Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement/Archive 8

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 12:54, 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 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10→Archive 15

Proposal to eliminate nomination categories

I'm not sure if these are adding anything to the nomination process. In truth, I have difficulty deciding what category to put a particular article. I think it would be simpler if we just had one big list, with fresh noms placed at the top, and old noms archived from the end. This would streamline the nomination process, and also eliminate the perceived problem of editors only supporting articles in certain categories. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:51, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

While they do seem to help make sure that the collaboration list is evenly spread across a variety of topics, there was the strange situation last week where subatomic particle, international law and galactic empire were all listed under Everyday Life. Probably because if you're nominating a string of articles, sorting becomes tricky. I didn't know what to do, so I let them be. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
My bad. Ideally you should move the articles to their correct subheading if incorrectly placed for whatever reason. In the end it doesn't *really* matter because the ten articles will be chosen so they are distinct and unique. If articles from two different topics just seem too similar, it will just be swapped out for another. So in essence you have a bunch of article chosen for TAFI that are only sorted into topics to ensure a wide variety of articles are selected. But it's not that big of a deal.. at least as far as I'm aware.--Coin945 (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Oppose I think what we need are a list of sample subtopics for each category like at WP:GAC. Then people could figure out what goes where.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Relationship between projects is unclear

Hi, it is unclear from either page what, if anything, is the connection between Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement and Wikipedia:Articles for Improvement. Also, is the latter project inactive now? There seems to be only one active nomination, and that from July. I feel this ought to be explained better as it is confusing for newcomers to have such similiarly named projects. It is natural to assume that "Today's articles for improvement" is a special selection from "Articles for Improvement". 86.128.3.30 (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It looks like that project started with the same intentions, but had little development after the fact. I would suggest it gets tagged with a historical template and direct people to this project. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing scheduled for tomorrow

There are no articles scheduled for the week beginning tomorrow! @Theopolisme: can you make the bot run? Otherwise a group should be scheduled manually. - Evad37 [talk] 00:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

 Done Theopolisme (talk) 00:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Resolved: Is this the reason the template is showing a bunch of redlinks to "Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/2013/48/..."? (Is the 48 supposed to be a week number, or did some broken script try to put in 48 for a month?) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sparse nominations at this time

Nominations are looking pretty sparse at the Nominated articles page. If the Main page slot had been retained, the nominations would have very likely kept pouring in. After all of the work to automate everything to streamline processes, in positive efforts to retain the Main page slot, the slot was dismissed prematurely and deemed a failure before its full potential had a chance to be realized. Unfortunately, the project now receives much fewer eyes, and is dwindling.

For example, check out these page view statistics from October 2013:

Then, compare the above statistics to the page views that occurred when the TAFI had a slot on the Main page in May 2013:

Not to be negative, but it seems like the real failure was the premature removal of the TAFI slot on Main page. Articles were being improved to varying degrees.

What can we do to revitalize interest in this project? I will notify the regular participants to the project about this discussion, in hopes to facilitate input regarding these matters. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I have boldly changed from an opt-in list to an opt out one. Any members who do not wish to be getting any updates may opt out using that list. To continue where the discussion on this page dropped, we still did not decide which design format should we choose for trying to get TAFI into the main page again. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I have lost interest because no one seems interested in moving forward with getting this on the main page. There was little interest in resolving what format to go with to the main page after the voting ended up tied.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Northamerica1000, I trust your judgement and opinions. I would gladly grant you sole power in decision making for this project. That way we can forgo all this time wasting voting and discussing and move towards actually getting things done.--Coin945 (talk) 15:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately that's the way consensus works. If there is disagreement, there is further discussion. Now going towards getting things done, I suggest we re-list the two options we had, and list out their advantages/disadvantages, and leave it open for voting for two weeks. Everyone who participated in the previous discussion, and all TAFI members will be informed of this discussion following which we'll try to open up an RFC to get TAFI back to the main page. Does that sound fine enough with everybody? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Consensus cannot happen if everyone demands that their personal vision be the final product. If these is a split decision, then we should arbitrarily pick one, and those on the other side of the fence should just bite their tongue for the sake of moving things forward. In the specific issue of between 3 and 6, we should select the design that would be the simplest to implement, implement it, and get on with things. Otherwise the project will evaporate.
With regards to nominations, I have another batch I can put up, but the time would be wasted if the project cannot unify behind a single proposal. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:05, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with the first statement. We cannot all force our personal ideas about TAFI into how it actually is supposed to function. My personal opinion on the choice of format (regardless of the one which I had at the time) is that the one format which creates lesser disturbance to the main page is more likely to be passed at the RfA we're supposed to have before trying to get TAFI to the main page again. By that logic, 6 appears to be the better choice. I'd be very willing to reconsider this if some other argument comes up for 3. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I have already previously created User:Evad37/Sandbox/TAFI bar4, a version of 6b that uses the live set of articles. Note that: (1) It is designed to display two articles with blurbs a day over five days, Tuesday - Saturday. (2) HTML/CSS/Template/Main Page/Accessibility experts should be asked, probably at WP:VPT, to check over it so that it doesn't get opposed on technical grounds. (3) It requires blurbs to be written for each article, at [[Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/year/week/number/blurb]]. Otherwise, redlinks will show up in the template. While possible to check if blurb pages exist, and show just the title rather than a redlink if they don't, it requires expensive parser functions. (4) " (example pictured)" or similar needs to be appended after the article link in the appropriate [[Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/year/week/number]] - Evad37 (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
#3: I have made the blurbs for all the 10 articles for the current week. For the ease of making the blurbs, I have also made an auxilliary page at Wikipedia_talk:Today's_articles_for_improvement/2013/45 so the blurbs for the coming weeks can be made in a simple fashion. If anyone finds a better location to shift it to, I'd be happy to see the work simplified for the blurb-writers, which will probably include me. 14:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC) 08:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
No we're not having these endless debates if we're to move forward. Please keep the discussion focused only on possible course of action now and in the future. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Not to be negative, but it seems like the real failure was the premature removal of the TAFI slot on Main page.
I'm sorry that you feel that way. I've done my best to assist this project.
Articles were being improved to varying degrees.
Even counting the edits by TAFI members (whose involvement wasn't dependent upon the main page section), the amount of participation was extremely low. Ordinary WikiProjects with no main page exposure frequently draw significantly more collaboration.
When you continually note that "articles were being improved", it leads me to wonder whether anything other than zero edits would constitute a failure by your definition.
I will notify the regular participants to the project about this discussion, in hopes to facilitate input regarding these matters.
I wasn't notified, perhaps because you blame "the real failure" on me.
I realize that I haven't been very active at Wikipedia lately, but when inviting numerous users' input, including the one whose actions you've called into question is a basic courtesy. —David Levy 22:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I only notified regular participants who have contributed on this current talk page and at the archived entries located at Archive 7. Of course, your input is welcome. Regarding article improvements, articles were being improved. See Articles were being improved!. I feel that some article improvement is better than no article improvement. Perhaps others had unrealistic expectations that gargantuan improvements were to occur, and any less than this was perceived as unacceptable for whatever reasons. Also, if the TAFI slot had remained in place on Main page for a greater period of time, people would have become accustomed to its presence, which is associated with a greater probability of people then selecting (clicking on) articles and possibly improving them. As it went, TAFI's presence on Main page was too brief for the slot's full potential to be realized vis-a-vis article improvements. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I only notified regular participants who have contributed on this current talk page and at the archived entries located at Archive 7.
You repeatedly condemned an action on my part, deeming it "the real failure". As noted above, informing me of this criticism (thereby providing an opportunity to address it) is a basic courtesy.
Of course, your input is welcome.
But I stumbled upon the discussion purely by chance.
Regarding article improvements, articles were being improved. See Articles were being improved!.
See my replies.
This is what I mean when I state that "you continually note that 'articles were being improved'." And I've continually responded by pointing out that the extent of said improvement was extremely minimal. Meanwhile, editor recruitment — the justification for advertising TAFI on the main page — was even rarer. Of the handful of users editing the articles, some were TAFI members (whose participation obviously didn't stem from the main page exposure).
I feel that some article improvement is better than no article improvement.
Of course. But that doesn't mean that any amount of article improvement is indicative of TAFI's success.
Perhaps others had unrealistic expectations that gargantuan improvements were to occur, and any less than this was perceived as unacceptable for whatever reasons.
Others probably expected a level of collaboration exceeding that commonly spurred by a one-off post on a moderately popular WikiProject's talk page. Unfortunately, this wasn't realized.
Also, if the TAFI slot had remained in place on Main page for a greater period of time, people would have become accustomed to its presence, which is associated with a greater probability of people then selecting (clicking on) articles and possibly improving them. As it went, TAFI's presence on Main page was too brief for the slot's full potential to be realized vis-a-vis article improvements.
After more than a month, it hadn't even begun to take off.
Established Wikipedia endeavors with strong track records seldom make it to the main page in any form (even a bare link). TAFI was afforded an unprecedented opportunity to receive its own section (on an experimental basis) while the project was still in its infancy. This remained in place until it was about to break, despite my plea that someone knowledgeable maintain it after weeks of neglect. (I realize that the subsequent automation eliminates that technical concern, but it doesn't resolve the underlying issue.)
Despite all of this, you apparently regard the main page slot as an entitlement. —David Levy 01:41, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Note:
I stumbled upon this discussion, in which Northamerica1000 condemned my action repeatedly and deemed it "the real failure" but didn't include me among the parties notified of these remarks and invited to respond.
To his/her credit, Northamerica1000 stressed that "[my] input is welcome." Unfortunately, less than an hour after I provided some, TheOriginalSoni collapsed both of my messages (and one of Northamerica1000's), leaving the initial statements untouched.
In other words, allegations that I derailed the project were lodged without my knowledge, and when I learned of these claims and attempted to defend myself and discuss related issues that I believe exist, my comments (but not the statements to which I attempted to respond) were confined to a hatted box.
TheOriginalSoni noted this decision on my talk page, stating that it was made "with a view of keeping discussion on-topic and focused solely towards future courses of action" and advising me that if "think there are valid points with respect to what can be done now that are also collapsed," I should "re-state only those points outside the collapsed box."
This discussion, which TheOriginalSoni wants to keep "focused solely towards future courses of action", began with extensive analysis of the past and the repeated assertion that I caused the project's failure. I'm being told that while that message is to remain on display, I'm not permitted to address those comments or defend myself (and my existing replies are to be hidden from view).
In addition to disputing claims made about me, my input is intended to address substantial problems that I believe exist within TAFI.
One such problem is the continued emphasis on getting the main page section restored instead of working to promote TAFI from within and build a stronger infrastructure before advertising it on the main page.
Another problem, which TheOriginalSoni just underscored, is the apparent attitude that anyone not on board with this plan is an adversary whose input is disruptive to the goal of "[moving] forward" and must be suppressed.
I'm still a member of this project. Despite being blamed for its failure, I remain committed to working toward its success. But if anything other than unconditional support for the single-pronged strategy of getting TAFI back onto the main page is considered combative, I might be wasting my time. —David Levy 09:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
My opinion was not intended to be negative toward you, David. It's just my overall opinion. Others were also ambivalent regarding TAFI's main page run. I'm interested in the prospect of moving forward regarding TAFI's future. I apologize in advance if you were offended in any manner, as this was not my intention. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
While I disagree with your interpretation of the events (and therefore seek to convey mine), I'm not offended by it. You're entitled to your opinions, including those critical of my actions. I have no doubt that your intention is to preserve and enhance TAFI. —David Levy 13:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree with TheOriginalSoni and disagree with NickPenguin. We need to hold a serious discussion about 1.) The various main page possibilities (one day a week, multiple days a week, all week); 2.) Will we be pursuing one of these possibilities or giving discussants a chance to determine for us which is approved; 3.) the advantages and disadvantages of the two alternatives in each of the possible uses.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
  • The good news is that we are all interested in working to improve the project. I've seen other projects tank due to inactivity, sometimes rather abruptly. I look forward to the prospect of us all working together to solidify and advance this WikiProject. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
An immediate idea is to consider using the moniker "This week's articles for improvement", seeing how approved nominations are posted on a weekly basis. The title "Today's articles for improvement" is somewhat inaccurate, and some may interpret this as the list changing daily. On a Main page slot, this would be vital to represent the project as accurately as possible. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Maybe should we consider what moving forward actually means. Is the only thing we are working towards is drawing up a proposal for the Main Page? We should seriously consider what it means if the proposal is not successful. In that case, is there still a project? Can this project exist successfully without being on the main page? If so, that is the part of the project we need to focus on developing. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
In the absence of any immediate response, I would propose that we have one original idea to improve articles, other than just getting on the main page and hoping that magically fixes everything. Pinging everybody. @Northamerica1000: @Coin945: @TonyTheTiger: @TheOriginalSoni: @Evad37: @David Levy: --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:58, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
A TAFI member has expressed discomfort regarding my involvement here. I'm reluctant to resume participation until resolving the matter (or at least exploring all avenues). —David Levy 04:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
My thoughts: Maybe we should focus more on one type of improvement, such as expanding stubs and starts, and have brief notes on what needs to be done, such as noting what content you would expect to be in the article, but isn't. This is because, typically, C and B class articles are (should be?) getting towards the stage where subject experts, or those willing to do a lot a research, are really needed to add meaningful content, and the WP:GOCE already exists for articles in need of copyediting. So leave the more advanced articles for wikiprojects, GOCE, or peer review, and focus on short articles needing expansion - and perhaps trying to add {{expand section}}, {{empty section}}, {{globalise}}, or similar templates to all scheduled articles. - Evad37 [talk] 05:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Nick, you pinged me and I am here. I am getting a bit tired of the wayward leadership at this page. IIRC, you have asked us to compromise between the two main page proposals, pick one of the two proposals, and now have an original idea to improve the project without respect to a main page proposal. I am just not sure where this project is headed or how to help.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:55, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger: I understand your perspective. What I am trying to get at is: if we are deadlocked on the main page proposal, is there anything else that we have to work on? Maybe a temporary change of focus would spur some development.
On the note about leadership, we have several strong, regular contributors, with differing opinions on certain things. The diversity has led to some slow downs when it comes to decision making. I'm not sure what the solution here would be, either for someone to seize primary creative control and everyone to fall in line, for some participants to drop out, or for us to suddenly agree on things. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • FYI I have hardly touched Wikipedia in three months, and have no plans to significantly increase my activity until the new year. I do however really hope that you guys can somehow get this to work. And I'm sorry if this is painful, but David is right. Talk of a Main Page proposal at this stage would be crazy. TAFI got a unique opportunity to develop in the full glare of the Main Page spotlight, because the concept goes to the very core of what Wikipedia should be about. It lost its slot because it failed to deliver the anticipated activity. Activity wise we're not quite back to square one, but we're close. What's beyond doubt is that TAFI needs to regain momentum if it is going to stand a chance of getting back to where it ultimately belongs, on the front page.

    My writing in the following paragraph reads as though I am making a series of assertions about things that must be done – so let me acknowledge at this point that they are just suggestions, albeit ones that I strongly believe should be taken on board.

    There are probably a core of half a dozen active editors still here (I'm no longer a regular editor anywhere in Wikipedia, although I'll be back some day). But despite that low count, you're still picking ten articles a week. Far too many. A few of you need to gang together, find a crap article that three or four of you personally want to edit, and do a week long collab just on that one. And then another. And another. After a string of 3-4 good efforts, advertise the fact that TAFI has been revamped and is turning a corner, perhaps on Signpost, to start reeling editors back in. What you definitely do not want to do is advertise that TAFI is revamping before you have got evidence that it is moving again. A lot of Wikipedians love being shown something which is working on a small scale, and then playing their part in making it bigger and better. Most of the very same people do not like getting involved in kick-starting something from scratch. One other thing I would say is that you shouldn't worry about systemic bias at this stage, what's far more important is that you pick rubbish articles that you have an interest in editing on that particular week. If you pick the right articles and see the collaborations through, the number of people who take part will steadily increase, and diversity will eventually return. As an example, the Wikicup started off as a football edit-fest, and after just a couple of editions the final regularly included image workers, military historians and microbiologists. —WFC— FL wishlist 20:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm disappointed to see how this is turning out, but maybe if the idea proposed above is acted upon (namely, narrowing the scope to one article a week), just maybe there is still hope. Let's give it a try. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) – Rest in Peace, Jackson Peebles 18:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
    • One additional point I'd make is that the only difference between this proposal and the original TAFI model (which earned us the Main Page trial in the first palce) is the cautionary warning that we pick articles which we are confident in our ability to improve. Next time we go for a Main Page run, the obvious question from the wider community will be "have we learned from the first trial?". Getting better at identifying those sorts of articles is in my opinion central to answering "yes". —WFC— FL wishlist 21:34, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no time like the present, plus anything is generally better than a bunch of redlinks, so I have boldy updated the Template:TAFI/Collaborations of the day and related templates to a 1 article per week format, and chosen Raisin bread from the holding area for this week. - Evad37 [talk] 02:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Following the improvement of Raisin bread from a stub to a well-referenced C-class article, I have scheduled Talking bird for the upcoming week (starting tomorrow). - Evad37 [talk] 02:03, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement

Hello, Today's articles for improvement:

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

Posted by: Northamerica1000(talk) 18:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to revisit past nominations

Since we have now moved to a one article per week format (which actually I think is working better so far) I propose that, for the time being, we make our future selections from our past selections. Looking at our past schedules, we have a large pool of articles that we have already recognised needing to be improved.

Therefore, while I think that while we should still nominate new articles, I think we should also focus on articles that have already gone through the process and revisit them. Going forward, I think we should start a new process where we nominate and select one article from each of our past 10 article per week group, and use that as our new weekly schedule. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Extend nomination auto-archiving time

Due to a significantly lessened number of nominations on the nominations page, we may need to request adjustment of the archiving that is performed by User:Theo's Little Bot, which is administered by User:Theopolisme. Since the page is receiving lessened activity, entries may be archived away before people have a chance to consider them. What do people think about perhaps a one month archive time? I think auto archiving is presently at around two weeks. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Please ping me again once a decision has been reached -- alternatively, if there are no comments in the next few days, let me know and I'll change it to 30 days anyway. Theopolisme (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I would support such an extension. Should we also adjust the requirements to make it a bit easier for articles to get through? – such as approving rather than archiving nominations with no oppose votes, and at least one support vote (or maybe just those with two supports?). - Evad37 [talk] 01:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 Done changed to 30 days. Also disabled the scheduler task, since (from what I can see) it's not needed anymore. Theopolisme (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Selecting an article from Week 18

This is the list of articles scheduled in week 18 of 2013, the first week where we had 10 articles selected:

I think maybe what we should do is list our top 3, in order, and then pick the one that gathers the most all around support. Mine in order would be Recorded history, Micronesia and Church (building). --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Pinging TAFI members active on last 2 collaborations @Buster7: @Northamerica1000: @Evad37: @CaroleHenson: @Kvng: @Whiteghost.ink: @ChrisGualtieri: @Ypnypn: Moswento talky 09:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Micronesia has the most supports, so I have scheduled it for the week beginning tomorrow. The previously scheduled article Personal finance has been moved back to the holding area. - Evad37 [talk] 15:48, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That is the case. I assigned a points value, where the first choice is 3, second 2 and third is 1 point. The top 3 are: Micronesia at 12 points, recorded history with 10 and hammer with 8. Micronesia and Recorded history both had 5 people list them, while hammer only had 3. With that in mind, I think we should also consider using Recorded History for the week after Micronesia. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:33, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Do we have any nomination criteria?

WFC brought up a very good point, about how selecting the right articles is critical to the projects success. Thus I think we should talk about our nomination criteria, to help us guide our selections.

What kinds of articles encourage collaboration? In my mind, I find they are the ones that have little to no content to begin with. When I look at the past successes, they have largely been almost completely blank canvases. Do you think we should discourage nominating articles of a certain length or class? Or that we should eliminate 'needs sourcing' as a primary nomination criteria? Should page hits and popularity be a stronger motivator in the process? What other things should we consider when we select articles? --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion we should focus on very short articles ( or ) on a topic most people know about (Dessert, Classroom, Party). I'm less sure about page-hits, which tend to give very specific articles (see WP:TOP25). "Needs sourcing" is useful only when it reveals a broader problem (often OR and Trivia). -- Ypnypn (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I think there should be two main things - as well as the stub/start rule: Articles should be relatively easily accessible (e.g. it should be easy to come up with a number of good sources after typing in some obvious keywords into Google/GoogleNews etc.), and easily read (which means no articles whose sources will predominently be in a different language?)--Coin945 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Micronesia scares me a little bit because I wouldnt even know how to start looking for sources for such a thing. The similar title to the Federated Stated of Micronesia, as well as other reasons make it rather hard to find sources in the first place.--Coin945 (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm in the same boat Coin. Micronesia's selection has surprised me, but to put the same thing another way it has certainly opened my eyes. Despite my fears that it might bomb, it does meet my definition of a successful collab: multiple people making major additions, with numerous others chipping in as they see fit. Definitely food for thought.

Agree with Ypnypn's thoughts too (although as you would probably expect, I would add underdeveloped lists too). —WFC— FL wishlist 00:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The kinds of articles that scare me are like Sea, which somehow turned out extremely well. In my mind, the question I ask is, 'how does this differ from ocean?' I was actually really looking forward to improving Micronesia, however, my improvements have come as a result of almost zero new content; I basically copied how Africa was setup, and then copied and pasted content from the subject articles into each section. Is it improved? Yes. Have I created something new? Not really, although I did expand Micronesian mythology in the process, using the same method. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

What are our strengths and weaknesses as editors?

Since we are forming a more cohesive editor group, I thought it might be interesting to share what we feel are our strengths as editors. That way we know what kind of talents we have, and maybe identify the areas we need to work harder on. Perhaps provide an example or two.

I find I work best by manipulating existing content. For example, when Renewable resource was a TAFI selection in January 2013, I helped turn this into this largely using content from other articles. I also really like rewriting and reorganizing content, as well as making new sections. I find I am very bad at finding sources. I know it's a critical area of the wiki, but for me it is the most painful part of the process. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

While I do have some good articles and featured lists to my name, my real strength is in getting lists off of the ground. I have a good eye for how to structure a list, and on just about any topic am happy to put some work into formatting a few example entries. My corresponding weakness is that unless the topic happens to relate to Watford Football Club, I tend to lack the interest and/or time and/or knowledge to see the thing through to the end. Those qualities and traits are best demonstrated in List of food preparation utensils – I took it from this to this before its TAFI, but haven't made any serious effort to bring it closer to where it ultimately belongs in the year or so since. —WFC— FL wishlist 08:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Watford, you say? That's the one Elton John owned, no? My British cousins are members and they gave us free tickets when we went to visit them a couple of years ago (I'm Australian) :D. Ive been doing a big of searching on the Wikipedia:Requested lists page and various Wikipedia:Requested articles pages to find examples of lists that you may be interested to work on for TAFI. Tell me what you think of these TAFI suggestions (which either need to be created or significantly improved): List of longest serving mayors, List of commercial failures, List of warning signs and symbols, List of Neandertal fossils, List of misconceptions about Wikipedia (I did research for this once. Theres actually a wealth of info out there), List of works by Roy Lichtenstein, List of prisons by population, List of educational video games, List of conductors (as in classical music), List of celestial objects according to size, List of taboos, List of de facto world leaders, List of Parliaments of Scotland (pre-1707, re: List of Parliaments of England and List of Parliaments of Ireland), List of gymnastics teams, List of highest-grossing books, List of spoof films, List of shortest films, List of webisodes.--Coin945 (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
List of de facto world leaders stands out as something which on the one hand could be an interesting TAFI, and on the other could become an FL one day. I would be reluctant to put Misconceptions of Wikipedia forward as a TAFI due to questions of how to maintain NPOV (although it definitely merits a list). List of warning signs and symbols seems very interesting and could potentially be the pick of the bunch for TAFI purposes, although I'm not sure exactly what the intended scope would be, which would make it difficult to set it up. Neanderthal fossils and spoof films are ones which I have at least some interest in. Some of the rest seem a little bit broad in scope to be a viable list (where would you draw the line between a webisode worthy of adding to the list, vs one which doesn't warrant coverage?), others seem a little bit too specific to make good TAFIs (List of works by Roy Lichtenstein being one example), and List of commercial failures, while a good list idea that someone might follow up someday, is the sort of list which I can see getting TAFI into trouble.

List of highest-grossing books has (IMHO) the most potential, although that's the sort of list which would require large amounts of TLC even after it was more or less completed. List of highest-grossing films is one of the finest lists on Wikipedia, I rank it extremely highly even among other featured lists, but it is only of value because of the constant work to keep it up-to-date. If it had been largely abandoned after becoming featured it would be a useless relic by now. Is there is a core of editors prepared to put in similar amounts of time for a book equivalent? For books, List of best-selling books this is probably a better measure than the bottom line.

The ones I've expressed an interest in I'd be happy to work on, although my RL work has a seasonal element to it, so realistically we're looking at mid-January before I have much time to spare. —WFC— FL wishlist 03:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

So for me, the dream scenario is an undeveloped repository of links on a topic which clearly merits a list. I can set those up to be brilliant TAFIs before they hit the project. During a collab itself I tend to slot into whatever role I feel capable of doing that fits the situation. For instance, in the Glossary of association football terms collaboration (which by the way remains the fastest moving collab I've ever seen), I switched my focus to sourcing. I did write some entries, but didn't want to add unsourced ones, and felt that mass-sourcing worthwhile entries others had already written was more productive than doing all the work on five to ten entries, only to find that someone else had beaten me to adding half of them. —WFC— FL wishlist 08:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I think my main strength lies in finding sources. In fact, I actually prefer researching articles to writing them. This explains why I've started hundreds of articles but not got any of them past B-class, and why I have so many abandoned userspace drafts. I also have access to a number of subscription sources, including alumni access of JSTOR and multiple reference sources via membership of 3 public library services. More generally, I love working in a range of topic areas, hence me joining this project in the first place. Moswento talky 08:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

NickPenguin, I'm actually quite the opposite. I find I'm quite good at scouting the internet for useable sources.. but theneextracting just the right information from them to create a good article is where I stumble a bit. I'm an inclusionist at heart, so losing any sort of information is heartbreaking. It results in things like Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) and Good Game.. the former of which is currently being overhauled by an amazing editor and will soon be on the road to FA. But yes, I could do that. Or help to work out what the various sections of an article should be (something which is no doubt aided by the types of information that recur throughout my research). See User talk:Shoebox2/sandbox for the sort of thing I've been doing to help the HH article from a behind the scenes perspective.--Coin945 (talk) 08:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I would also say that you are extremely good at turning over all the right rocks, looking for neglected articles. You have had more successful nominations that probably everyone else combined. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I'm kind of an all-rounder, which is what you need to be to get articles other people aren't interested in to GA and beyond. So I may do some copyediting or minor editing for MOS compliance, or look for refs for unsourced statements, or for sources in general. Sometimes it feels like too much effort to extract information from sources, summarise, and then write it up in a way that isn't WP:close paraphrasing, so I might just leave a message with links to online sources on the talk page, like I did at Talk:Micronesia, in the hopes that someone else will make the effort. I put more effort into articles within my subject interests, but I hope that my contributions to TAFI collaborations will be building blocks for others. - Evad37 [talk] 09:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for how to make the weekly selections

  • All the old articles since week 16 (when the 10-per-week format came in) get put back into the holding area.
  • Each week, all the top 10 articles a different section of the holding area are voted on here, using the 3-2-1 system from last week.
  • The winning article becomes the next week's TAFI, the remaining 9 articles are moved to the bottom of the relevant section of the holding area.

Ideally this would be done a week or more in advance, and may have to be adjusted if a section only has a few articles, but at least the various types of articles would be cycled through, and newer nominations would also have a chance of being selected. - Evad37 [talk] 08:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Pinging @Buster7, Northamerica1000, NickPenguin, and CaroleHenson:, @Kvng, Whiteghost.ink, ChrisGualtieri, and Ypnypn:, @Moswento, Kvng, and Coin945: - Evad37 [talk] 08:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Please could you ping me on future discussions. If there is anything which can bring me back to my former level of editing, it will be a combination of prolonged periods of time to dedicate to editing, and a strong and successful TAFI. —WFC— FL wishlist 02:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
List of TAFIs, weeks 16–47
  • I think this is a great idea. Let's face it. Hardly any of those articles were substancially edited during their runs. They're all great choices and have already been approved by the TAFI community. IMO all the articles that are now probably too developed for TAFI can just be removed based on the judgement of a user. This can work very well with the new nominations that are coming in. Might also like to renominate many of the unsuccessful nominations, which are for lack of a better way of putting it, perfect choices that just didnt get the required 3 votes because of reasons (inactivity of the page mostly).--Coin945 (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to support Evad's proposal, to get a variety of articles and to give newer nominations a chance. Moswento talky 14:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I would support this proposal as well. My only consideration would be when there is a tie, or two articles that received significant support, that we might allow more than one 'winner' per week. Misread original proposal. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Well my 10 picks (10 cos there are so many to choose from...and 1 for good luck) are: Catchiness, Award ceremony, Visual editor, world map, illusion, Injury, History of the constellations, Critic, Construction worker, Objection (law), Space Age--Coin945 (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
... I wasn't actually proposing a single vote on 300 articles. The list above is just all the TAFIs from the 10-per-week format, for whatever we decide to do with them. - Evad37 [talk] 03:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
  • I would like to propose an amendment to @Evad37:'s proposal, and maybe @Theopolisme: could chime in on the viability of this idea. I propose that all articles go into the holding area on one big list. Then each Monday when the new cycle starts, Theo's bot randomly selects 10 articles from the holding area for voting. At the end of the week the article with the most points goes into the schedule, and any article that received at least one vote is returned to the holding area. However, any article that receive no vote is removed from the holding area completely. They can be readded to the nominations page immediately with no prejudice, if an editor chooses.
This would randomize the life cycle of an article in the holding area (new and old noms get voted on). It would also randomize the article types that are being represented for voting. Personally I would rather pick items based on popularity among the membership, rather than equity among the subcategories.--NickPenguin(contribs) 22:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea. A single list is probably easier to manage, and having multiple subcategories isn't as important since we are just doing 1 article per week. The only thing I would add is that the removed articles get put in their own archive. - Evad37 [talk] 03:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I've done up a single-list holding area at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Holding area/new. If there isn't any further discussion or suggestions, then I propose we start using the new holding area and voting process from this Monday – and have Recorded history for the coming week starting Dec 16, which had the second highest level of support from the last vote (per NickPenguin's comment a couple of sections above). We'll also need to keep @Theopolisme: informed so he can alter or disable the relevant bot functions. - Evad37 [talk] 15:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
For the time being, we can just use a random number generator to get a 10 article list. That way we can see how the process will work, before we ask Theo to invest too much time coding. I also think we should generate the lists and vote two weeks out, so that we always have a buffer of at least one article in the schedule when the next one goes live. This would allow us to select pictures, generate blurbs, and discuss the results of a vote if necessary. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:04, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Dont forget to get rid of all the heavily improved ones, like Video Killed the Radio Star,--Coin945 (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

General TAFI issues

(Divided into subsection 03:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC) - Evad37 [talk])

  • *puts on cynic hat* Who's going to be doing the voting? What if this fizzles out like other TAFI attempts? Has the project become too meta? Is it time to examine other avenues? Is it time to ask pointed questions? For example, are open-ended "improve this page" projects actually effective? TAFI seems to point to "no". What about Special:GettingStarted? What about interest-based suggestions, using the category tree (completely random ssuggestion just for the purpose of having a suggestion)? Rather than beating a dying horse, maybe it's time to look for new solutions. *takes off cynic hat* Theopolisme (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
These are good points; thanks for offering the opportunity for introspection. My thoughts are that these kind of projects can work at improving articles; the question is how. We should probably continue to try out different systems until we find one that really works. Hence, it might not be worth formalizing the process too much yet. For the project's official primary goal of attracting new users, interest-based suggestions would probably work better, when possible. On the other hand, having tried out GettingStarted, I find it hard to believe it's helped any new users contribute. My 2¢, Ypnypn (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I looked at the edits made using the GettingStarted, and it looks like there's about 450-500 a day. And I checked, not all of them are vandalism, but very few of them are substantial changes. GettingStarted seems to be only that; a way to get started. I think our goals are a little more advanced, we are looking for bigger improvements.
With that in mind, I see a conflict between our two 'primary goals': attracting editors and improving articles. The original idea is that the first bit would cause the second bit to happen, but that is false. The time has come to accept that attracting editors it is beyond this project's scope. There's actually a whole group of people at the Foundation working on that problem and they haven't figured it out yet. For this project to continue, we need to focus solely on improving articles, and make it so that we encourage ourselves to do the improving. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I sort of agree with you Nick, but I'd put it a lot more positively. The most successful implementations of ideals are the ones which have a single purpose; the more criteria you set for success, the less likely you are to succeed in all aspects. For me, the primary purpose of TAFI always has been and always will be collaborative article improvement, with any other positive effects welcome by-products.

But the single biggest factor in TAFI's success or failure in improving articles is the initial selection of those articles. If we go for articles which are too well developed, even hardened Wikipedians will only make significant contributions if they are pretty interested in the subject, and at that stage it is increasingly likely to be less of a collab and more of a solo effort. When on the other hand we steer away from B- or C-class articles missing esoteric inline citations and obscure but significant factlets, and lean towards articles where whole swathes have yet to be written/lists which are noticeably incomplete, the rate of improvement is easier to measure and more appreciable to the reader. Coincidentally, the latter type of article is the one which a new user is more likely to get involved in, so for that reason I do not think our two stated goals are in conflict.

I think a better way of putting any change in emphasis is that we should focus on the one thing which we have complete control over: choosing the articles which we are in the best position to improve, and insist on outsiders judging us on how well we achieve that. If we do that well enough, a trickle of new editors will be drawn in even in TAFI's current form. And if – unlike last time – we continue to excel in picking easy-to-improve articles when actually on the Main Page, then it will indeed be the vehicle we need to achieve the second of our primary goals. —WFC— FL wishlist 02:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I appreciate your candid response. I too have doubted the direction of this project a few times, but I actually feel reinvigorated now that we have switched to one article a week. The improvements to Talking bird (before) and Micronesia (before) show that a one article process works. We have had more participants on these articles, and more measurable improvements than basically all of the other articles on a given weekly period.
It seems like the initial idea behind TAFI was to make a microcosm of Wikipedia as a whole: we have lots of people improving lots of articles, so lets take those people and ask them to improve these articles. The problem is that apparently editors are like cats, and it that doesn't work. Now we are trying the smaller scale, which I think is more likely to be successful: we take a small number of people and ask them to pick one article to improve together. People make the most meaningful contributions to articles that they have an investment in, especially when they feel they are part of a group.
That said, I'm not afraid to be wrong. @Theopolisme: I realize that you've been doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to the coding, and I don't want to waste any more of your time if this is a bad idea. I would like to explore other ways to improve articles with you, I will look around to see if there's any data on how other methods work. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Re all of the above: I think TAFI has been working relatively well since the change to 1 article per week. The core group of editors were being spread too thinly befor, there wasn't a great influx of editors when TAFI was on the main page, and certainly not since it was taken off. The stats from the past few week are on the /Accomplishments page, and show the story of editors working together and actually improving articles - not to FAs or GAs or anything like that, but still good improvements. While this is working, I don't think we need to change TAFI too much, it would just be nice to a proper process to choose the articles, rather than one person making a unilateral decision to ensure that something is there, or haphazard ways of choosing that change each week. One thing I do agree with is that we should really be focusing mainly on improving articles, and not so much on attracting editor. At the moment, just being on the Community portal is probably enough. We can try more things later (having another go at social media messages, trying to get a main page spot, etc), as long as they don't detract from the main aim of improving articles. - Evad37 [talk] 03:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

For me the quality of the decision made trumps the method used to get there (although I entirely understand that some people will hold the opposite view on principle). I don't want to go as far as to say that unilateral decisions are a good thing, but at the moment the most crucial thing is that we are getting great collabs week after week. The second priority is to understand what that person/those people are doing right – once we're certain that we understand exactly why these selections are so consistently good, then we can look at developing a set of guidelines which ensures that the same thought process is involved, but that the precise articles chosen better reflect what our editors think we should be doing more of. If the current setup was producing week after week of damp squibs, then I'd be a bit more hasty about things. —WFC— FL wishlist 03:23, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I just don't see how the semi-random selections of a bot, or of one person scheduling an article at the last minute, could possibly be a better selection than the consensus of TAFI regulars on which article they want to edit. The method itself isn't important (and can be refined over time based on the results), it just seems like a better way to get to the desired outcome. (And all the articles should be a good or okay choice, having passed through the nomination process with multiple supports) - Evad37 [talk] 05:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement

Oracle bone of the Shang Dynasty, ancient China – an example of recorded history
Hello, Today's articles for improvement:

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

Posted by: Northamerica1000(talk) 12:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Choose next weeks TAFI articles

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

I randomly generated 10 numbers between 1 and 331 (the number of articles in the new holding area): 140, 42, 53, 96, 40, 164, 226, 265, 99, 312. From this version of the holding area, that corresponds to:

Please specify your top three preferences, in order, by 23:59 UTC Saturday – the most popular article (using the 3 points–2 points–1 point system from last week) will be next week's collaboration, and second most popular will be scheduled for the week after. Articles that receive at least 1 vote will be returned to the holding area, while articles with no votes will be archived. - Evad37 [talk] 04:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the generating. My picks are Meal, Staple food and Aerosol spray. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Pinging @Buster7, Northamerica1000, NickPenguin, and CaroleHenson:, @Kvng, Whiteghost.ink, ChrisGualtieri, and Ypnypn:, @Moswento, Kvng, Coin945, and Hmlarson: @WaitingForConnection, Evad37, Sumanah, and Buffbills7701:
For me: 3 pts: Jogging; 2 pts: Meal; 1 pt: List of magic tricks Moswento talky 09:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
My picks are Meal, Western Europe, Staple food - Evad37 [talk] 09:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Jogging, Meal, and Spanish transition to democracy. buffbills7701 21:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
List of magic tricks 3 points, meal 2 points. Western Europe one point. —WFC— FL wishlist 07:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
My picks: 1) Meal, 2) Staple food, 3) Western Europe. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Coin945's picks: 3 - Western Europe, 2 - Infinity, 1 - Meal.--Coin945 (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Meal, Western Europe, and Staple food, in that order. -- Ypnypn (talk) 14:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The results are:

Article Points Notes
List of magic tricks 4 Will be returned to holding area
Jogging 6
Infinity 2
Aerosol spray 1
Hackerspace 0 Will be archived
Hammer and sickle 0
Western Europe 9 2nd – will be scheduled for the next week
Staple food 6 Will be returned to holding area
Meal 19 1st – will be scheduled for the upcoming week
Spanish transition to democracy 1 Will be returned to holding area

Requested Move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. There's no real reason not to let the project decide on this, so consensus here should be fine if there's interest in renaming in the future. --BDD (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement → Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement – Now that we only have a single article per week, it should be renamed to reflect that. Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC) buffbills7701 02:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this can be done boldly without a formal discussion. -- Ypnypn (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
@Ypnypn: I would, but it would need someone to move all of the sub-pages, so I'll allow the community to decide before I start moving. buffbills7701 02:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Do we really have to rename all the project pages and subpages each time we change the number of articles? If you want to change the title/banner that's fine, but I don't think all the project pages need to be moved. Perhaps we could just leave the plural as referring to there being multiple articles for improvement over the year, even if it just one per week at the moment - Evad37 [talk] 02:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Or we could just call it WP:The TAFI Collaboration. Ypnypn (talk) 03:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if we need to rename everything right now. Maybe we can wait and see how the new format pans out first. --NickPenguin(contribs) 13:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moving Charlie Brown and Book Series up the schedule

I think these articles are very good picks to get users involved in the editing process for TAFI. The currently scheduled ones just don't seem to have the same appeal. I propose that they jump the cue and become the TAFI article in the next two weeks - after Micronesia.--Coin945 (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Then again, if we're choosing to go past into the past to pick previously supported articles, I actually prefer to cast my votes elsewhere..--Coin945 (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree that some of the 'approved' articles maybe lack wide appeal. I honestly don't know how to improve Wrecking ball and I suspect it's nomination was influenced by the popular song of the same name. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I thought it needed references so I hunted some down and added them when I saw it was on the TAFI list. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

An idea: TAFI's GA Challenge

An idea I've been kicking around my head for a little while is the possibility of working on a better quality article, in addition to the regular weekly selection, but over a longer timespan - say 1 month. The goal would be to improve it enough to nominate it WP:GAN - and hopefully pass after it is reviewed. I imagine that the selection process would be largely informal - perhaps recent regular TAFI articles, but not necessarily so. I'm not proposing to implement anything at the moment, just wanted to share the idea and get feedback (in an WP:Idea lab-type style). - Evad37 [talk] 09:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I would be interested in participating on collaborations of this nature, but not doing the nominating. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:39, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk page notifications

So I like receiving the TAFI talk page notifications, but is there a way to deliver them so that each one is unique, and I do not have multiple sections on my talk page displaying the same content? (See the bottom of my talk page for an example.) --Another Believer (Talk) 04:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Also, I like that the notifications contain images, but is there a way the notification can be amended so that it does not leave a large section of white space? This would be like removing the "clear" template from an article... --Another Believer (Talk) 04:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
While previous notifications will keep updating each week, from this week on the message will be static, as I made some changes to the notification template. So just archive or delete the old section(s), and then everything should be alright. IIRC the clear was put in their per requests that the image not overlap multiple sections. - Evad37 [talk] 04:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Tall images will always be more of a problem than normal or wide images. I tried reducing the image size a bit, but that pushed the caption onto three lines, so there's not a lot of improvement - Evad37 [talk] 04:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I had similar thoughts about the white space in the project blurb box (on the community portal), as well as the talk page message. I was thinking that perhaps we could include some links for the before and after of the previous week(s) to fill space. Other content ideas would be welcomed. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
When I sent notifications, I substituted them using a subst: prefix on the {{TAFI weekly selections notice}}, but it hasn't been posting verbatim as a permanent post as intended. I'm going to repost it as a substitution above on this page and on my talk page, and hopefully the changes made to the template by User:Evad37 will work out! Northamerica1000(talk) 11:57, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem was that substitution of a template doesn't substitute transclusions within that template - Evad37 [talk] 05:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed this. Perhaps a better layout can be incorporated to remedy this situation, unless it has already been addressed. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The problem has been fixed (it will now substitute properly), but the layout could probably be improved. - Evad37 [talk] 14:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
(Re Nick) How about some links asking people to get involved - something like

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...

  • Nominate an article
  • Review nominations
  • Have your say in future selections
(but with links to the appropriate pages / sections) - Evad37 [talk] 05:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I've adjusted the template, how does this look? - Evad37 [talk] 04:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Note: Heading intentionally removed - Evad37 [talk] 04:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Oracle bone of the Shang Dynasty, ancient China – an example of recorded history
Hello, Today's articles for improvement.

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

Recorded history

Previous selections: Micronesia • Talking bird

Get involved with the TAFI project! You can...
Posted by: Evad37 [talk] 04:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
👍 Like Northamerica1000(talk) 12:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Choose the TAFI article for Week 2 of 2014

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Hello @Buster7, Northamerica1000, NickPenguin, and CaroleHenson:, @Kvng, Whiteghost.ink, ChrisGualtieri, and Ypnypn:, @Moswento, Kvng, Coin945, and Hmlarson:, @WaitingForConnection, Evad37, Sumanah, and Buffbills7701:, and others:

The following articles have been randomly chosen from the holding area:

Please indicate, before 23:59 UTC Saturday, your top three preferences in order: your top pick first, then your second choice, and then your third. These will be allocated 3, 2, and 1 points respectively, and the most popular article (with the most points) will be added to the scheduled for week 2 of 2014. Articles that receive at least one vote will be returned to the holding area, while articles with no votes will be archived. On behalf of the TAFI project, - Evad37 [talk] 05:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


The results are:

Tickle Me Elmo 3 Will be returned to holding area
Antônio Carlos Jobim 0 Will be archived
Religious music 9 Will be returned to holding area
Organ (anatomy) 2
Library of Alexandria 1
Critic 9
Restaurant 0 Will be archived
Symphony 6 Will be returned to holding area
Golden Jubilee Diamond 6
Chocolate ice cream 18 Will be scheduled

WikiProject collaboration?

I am curious if members of this group notify WikiProjects when an article related to their area of interest is to be featured as an upcoming TAFI. It might be nice to notify them in case they wish to participate. For example, it might be nice to work on an underdeveloped historic building or landmark, then invite members of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places to contribute. Just curious! --Another Believer (Talk) 04:48, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

IIRC, a bot does notify projects which have a banner on the selected article's talk page... - Evad37 [talk] 05:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
eg, it posted this [1] on WikiProject Food and drink's talk page for this week's article Meal. The template it's using is quite out of date though (how long has it been since TAFI was taken off the main page?) - Evad37 [talk] 05:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I have change the message to say Community portal instead of Main Page - Evad37 [talk]
Excellent plan. I think we should put the Main page concept on the back burner until we can develop the project and it's membership. We need to emphasise past successes, and lots of them. --NickPenguin(contribs) 07:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. If I could make one small suggestion for experimentation. I understand and appreciate that one of the goals of this project is to improve more general, universal articles that are underdeveloped. I might recommend experimenting with some articles that are actually more specific, but perhaps within the scope of an active editing community. Things that come to mind are fungi, military history, WP NRHP, etc. Maybe not often, and maybe not within the buy-in from a particular WikiProject, but perhaps gauging interest on project talk pages might result in a few collaborations that are less universal than "meal". Again, just my two cents. --Another Believer (Talk) 15:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Low participation for Recorded history

As can be seen from the Accomplishments page, Recorded history had a noticeably lower participation rate than the other recent TAFIs. It was still improved from a start to a C, but I'm curious: If you didn't edit the article, why not? Was it something to do with the article itself, or just the time of year, or something else? - Evad37 [talk] 09:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Since no one has mentioned anything yet, I really had a lot of fun with that one. I am having trouble with Meal, however, I'm not sure how my skills will find their use. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:23, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
I was impressed with how members of this project chipped in to improve the Recorded history article. Hopefully members here and anyone interested in topics chosen here will continue to improve Wikipedia content. Northamerica1000(talk) 09:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_improvement/Archive_8&oldid=1137402294"