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)