Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 12:53, 4 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

Prune article list entries?

I propose for the following articles listed below to be considered for removal from the project's List of articles.

  • ¥ – this article is about the Chinese yuan symbol itself, rather than the broader topic of Chinese yuan. Unlikely to see much improvement per a limited topical scope.
  • Space bar – an article about the space bar on a keyboard, unlikely to receive much significant improvement; niche topic with a limited topical scope
  • HTTP 403 – niche topic with a limited topical scope
  • Buzz Lightyear – already fairly well developed, niche topic that may not receive much improvement through this project
  • Capture the flag – already fairly well developed
  • Buzzword – already fairly well developed, limited topical scope
  • Wikipedia Zero – niche, narrow scope
  • I spy – simple game, already fairly developed (by me --Coin945)
  • Only child – already fairly developed
  • Router (computing) – already fairly developed, may not have broad appeal to a wide variety of editors
  • Mario Party – already fairly developed

– North America1000 18:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

– Added two more above for consideration to remove from the list, per the discussion below. North America1000 09:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

- More suggestions--Coin945 (talk) 11:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Prune, as in "remove". Hmm... I would absolutely agree with "Wikipedia Zero" though. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 08:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Note: Many of these articles have been independently worked on since being nominated. I did a simialar thing to this a while ago, but it was based on those articles which had since reaches B or GA. (Like History of South Africa and History of video games, which I 100% predict will never be improved from TAFI.)--Coin945 (talk) 08:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I wouldn't have a problem with purging the list of nominations completely, as they were chosen by you, I, and a bunch of different editors many years ago, whereas the new recruits may not be as enthusiastic with these choices. Let them choose the articles that inspire then and let them work on them ASAP.--Coin945 (talk) 08:32, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • N.b. I messaged project members about this discussion in hopes to receive more input here. North America1000 04:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree as well - article choice is fundamental to getting editors to improve articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Seconded -- Chamith (talk) 12:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Tripled? Those articles should be removed. MrWooHoo (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
Fourthed? Fourthed!, Agree with the above they should be removed. –Davey2010Talk 17:41, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Yep, I would like to thank MelanieN for all her edits to that article, Buzzword. It seems fairly understandable too. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 20:35, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, I feel that much of these nominated articles would may not be so attractive to female editors. It appears that the advantage of female editors is that they generally are more good at doing the content and making them understandable, while male editors are generally better at doing the coding and adding technical terms, and especially like to do topics that involve a lot of technical terms, such as articles related to science, computer science and maths. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 20:39, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Related to the lack of female editors, we should nominate some topics of interest to female editors. It will make actual progress with the gender gap without the drama and ArbCom cases. Esquivalience t 19:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
@Northamerica1000: Where is the addition of the Holding Area archive? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 20:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks for the reminder. Objection (law) has also been archived to Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/List of articles/archive per the discussion below. North America1000 20:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

New template

Any thoughts on {{TAFI scheduled selection}}, a template that I created for TAFI random selections? Esquivalience t 01:26, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I've come up with a way to choose randomly entirely on-wiki, without having to rely on random.org. Saving {{subst:User:Evad37/sandbox/choose random tafi}} results in the existing list of articles being used to prefill parameters for Module:Random. Editing the page again to add another subst: results in a single article being randomly chosen. (The formatting of the list of article would need to be adjusted slightly, to how User:Evad37/sandbox/TAFI list is formatted.) Perhaps something like this can be integrated with your template. - Evad37 [talk] 03:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I prefer Evad37's method. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 13:02, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
I've written a new template & module that will allow it to be done with a single subst: ... {{subst:User:Evad37/sandbox/choose random tafi2}} (currently working off the list at User:Evad37/sandbox/TAFI list/2) - Evad37 [talk] 03:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Easy enough. Esquivalience t 02:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
I tested out User:Evad37's new one with single substitution. It works fine and is simple, so I support this one. Feel free to schedule week 33 of 2015 at will. North America1000 11:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 Done. Implemented it into the template and the list of articles. Esquivalience t 15:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Nominations page reform?

Following on from the project processes discussion above, now might be a good time to discuss the nominations page. Is it working well enough as is? Could it be improved? Should it, or any parts of it, be simplified? Should there be a periodic review of approved articles?

Pinging @Buster7, Northamerica1000, NickPenguin, Whiteghost.ink, Ypnypn, Madalibi, Moswento, Kvng, Coin945, Mark Miller, Evad37, Buffbills7701, GiantSnowman, EMachine03, EuroCarGT, CSJJ104, Iselilja, Khamar [ping list 1 of 2: edit] @Finnusertop, Tomásdearg92, CSJJ104, Davey2010, Stuartyeates, Gongshow, Jim Carter - Public, SL93, MrWooHoo, The boss 1998, Qwertyxp2000, Bananasoldier, Rcsprinter123, Epicgenius [ping list 2 of 2: edit] Evad37 [talk] 04:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

  • When are we going to have monthly eradication evaluation of the Holding Area? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Maybe on the first day of each month, we open up a section on this talk page to nominate articles to be removed from the holding area. Any which are unopposed or have consensus can then be removed and put in the holding area archive. - Evad37 [talk] 04:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Regarding the potential for removal of content from the List of articles, I would prefer for a consensus to be formed for such a process before initiating this change. How would removing approved articles help the project? What about the !votes of those who participated in discussions which resulted in articles being listed, and respecting the integrity of that process? Should we be double voting on articles that were already voted upon and approved? North America1000 06:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
        • I would prefer for a consensus to be formed for such a process before initiating this change – This is that discussion, to see if there a consensus can be formed.
How would removing approved articles help the project? – Articles might undergo development/improvement outside of TAFI, perhaps to a point where they are B-class or better, and wouldn't actually be approved if they were a fresh nomination.
What about the !votes of those who participated in discussions which resulted in articles being listed, and respecting the integrity of that process? I imagine that this would be for the older articles in the list, if they have undergone a substantial enough improvement since their nomination. Perhaps we need some formal rules to ensure that only nominations older than [some timeframe] can be eligible for removal.
Should we be double voting on articles that were already voted upon and approved? If articles have undergone much improvement without our intervention, should they still be in the list of approved articles? - Evad37 [talk] 07:39, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
My draft template for the new selections can facilitate this. There is really no rush to remove articles, but the process described there is to reselect the article and remove the former article from the list if there are three net support votes. Esquivalience t 01:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I can get behind the notion of articles being removed from the list of articles based upon consensus, specifically for those that may be in an improved state compared to the time they were nominated. We can have discussions about it right here on the talk page, whenever we want. This could help out to purge dated content, keeping the project fresh. Also, since this project is changing at this time, perhaps "boring" topics that may not actually receive much improvement, and those that are unlikely to be improved for other various reasons, could be removed, after discussion. North America1000 16:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
N.b. See the proposal below to prune some articles from the list of articles. North America1000 19:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Please welcome our newest members! (week 31, 2015)

Hi everyone! I'd like to introduce our newest members. Please feel free to say hello, and hit edit if I've made a mistake anywhere.








Again, welcome! -Bananasoldier (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Say something!

I've worked with valereee on Dessert and he/she was really helpful and cooperative. Looking forward to work with him/her again. In fact I'm eager to work with all of our new members.-- Chamith (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Whoa, looking at the Dessert's history, there was major TAFI work done during Week 30. Bananasoldier (talk) 03:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
@Qwertyxp2000: That's a really good idea. I will help as much I can if you can create it. You could get an idea about the layout from other glossaries such as Glossary of diabetes, Glossary of psychiatry. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Glossaries might help as well.--Chamith (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I shall start making it soon; I will be drafting from Draft:Glossary of Mathematical terms. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Benefits of TAFI choosing to work on stubs or short articles

  • When it comes to short articles, it's more apparent to editors that there's room for new paragraphs, pictures, etc.
  • Expansion of an article is the most visible sign of progress/improvement. When there's a lot of progress going on, the collaboration for that article builds momentum and folks feel excited to jump in.
  • Growing from a stub gives the project greater chances to reach DYK via 5x Expansion. This gives us a goal to reach for every week.
  • DYKs created from our project look like this:

Notice that whenever our project earns DYKs, we like to stick a link to our project after the hook, like this: (TAFI). Not only is it cool to say that our project collaboratively earns DYKs, but this little link increases our exposure to other editors/new editors on WP through the Main page. When these editors join our project, the result is a positive feedback loop because more editors means more article improvements and DYKs. Therefore, I think we should strive to earn more DYKs through stubs! Let me know what you think. Thanks, --Bananasoldier (talk) 03:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that is a great idea, it also makes it easier for more editors to help out. It's much easier to get started on an article with limited content. Otherwise we're only encouraging subject experts to work on some of the articles. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Excellent idea; it will show the prowess of collaborative editing. Esquivalience t 16:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 34, 2015)

Three plates of soufflés
Hello, Northamerica1000.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Soufflé

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Berry • Farmhouse

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: North America1000 01:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC). Opt-out instructions

Discussion

The TAFI article for Week 35 of 2015

The selection for week 35 (starting 17 August 2015) is Historic house. Esquivalience t 15:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)



Discussion (week 35)

Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.

The TAFI article for Week 33 of 2015

Berries for sale at a farmers' market

The selection for week 33 (starting 10 August 2015) is Berry. Esquivalience t 16:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)



Discussion (week 33)

Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.

I'm curious about the supervote. How does one obtain such?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 33, 2015)

Berries for sale at a farmers' market
Hello, Today's articles for improvement.

The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection:

Berry

Please be bold and help to improve this article!

Previous selections: Farmhouse • Igloo

Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

Posted by: Bananasoldier (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI • Opt-out instructions

Say something!

  • <ref name="Zhao2007">{{cite book|author=Yanyun Zhao|title=Berry Fruit: Value-Added Products for Health Promotion|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=tTw9oDAYgNgC|date=6 June 2007|publisher=CRC Press|isbn=978-1-4200-0614-8}}</ref>

General guidelines should be as follows:

1. Article (sic) on a Unification subjects (sic) should be comparable to its counterpart elsewhere. For example, Unification Church (sic) could get an entry comparable to a large denomination or a small world religion.

2. An article on a Unification topic like “Unification Theory of Education” should get an entry alongside other theories of education linked from a portal article on theories of education.

3. An article on the Unification effort to reform the United Nations should be linked to a portal article on reform of the United Nations that includes other strategies like the Stanley Foundation, the World Council of Churches, or the World Federalists.

4. New World Encyclopedia is designed for the general reader, not as a place to work out intricate theories of unification thought. This should be accomplished in appropriate venues like Unification Thought conferences or the Journal of Unification Studies.

5. Unificationist writers must make an effort to distill the essentials of Unificationism into concise statements comparable to the way other topics are distilled into concise statements in an encyclopedia.

- Writers (sic) Manual, retrieved 10 August 2015

Esquivalience t 17:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Recap of improvements

Thanks to everyone who worked on this week's article(s), Berry and (indirectly) Berry (botany). Here are some handy statistics:

  • 402 edits were made to Berry, and 54 to Berry (botany), making the total number of edits 456.
  • The article(s) w(as/ere) expanded from 4,700 bytes and 700 words, to 16,000 bytes and 2,536 words for Berry and 8,000 bytes and 1,257 words for Berry (botany), making this a 5-fold to 6-fold expansion! The articles are separate, so not five-fold for DYK unfortunately, but we can probably WP:IAR and go for a bit less.
  • Berry has been improved from Start-class to upper C-class, only failing the referencing and coverage criteria for B-class. Berry (botany) is currently C-class.

Again, thanks to everyone who collaborated! Esquivalience t 00:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Esquivalience: Thanks for providing the recaps. North America1000 01:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

TAFI List of articles purge, part II

I've spent some time evaluating entries in the project's List of articles, and propose that the following articles be removed from the list.

Voted upon, but not approved

These articles have been rejected multiple times per previous talk page voting discussions:

  • Aries (astrology) – voted upon twice, but never approved for collaboration (1, 2)
  • Court – voted upon twice, but never approved (1, 2)
  • Ticker tape – voted upon three times, but never approved (1, 2, 3)
  • Wage – voted upon four times, but never approved (1, 2, 3, 4)

Fairly developed

Articles in a fairly developed state, whereby significant improvements may not occur, although some improvements are possible:

Topical simplicity

Due to topical simplicity, these articles may not actually receive significant improvements, per having basic inherent premises:

Niche topics

Niche topics that may not be of interest to a significant number of editors:

As always, input here is most welcome from the project's members. North America1000 17:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion (List of articles purge, part II)

The "Topical simplicity" articles maybe not. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi everyone! Before I weigh in on this. I would really appreciate a well formed explanation as to what is going on. Right now, I am seeing something that concerns me, that we are discussing a massive deletion of articles from our umbrella. At this moment I wish to state that I do not support mass deletions of categories or articles from our project without much broader community input such as a note at the Village pump, or a transference of the discussion there. Any such major changes to this project require a wider input of editors, if even by simply informing the sister projects 9if any) and the community as a whole since we strive to one day be back on the main page.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • @Mark Miller: The process at TAFI has been that successfully nominated articles go into the holding area, and the scheduled articles are selected from there. Recently, after discussion (see #Change_project_processes above), the selection method changed from voting to random selection, along with reducing the number of articles from 5 or 6 per week back to one per week. Back when we were voting on articles, unpopular articles (which noone actually wanted to improve, or not enough to vote for them) were archived from the holding area – since we're no longer voting, the articles from the holding area can be archived if there is consensus after a discussion here (which has been done before, e.g. here). Nothing is actually being deleted, just entires at WP:TAFIHOLD are being archived, if there is consensus.
    • Side point: I think "Holding area" is a better name than "List of articles" – holding area is uniquely TAFI, and is unambiguous, whereas the are lots of lists of articles across Wikipedia. - Evad37 [talk] 02:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
      • @Evad37: I changed the page name and tabbed header to List of articles per the notion that newcomers to the project page can immediately discern where the project's list of articles is located. "Holding area" may be a bit ambiguous for those unfamiliar with the project. Another part of the name change is to present a list of articles that can be immediately improved. Thanks to everyone for all of the input here. North America1000 03:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep topical simplicity articles. I think most of the topical simplicity ones should be kept – a proper encyclopaedic treatment is much more than a definition or description, even when it may be relatively simple. There is always a history to be discussed, and often different cultural perspectives from around the world. As a counter-example to topical simplicity: Sea, an early TAFI article, could have also been described as having topical simplicity, but we managed to improve it to FA. - Evad37 [talk] 02:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Sorry for the obvious typo that made me look like an idiot. LOL! I appreciate the update. I have been very busy lately and have not paid enough attention to the pings lately. Far be it for me to interfere with a set consensus of editors in the project but let us take a more cautious approach as Evade37 seems to get. I will not object to any consensus unless I feel it is moving too far away from our core values as a project, which is to encourage editors to improve articles. I, myself, do not see a benefit in the project attempting to decide what is worth improving and that deleting categories is insane. Shove them further back into the movement and direction in some manner....but do not just ignore and announce there are articles this project has declared unworthy of improvement. That is not this projects job and as a core member from its founding, I would be willing to request community discussion before we go so far. Let us at least consider what Evade suggest and not remove everything across the board. Evade. Could you explain what you consider topical simplicity articles, in more detail?--Mark Miller (talk) 03:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Also keep topical simplicity articles - as per Evad37. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 07:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep topical simplicity articles as well, per Evad37. Bananasoldier (talk) 05:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Change "List of articles" back to "Holding Area" as per Evad37. He said the point about the unambiguity of a name of "Holding Area" and the fact that there are plenty of "List of articles". My second point is that the "Holding Area" name is a shorter name. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 09:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Summary

A summary per the above discussion. North America1000 03:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Articles Remove Retain
Voted upon, but not approved 4 1
Fairly developed 4 1
Topical simplicity 4 4
Niche topics 3 1
Change "List of articles" back to "Holding area" 2 1

– North America1000 05:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Actions performed

List of articles

There is a another alternative - we could call it "articles for improvement", i.e. usurp the name from the inactive WP:Articles for improvement. Anyone wanting to nominate an article for improvement is probably better off ending up at TAFI than over there. - Evad37 [talk] 06:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 36 of 2015

A Old Colony Mennonite family observing the practice of plain dress

The selection for week 36 (starting 24 August 2015) is Plain dress. Esquivalience t 04:04, 16 August 2015 (UTC)



Discussion (week 36)

Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.

The TAFI article for Week 37 of 2015

Two high divers in mid-air

The selection for week 37 (starting 31 August 2015) is High diving. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esquivalience (talk • contribs) 02:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion (week 37)

Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.

A suggestion

For the archive of the Schedule for the TAFI I would suggest that we do the list of previous approved noms like at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Schedule. It is kind of messy at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Archives/Schedule I dont understand what article has been featured each week etc. It would be much easier to follow if each article was featured like at TAFI schedule page.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Great work on Berry, Souffle, other project changes

I was just stopping by to see how things are going, and I wanted to say how impressed I am with how things have developed. Everyone working on this project is doing a great job, and I feel like things are really going in a the right direction. Keep up the great work everyone! --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:28, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

potential merge for today's article: historic house

I've suggested moving historic house to historic building. "Historic building" is merely a redirect to List of heritage registers, and this would let us create a much better combined article with more sources available. Please weigh in at Talk:Historic house. Thank you! —МандичкаYO 😜 16:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This will 100% help the project - Communism in Russia

As a member of this project since it began (and also it's social officer for a time - writing those Facebook/Twitter/Google+ hooks was a blast), I suggest that one of the disambiguation pages I successfully nominated should be made the next article. The activity here has gotten smaller as the weeks have worn on, often because the topics just aren't that editable. If my previous nomination (solar activity) has taught us anything, it's that broad-concept articles that at the moment are disambiguation articles are perfect for expansion because anyone can add something to a one-line stub. Let's be BOLD and make Communism in Russia the TAFI for this week.--Coin945 (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Sun deck deleted

Sun deck, which was approved and is on the project's Articles for improvement page, was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sun deck. North America1000 00:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 38 of 2015

Transection of a human head

The selection for week 38 (starting 7 September 2015) is Head. Evad37 [talk] 06:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)



Discussion (week 38)

Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.

Henri Nestlé week 40

There was something wrong with the script on this that week. I did the right procedure and it epically failed. If someone could correct it I would appreciate it.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Hold on, why are you even trying to schedule something for week 40? The last article to be randomly selected on this page, using the random selection template, was week 37 ( see above) - Evad37 [talk] 03:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
How do you use the random selection template? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
See Template:TAFI scheduled selection - Evad37 [talk] 06:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
So I could just use {{TAFI scheduled selection}} with substitution, and then a nice article will be nominated randomly. I could just also add in the week, date and year. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
And there is something wrong with the schedule script of the Henri Nestle thing. P.S. How do you do that arrow that drops the indents? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Wait a sec, use {{Od}} Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 06:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Today's_articles_for_improvement/2015/40 wasn't created properly, I've fixed that. Using the template as described (with subst: and with the parameters filled in) will randomly pick an article, and allow for talk page discussion if for some reason it isn't suitable. The articles scheduled by BabbaQ should probably be unscheduled, and the proper process followed – ensuring true random selection by using the template, and allowing for discussion of less suitable articles. - Evad37 [talk] 06:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Consensus at the Change project processes discussion in July was for articles to be chosen entirely randomly. This is also stated on the Process section on the project's main page. North America1000 09:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose that Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations be moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement. Since it is effectively a (very organised) discussion page for Wikipedia:Articles for improvement, I think it makes sense to put the page into the Wikipedia_talk: namespace (which is more appropriate for discussions), and give it a closer connection to Wikipedia:Articles for improvement (which is where successful nominations end up now). - Evad37 [talk] 00:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, having the discussion on a discussion page makes sense. --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 39 of 2015

"Boy on white horse" by Theodor Kittelsen

The selection for week 39 (starting 14 September 2015) is Scottish mythology. Evad37 [talk] 00:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)



Discussion (week 39)

Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.

Extra credit

Hey guys, not a weekly article for improvement nominated article, but when I am active, this is where I am most active, so I thought I'd see if anyone would like to help me work on an article that has taken my interest. I just started working on Paper chemicals. I intend to extensively improve this article in hopes of reaching good article status. I've improved the first two sections thus far and am quitting for tonight but shall be back to work on it further. If anyone wants to help, help is always appreciated. @Finnusertop: I'm talkin' to you buddy, where ya at? :p David Condrey log talk 09:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, David! I haven't participated in TAFI articles as of late, but been involved with other WikiProjects. I'll see if I can help you with the article on paper chemicals. It doesn't strike me as a topic I'd normally be passionate about (then again, who doesnt't love paper chemicals) but it looks like something I could work on. From the looks of it, the top priorities are sourcing and expansion (in that order). Reaching GA still needs a lot of work, but as with any article, it's an attainable goal. Cheers, Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 00:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 40

The selection for week 40 (starting 21 September 2015) is Personal finance. North America1000 17:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)



Discussion (week 40)

Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.

Oh, I meant views. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 10:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:TAFIFC

Why doesn't any one use WP:TAFIFC? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 05:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It has been used in the past. For example, see link. North America1000 06:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I know, but it now never ever seems to get used. The only activity is nominating further improvement. No one seems to review articles of further improvement. That is why I question the use of WP:TAFIFC at present. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 07:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems like it would be better to use the article's talk page for further collaboration. ~Kvng (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 41 of 2015

The selection for week 41 (starting 28 September 2015) is Musical composition. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 04:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)



Discussion (week 41)

Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.

Deep frying now a GA

After a massive expansion by the project, a peer review, and a final push at the GA review, deep frying can rightfully be noted as one of TAFI's successes. Esquivalience t 02:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 43 of 2015

Ice hockey is an example of a team sport. Pictured is an 1893 ice hockey match at Victoria Rink, Montreal.

The selection for week 43 (starting 12 October 2015) is Team sport. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 03:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)



Discussion (week 43)

Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.

High diving DYK nomination

Cats on the Internet

This newly created and very notable article on a fascinating psychological phenomenon is begging for some love and attention.

If any of our TAFI peeps are looking for something new to bite into, why not pay us a visit at Cats on the Internet? :)--Coin945 (talk) 02:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 42 of 2015

Costumed performers from the 2006 Bristol Renaissance Faire

The selection for week (starting ) is Costume. North America1000 22:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I added an image and caption. See the schedule page. North America1000 07:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Nomination board

I think there is something wrong with the nomination process. Hardly no one ever give input to articles nominated for TAFI. Not even users involved in the project finds time for reviewing article nominations. It just is not working. I would suggest for the future to lower the needed Support to two. If this drought continues.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects, I have changed the requirement to two supports for articles with more than 100 page views per day if there are more than ten nominations. Esquivalience t 02:07, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Deep frying DYK

And as usual, add the TAFI afterward with the appropriate link. :)--Coin945 (talk) 02:25, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 44 of 2015

The selection for week (starting ) is Horror comedy. North America1000 17:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)



Discussion (week 44)

Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.

Vital articles

There are many stubs and even more start class articles in Vital articles list, that I think would be good place to look for another TAFI article. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Better article list (stub-class and top (or high)-importance in some of the projects):
page title page len
Nordic skiing 794
Proportion (architecture) 2058
Main course 2174
Crop 2447
Katal 2649
Choreography 2841
Statutory law 3479
Tumucumaque National Park 3847
Brazilian Highlands 4391
Guiana Shield 8067
Legendary creature 9767
Mime artist 11256
Magdalena River 13760
Mbuji-Mayi 16542
Shintaro Katsu 21603
Kermanshah 27300

--Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 14:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 46 of 2015

The selection for week (starting 9 November 2015) is Marie Serneholt. --BabbaQ (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2015 (UTC)}}



Discussion (week 46)

Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.

This article was selected at random amongst the bio articles. BabbaQ (talk) 15:25, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 47 of 2015

The selection for week (starting ) is Goods and services. North America1000 00:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Note: The article has not been formally scheduled yet. Please schedule it according to the instructions here.
  • Note: You have not added a caption yet. Please do so here.

Discussion (week 47)

Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.

TAFI project page deletion nomination

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was keep. JohnCD (talk) 11:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2015/45/picture

Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2015/45/picture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This page causes the inclusion of a non-free file, File:Versace logo.png, on Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Schedule, Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Holding area/old and Wikipedia:Articles for improvement in violation of WP:NFCC#9. The sole purpose of the page appears to be to violate WP:NFCC#9 on those pages, so this page should be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Deletion of new rule

A while back it was decided that 2 Net Supports was enough for an article to be approved at TFI. If there were more than 10 noms with over 100 views at the same time as well. I think that because the rule is not implemented in deciding when an article is approved and is quite complicated to keep track of for the approving user I suggest that we remove/delete that new rule from the nomination page. And instead go for the usual 3 net supports that is needed. Atleast for now until a better suggestion comes up. I support that atleast.--BabbaQ (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Support – This can lead to a dilution, whereby too many articles are selected, resulting in the list of articles for improvement becoming swamped. I feel that three net supports is fair, particularly since the nomination page has been receiving ample traffic lately. North America1000 06:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I added it into temporarily speed up nomination closures with minimal risk, but it is no longer necessary; boldly reverting. Esquivalience t 03:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Allegra Versace??

Hey all! As I was about do mass-message everyone for this week's article for improvement, I see the link is blacked on the template (meaning no article link) and the subject isn't seem general topic. Not sure what Allegra Versace is??? Could this be a mistake? BabbaQ started the page for week 45, just pinging them just in case. ///EuroCarGT 00:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I have sent the notifications. I did not include the image, because of concerns that were expressed at this MfD discussion about use of a non-free file, and the image that was replaced on the page still had a company logo on it. North America1000 07:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 48 of 2015

The selection for week (starting ) is Coffee production in Cuba. North America1000 08:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)



Discussion (week 48)

Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.

Crufty plain text showing instead of image

The template is displaying [[|228px]] as plain text instead of an image for [[Allegra Versace]] as [[WP:TAFI]]. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 05:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 45 of 2015

The selection for week (starting 2 November 2015) is Allegra Versace. BabbaQ (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)}}



Discussion (week 45)

Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.

  • I nominate this article on random selection amongst the bio articles. It was a long time ago a bio article was selected for TAFI.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I changed the date on this section. Also added bullet point. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 22:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I was told to comment here. I personally think this article (and the articles proposed ahead nominated...) are really not all that interesting topics. I mean, two other people so far seem to agree on the talk page of the Versace article. We should start thinking about what gets nominated more because there's only so much we can add.--Sige |д･) 05:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
    A personal opinion does not reflect on a topic being interesting or not. It is your and some others personal opinions. But I have also thought that topics before has been not that interesting. And those has been much less edited or improved than this article about Allegra. But a discussion about future articles being approved for TAFI can be held, but at this particular articles discussion page it seems inappropriate. Instead start a wider discussion at the discussion page. --BabbaQ (talk) 11:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I didn't find this week's article overly interesting and consequently contributed less than I have in the past. Having said that, I'm sure there are individuals who do find it interesting, and it was obviously voted on and accepted at some point. There definitely have been improvements to the Allegra Versace article in the last few days. Some articles will receive more attention than others, and there's not a lot we can do about that. I think the only thing that can be done is to chime in at the nomination board or by posting concerns here well in advance of the designated week. It would also be possible to make a list of articles you think are not good candidates and have members vote on their removal from the queue, as other members have done in the past. I agree with BabbaQ's point about making this a wider discussion. Ry's the Guy (talk|contribs) 12:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • You're welcome to do that if you wish. A fresh pair of eyes might be good, considering some of those noms have been there since 2012. What was eye-catching to me was that there are 6 noms that since being nominated have actually become redirects.--Coin945 (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with Coin945 that articles that has become Redirects since approved should/could perhaps be removed at some point. Overall I think the articles that are approved are the kinds of articles that benefits from being part of the project like Allegras. --BabbaQ (talk) 17:15, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 49 of 2015

The First Geneva Convention (1864) is one of the earliest formulations of international law.

The selection for week (starting ) is International law. North America1000 10:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)



Discussion (week 49)

Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.

Article selection & prioritization

This thread was forked off from the comment above, "...Allegra Versace - wasn't [deemed by WMF] woprthy of promoting. So out current systems are actually hindering our exposure and potential business...--Coin945 (talk) 18:09, 11 November 2015 (UTC); refactor by me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Questionably "worthy" selections do hinder participation. I've specifically declined to participate in that one and many others because of their trivial or celebrity focus. Articles shouldn't be accepted if they're not of lasting, widespread interest/impact.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

One thing I have noticed is that those who nominate and support articles are often not those who end up editing TAFI articles. So great editors like you never get the opportunity to edit really nice TAFI articles because it's left to a gamble on what the nominators like. I'll admit I recently nommed a chunk of Broadway song articles because I felt many very famous ones has terrible articles (they were all declined except 2), but there has also been a case of a Sweden-lover getting many Sweden-based obscure topics successfully passed through TAFI. Should we encourge you to nom and support/oppose more? Or should the rules be stricter to avoid trivial/faddy articles splitting through..? I don't want to get too bureaucratic...--Coin945 (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, I would like to run a mini-experiment. @SMcCandlish:, would you be willing to take a peek at the current nom page, and make some notes on the types of noms you would be willing to work on and those you wouldn't? What is it about articles that make them worthy? Is being too specific bad? Is being to general bad? Are some topics/fields favoured? Are higher-class articles more intimidating or the opposite? Etc.--Coin945 (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
I have to get to occupational work shortly. I'm not sure that my personal review of the list would help all that much; maybe a separate subthread on such a review, so it nets everyones' input, not just my biases. My views on this would be an editorial opinion not usability experience. As a quick-and-dirty rule of thumb, a wikiproject banner parameter of |importance=High or |importance=Top might be a good indicator. Not sure that over-specificity or over-generality would necessarily be problems.

If the project went for a division between an AfI of the day, of the week, and of the month, as a user I think I'd expect the WP-wide project importance of the topic, its historical significance and (not sure we've thought much about this) how badly the article needs work, all to rise commensurate with the length of focus. This might also allow different "venues" to be more comfortable with blanket-allowing, e.g., monthly AfIs, being assure that they're serious, while eschewing or case-by-case approving daily ones, which might be more trivial, specific, or recentish notability. If the Mark Twain or Holy Roman Empire articles were in a bad state, I'd expect those to be monthlies. Katherine Hepburn or Powdery mildew might make dailies. Weekly stuff somewhere between these levels of significance. Some articles on "who really cares?" topics like Chipo Chung or Chicago (pool) should not really be eligible for [X]AfI. I'm skeptical that any article not |importance=Mid, assessed as such by a non-trivial wikiproject (the Star Wars project's assessment of how important a character or actor is to Star Wars is basically trivial; WikiProject fiction's assessment of Darth Vader, maybe not) should qualify. The "many very famous ... Broadway song articles" would probably be dailies, under such a scheme, but maybe I'm just betraying a bias. (I could see "Happy Talk" or "The Very Model of a Modern Major-General" being monthlies, because everyone older than millenials knows them. :-) Anyway, these assessments could even map directly like so: Mid=daily, High=weekly, Top=monthly.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 50 of 2015

Princess Leia with characteristic hairstyle cosplayed.

The selection for week (starting 7 December 2015) is Princess Leia. BabbaQ (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)}}



Discussion (week 50)

Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_improvement/Archive_17&oldid=1137402262"