add our passed nomination to Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/Archives/Successful Nominations/August 2012. AutomaticStrikeout 00:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. To clarify, the plan is then to transclude the /month pages onto the /successfulnoms page, and then have a /archives page with links to everything. I will work on writing a spot of copy/configuration in an hour of so, but Automatic if you can take care of it please do so. Thanks! Theopolisme 00:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, my intention was to have a separate page for each month for successful and unsuccessful. These pages would be linked to on the successful and unsuccessful main archive pages. If we transcluded the noms, the main archives would be quite long and maybe hard to navigate. AutomaticStrikeout 00:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, there you go. It's not much, feel free to improve it. AutomaticStrikeout 00:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the first should have been archived already. Let it wait a couple of days. It was a bold close, there's a chance of opposition. Ryan Vesey 01:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You can revert it if you like. AutomaticStrikeout 01:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose I must read stuff more carefully. archiving after a set time period. There is no need to put this project under more pressure than necessary. I suggest we do it like over at WP:NFCR. There, the bot only archives discussions which have been formally closed. Sometimes stuff simply needs time to work out. Remember that we are all volunteers here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 09:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't think set time archiving was ever the idea here - manual seems to be the way we're going. In other news, I made {{TAFI_Archives}}, which isn't much to look at at the moment... but is that the general direction we want to go with the archive box? And then have it on WP:TAFI (transcluded)? Theopolisme 11:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it necessarily has to be done manually, but if we used a bot, we'd need a bot that only archives closed discussions or which acts on threads that have some specific template at the top or something similar. I like your template and I agree with that direction. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 11:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week

Are you going to take over the Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week {{CurrentCOTW}} template? It's been filled with random unreferenced BLPs for ages now, but a lot of people still have it on their userpage.... Not sure how many people are actually looking at it, though. —Cupco 00:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thats a good idea! I'm sandboxing something now... One sec. Theopolisme 00:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Just whipped this up:

Theopolisme 00:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I like it. AutomaticStrikeout 02:04, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Here's an idea: Redirect {{CurrentCOTW}} to {{CurrentTAFI}} and then make it look like what we've got in the sandbox there now? Is COTW truly inactive? Theopolisme 02:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. Yes, I believe it is truly inactive. AutomaticStrikeout 02:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Culture has started

We've hit the September 1st mark so I'm just reminding everybody that culture is now today's article for improvement. I'm moving in to college, so I won't be too much help, sorry about that. Ryan Vesey 14:24, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Hurrah, hurrah. Question: Is there somewhere in the community portal where it actually says what the current TAFI is, not just a link to the project? I think that could be beneficial. Theopolisme 15:38, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I was bold :D If you don't like that format, feel free to edit, but I think it looks quite nice! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The format looks fine. AutomaticStrikeout 22:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I understand the desire to improve our level one vital articles, but culture seems a little bit too well developed for a project of this nature. B-class articles with ~200 references are generally in need of painstaking TLC: a thorough copyedit, working out where the references could be improved and addressing those issues, "expert" suggestions on gaps in content. That sort of work takes time, co-ordination, and in two out of those three examples a non-trivial level of knowledge of the subject. A one-day general improvement drive seems better suited to stubs, and unsourced/poorly sourced articles and lists. —WFC— 22:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

This is actually a week-long drive. AutomaticStrikeout 23:05, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me or does the wrap on that template make it look really ugly? Theopolisme 00:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Alright... I tried to make it prettier. Before and After... I just couldn't stand it anymore. Theopolisme 00:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I had just hacked at it because I couldn't stand the wrap anymore. I must have a larger monitor than you. I think WFC has a point, even if this is a week long thing. Again I'm sorry that I'm not able to help (only on in like 10 minute intervals) but it might be better to pick stubs and the like in the future. Things like the one i Jethrobot came up with. Ryan Vesey 11:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Stubs lend themselves to improvement a little bit better. AutomaticStrikeout 17:20, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me....

Maybe its just me, but I am a bit confused about what exactly I should do with Culture now. I mean, sure I can look at the article myself and edit and maybe improve the article, but then what's the point of this project? -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 06:56, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think we need to get some things straight - namely, what we're actually doing. Theopolisme 06:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Improving the article… :P E.g. someone could put all those refs into citation templates. benzband (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's actually that simple. When you look at the refs you can see that this article actually uses a mishmash of different citation styles. For example, it seems to me that cites 42., 43., 45., 46., 51.−55., 57.−69., 114., 117., 120., 121., 123.−127., 168.−170. use short citations, while the rest of the article seems to use refs defined inline. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 07:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Put the long ones into templates, and set the short ones as sfns which promptly link to the sources which are themselves in citation templates. benzband (talk) 17:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I think my original intention was more to be adding content to articles that were far too short, I think this project is probably better suited for stubs. AutomaticStrikeout 16:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If the intention of this project is to add content to articles then I think this is going to fail. Why? Well, at least I edit mainly articles that personally interest me. Now, this is definitely not entirely true. I also edit many articles I am not interested in, but those are maintenance edits (I do a lot of NFCC enforcement and not every article where I enforce the criteria actually interests me). However, if this project mainly aims to produce content, that is problematic. Culture, for example, does not really interest me. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:12, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

One thing that might work is if we defined as out goal something like expanding stubs beyond stub status. But if it comes to writing more content for already quite developed articles, then this requires more dedicated research and I think few editors are willing to study sources about a topic that does not personally interest them. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think expansion of stubs might have been the original idea. AutomaticStrikeout 16:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think messing around with citations (and such like) isn't really much in the way of improvement - and is liable to start disagreements over purely cosmetic issues. I've been turning this over in my head for a couple of days; and I think the prime target should be stub/start class articles with lots of online sources. That way the participants can actually work on content. (also: such a "top level" article is definitely not the place to start - tackling that is a major task. Pluck the low hanging fruit.) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically what I'm thinking. There's more we can do with stubs. AutomaticStrikeout 22:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

On another note, I have closed the nomination of Little Barrier Island as successful, and added it to the schedule. It will be next following Culture. I think this article fits what this project can handle a little bit better, there is plenty of room for expansion. AutomaticStrikeout 22:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Get this on the main page.

This project should have its chosen article on the main page. This must be done in order do bring the kind of attention and edits to these articles. Besides, its great for the mission of Wikipedia to back up the 'anyone can edit' aspect by focusing people to improve an article when they first visit the site. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If my memory serves me right there was a recent proposal to do that. In the meantime, perhaps a spot at the signpost might help improve traffic? —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 21:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think a Signpost article is a great idea - support. Who should we get in touch with? The WikiProjects group? Theopolisme 21:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the people involved should prove a) able to add content & expand/improve articles they select and b) demonstrate they have sufficient eyes on the selected article to deal with the influx of newbies. Don't forget that the people reading the front page are reading (i.e. unlikely to be prior editors), so you are going to have to be capable to handle, in a friendly manner, an influx of newbies with questions requiring help. If you can commit to that, and demonstrate work on some articles in this testing period, then you would have my support. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree. At the moment a) is the sticking point, which in turn is a numbers and expertise thing. I'm British, and edit food and sport articles: I have added a little bit to an article on a New Zealand nature reserve, but have relatively little more to offer. I think the Signpost is the way to go, because what we need to do at the moment is raise awareness among established editors. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 21:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Sea

Sea is now officially the article of the week. Wheres the template that we need to add to the article?--Coin945 (talk) 04:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I've taken care of it - just add {{TAFI}}. Getting started on a copyedit now... Theopolisme 04:28, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Stub/Start class requirement

It appears that we are having difficulty working with articles that already have significant content. Would it be advisable to simply make a rule requiring that all noms for now be either stubs or start-class articles? AutomaticStrikeout 15:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I did mention this when we first started. All of my suggestions are very important topics that have severely poor coverage. Havent posted any new suggestions in a while though. Perhaps we should get rid of Physics from the cue then, despite it having lots of support at the time.--Coin945 (talk) 16:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't do anything yet. I'd like to hear more opinions before making what is a rather big decision for this project. AutomaticStrikeout 16:03, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

A proposal that all nominees be stub or start class

Support

1. We need articles that are small enough that significant content can be added. We also need topics that are not too broad, which country may be. AutomaticStrikeout 22:55, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
2. For the time being. I agree. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

1. We should also be including incomplete lists. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 05:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. If you have any in mind, feel free to nominate them. AutomaticStrikeout 17:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Neutral

Community Portal

Note that the community portal page still says Physics is TAFI. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this working?

The only TAFI on which I can see any substantial change in article views, let alone edits, is Little Barrier Island. All the rest are almost spookily flat, even though it's on the 8000/day Community Portal. Keep asking for the Main page, is my advice. There is always more room scrolling down. (Although the Main page is less than 5% as good as a Google doodle.) —Cupco 05:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not working because the subjects are too broad and it's kind of hard to know what to put into an article entitled "Country". That's my opinion anyway. I'd say that we should be imposing a restriction to stubs, perhaps even biographies, until we can see legitimate progress. AutomaticStrikeout 21:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Let's see how List of food preparation utensils pans out. That page's format is ideally suited to introductory-level edits – you don't need to a Michelin star chef to attempt to describe a ladle's design and purpose. While a relative novice's attempt may not be perfect (much like my modest efforts at Little Barrier Island), they will almost certainly constitute an improvement. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 05:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I would caution against using page views to measure success. Going by page views, List of food preparation utensils had a very modest bounce in the middle, bookended by a couple of quieter than usual days (essentially flat when taking the week as a whole). Going by edits, it was one of our best efforts so far. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 06:22, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Articles for Improvement

I just proposed a similar process named Articles for Improvement. The proposal can be seen here: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Articles for Improvement. — ΛΧΣ21™ 06:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification

It'd be quite useful to get TAFI off the ground by having new TAFIs delivered to people's talk pages. Alternatively, and at risk of infringing Wikipedia's long-standing "Not MySpace!" policy, maybe even have the current TAFI syndicate out via something like Twitter. Might attract new editors too. Thoughts? Anyone want to get one of the existing delivery bots to do talk page delivery? —Tom Morris (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Great idea, what would you think about creating a template that people could have on their talk pages? Sort of like the RfX template. I also agree with twitter/facebook type things. Ryan Vesey 21:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A watchlist notice might be a good idea. Frankly, I think it's stupid to get all riled up because you got something on your talk page you didn't want. Just get rid of it, it's not that hard. But, for a struggling project like this, the last thing we need to do is alienate a bunch of people. AutomaticStrikeout 21:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, Ryan's idea regarding about a user talk page template is a good one. AutomaticStrikeout 21:06, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of something similar to an RFX template that one can add to their userpage. The project could grow through that if someone sees it on a userpage and adds it to theirs (almost all of my userboxes and templates are "stolen"--in fact some from you, Ryan). Go Phightins! (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Entertainment

Entertainment is now done as TAFI. I think we will all agree that it saw extraordinary change during it's tenure, the question now is do we put it up for GA? I'm not really good at that kind of thing, but I'd love for some users who are to take a look and see if it should be nominated. I believe it would be our first article promoted to a recognized status. AutomaticStrikeout 23:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it could at least be put up for GA to get a more thorough review...there are directions for nomination on the GA page. As for whether it would pass on arrival, I doubt it, but it's certainly on a path that could get it there. A few editors would probably have to stay behind to carry out whatever the reviewer suggests. My guess would be additional references would be a request...I can look over it to give a more thorough "pre-review" if requested. Go Phightins! 23:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it would be good if someone could do a pre-review. And I may not have the best eye for that. AutomaticStrikeout 23:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a look, might be tomorrow though. Go Phightins! 23:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, there's no rush. AutomaticStrikeout 23:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll at least start now:

• Theatre subsection should probably be expanded per criterion 3a and the second part of 4.
• A few additional references, especially in the subsections under forms of entertainment, there may be a tad of original research.
• The image in the performance section should be on the right side rather than just in the center as it currently is.
• Those are my initial thoughts. Go Phightins! 23:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I have mentioned these concerns on the talk page of one of the more active editors during Entertainment's TAFI run. AutomaticStrikeout 00:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Don't go to GA assessment yet, please. I am still working on it. I have had to start a list for myself so if you want to add to it, it is here Talk:Entertainment#To_do Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Whenever you're ready, this is totally up to you. Once you're satisfied, go ahead and nominate it. I just posted some things I think would be brought up at a GA review. Go Phightins! 01:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be in a template?

What if people want to put the TAFI on their user pages, or somewhere other than the Community portal? Paum89 (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to a userbox? AutomaticStrikeout 16:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a userbox? —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 17:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I just created one about twenty minutes before you asked. Here it is, though I'm waiting for Ryan to change the coloring a little. AutomaticStrikeout 17:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean e.g. {{Today's article for improvement}} or maybe {{TAFI blurb}} or some such should expand to the actual article title, first paragraph, thumbnail, and a link to edit it, so that it can easily appear in more places than just the Community portal. Paum89 (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

 Done, The community portal now transcludes the blurb, so the blurb should be the page that's updated when we change the current article. I'll probably update the blurb for the current article again this week when the lead get's improved since it's currently weak. Ryan Vesey 17:00, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed. I have just given this project a plug at WP:ARS and suggested that they keep a link in a prominent place there. Warden (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
• Is there a way for us to create a category for former TAFI's that can be included in the former TAFI template so that when that template is added to a talk page, the article is added to the Former TAFI cat? AutomaticStrikeout 17:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I made {{Today's article for improvement}} from Wikipedia:2012_main_page_redesign_proposal/Dr._Blofeld which looks like this:

How to edit

Everyone can edit Wikipedia, but please follow our policies and guidelines, especially the five pillars. You can help Wikipedia by creating a new article, editing an existed page, or simply inserting pictures. If you are a newcomer, please refer to our tutorial and FAQ. Here is an article we are trying to improve:

Papyriform columns in the Luxor Temple

• Ancient Egyptian architecture

Please help to improve this article!

Paum89 (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

• Here's another recently-created box (see right), located at {{Cotd}}:

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Review requested

Hi Everyone,

I have been plodding along working on Entertainment since its nomination for TAFI on 13 October. It must be time for some sort of review. Could you look at it and see if it is a GA or FA? If not, what I should do to get it there? My ideas about why it is organised the way it is are on the Talk Page.

Thanks, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not very knowledgeable in that area, so it would have been nice if someone else could have answered, but I'd say go ahead and try a GA review if you think it is ready. If you're not sure, you might find an editor with lots of GA experience and ask them for their opinion. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll put it up for Peer Review. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait! I wouldn't put it up for peer review. I would just nominate it for GA, and someone will review it and give you roughly the same suggestions. Peer review is generally used between a GA and an FA. Go Phightins! 03:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! Just looking it over quickly, I would make sure that every sentence is cited, as this will almost assuredly come up in any GA/FA process. You've done a fantastic job with it so far! Truly an example setter for this project. Ruby 2010/2013 03:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

TAFI Barnstar?

I was thinking, we should add a Today's Article for Improvement Barnstar. It can be given to people who contribute to this project a lot. Horai 551 (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

 Doing... —Theopolisme 03:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

		The TAFI Barnstar
		Thoughts? —Theopolisme 03:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 03:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

AFI

Since my semi-inactiveness period in late October, WP:AFI has been a little abandoned. I am planning to implement some wikiproject-style enhancements, as well as a newsletter each month, or week, but Imma need a little help. Anyone interested in the process? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Sign Post?

Considering that TAFI has now been approved to run on the mainpage, it might be easier to manage if we have more editors helping around. How about getting TAFI to the sign post. From what I remember, Snuggle gained quite a bit of membership and help from members after going to the Signpost. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd like that. How do we do it? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/WikiProject desk seems to be the place to be. User:Mabeenot seems to be the guy to ask. If we ask nicely, maybe he could shift TAFI to one of the earlier dates than in February. (A side news also seems to be a good advert, if not very good) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Would you like to make the request or shall I? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 21:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You know the project better than I do. Its better you do it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Were you thinking of a sidebar request or an interview request. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:00, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Interview request if possible to be posted soon enough on the signpost (not as late as February). Sidebar request if the interview is not available early enough. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems kind of pushy to ask that other projects be bumped backwards. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:04, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Note to self-Always remember NOT to be pushy.[I seem to forget it all the time] How about just asking for a sidebar request for now; and an interview for as early as he can possibly give us. We really need that coverage earlier than afterwards. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll see what I can do. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Done here. I'd suggest that you leave Mabeenot a note on his talk page regarding the interview request. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Posted. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:23, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Renewable resource is listed twice

It's marked to come up again on Jan 12th, and it's the current article for improvement. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a mistake. You're more that welcome to fix that up. No consensus required. :)--Coin945 (talk) 03:34, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the widespread consensus on the matter, I'm changing the second iteration to Farmer. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Given the extreme amount of consensus on the recent selection of Farmer for a TAFI, what is the legit procedure for determining and article, and then archiving of selected articles? It looks like articles that did not get selected just get moved down the page. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:50, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There are archives, headquartered here (successful) and here (unsuccessful). However, those archives aren't always being used. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I archived some old nominations, and made links to the archives on the main project page. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 17:41, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Need to monitor TAFI effectiveness

Once TAFI goes live on the Main Page (and I am not a great fan of that idea) I want to see some sort of monitoring of its effectiveness. Tagging articles as stubs and having PRODs and the huge range of maint tags does not get us very far, so why will TAFI do any better? Sorry about the negativity but that's the way I see it in this case. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:03, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say the best way to monitor it's success it to become involved and improve the selected article. But if you choose not to be involved, you can look at the before and afters of any of the past articles, by looking on the talk page and clicking the link on the Former TAFI banner. Entertainment and renewable resource are success stories, but certainly not all of them are going to be winners. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like Alan Liefting is becoming involved by suggesting that we monitor how effective TAFI is after it starts appearing on the main page. I think that an ongoing discussion on this talk page, with observations on the effectiveness of TAFI articles that appear on the main page, is probably the best way to do that. One important observation will be how effective TAFI main page articles have been in attracting and keeping new editors, since that was one of the main reasons for doing this. First Light (talk) 06:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice (and this probably already exists) to log some centralized list of before/after/diff links, that would make the sort of review Alan suggests easier. I'm more optimistic than Alan, but I'm even more of a believer in data.  :) --j⚛e decker^talk 17:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The talk pages of articles get the {Template:Former TAFI} tag, which has start and end links to the page history. Talk:Entertainment is a good example of improvement. It would be possible to get a centralized list of these diffs. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Dated nominations

I've restored the dated nominations because they were not archived to the project's archives. They were essentially wiped without archiving.

Regarding dated entries, should we create a time limit criteria, in which listings are archived after a certain amount of time? There's been some discussion of having more than one entry available on the main page at the RFC for TAFI, so perhaps we should leave the dated nominations in place for a specific amount of time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I did archive them, it seems the search bars do not work even for existing archived content. Here are the archives. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm. My error. However, perhaps we should leave them in place in the nominations section for now, per the above. I've revised my comment above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: I've restored entries in the Dated nominations section that have not received any oppose !votes. Those archived at Unsuccessful Nominations/August 2012 have been removed from the Dated nominations section. I concur that the latter are unlikely to gain much traction. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:45, 8 January 2013 (UTC)