Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement/Archive 7

< Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement
Latest comment: 11 years ago by NickPenguin in topic scheduling
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Newsletter

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This project would significantly benefit from a brief newsletter with project updates, published bi-weekly, monthly or as necessary. There's a great deal of recent new activity on this project (e.g. revitalized Main page discussion), but people may not be aware of this. Basically, the newsletter could be present on the project's pages, and members would receive a short talk page notice notifying them (along with a clear opt-out option) about current events published on the newsletter. The messages could be sent automatically to members via a bot. Any ideas? Northamerica1000(talk) 15:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Pictures and articles out of synch

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion

It seems that each week such as Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/34 should be accompanied by a picture rather than have a separate unsynched Template:TAFI/Picture box.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

This would work, and in the event that a new image weekly isn't updated, then no image would be present, rather than one from a previous week's selection of articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
Although I can't imagine 10 articles without an image, yes no image is better than one from the prior week. This is necessary to prepare this for the main page. It would be unacceptable to have an image unrelated to the pages on the main page at any given time. Please have someone take care of this in order to prepare this project for the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 15:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I've done some coding in Template:TAFI/Picture box/sandbox that would allow pictures to be scheduled ahead of time, using the same sort of {{CURRENTYEAR}}/{{CURRENTWEEK}} coding. I've just used subpages of the template, but it would also be possible to use a location like "Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/{{CURRENTYEAR}}/{{CURRENTWEEK}}/picture" (and something similar for the caption) - Evad37 (talk) 04:08, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I am not sure where I am suppose to look for this new page layout. I understand that there will be manual selection of the images to enter them into the scheduled time slotted pages. However, what is necessary for the main page is that a timeslotted set of articles be accompanied by a time-slotted approved picture.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Whatever automates a grab of an image to keep that from stalling and breaking the flow is what is important and to make sure there can be an image as with other main page sections. Thanks Evad37.--Mark 07:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I have updated the template to use the new code. This week's picture and caption are at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/33/picture and Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/33/picture/caption; future weeks will need to be set up at the following links:
and so on. - Evad37 (talk) 08:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I prefer the second formatting for the location. NA1000, it would be useful for us to use this newer layout to prepare these images before time. Theo, could you have the bot post the picture box beside the week's TAFI for each week? That way, we can pre-view and check the picture for subsequent weeks before it goes to TAFI, as well as know which pictures are missing. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I've added some new features to the template:

  • If the page specifying the filename does not exist, nothing will be displayed (per Northamerica1000's comment above)
  • Linebreaks (<br>) are no longer needed in the caption, as the allowable width is now specified to be the same as the picture
  • A specific week can now be specified, using the parameter |week=YYYY/W (where YYYY is the year and W is the week number)
  • It now has documentation at Template:TAFI/Picture box

Pictures and captions still need to be specified for next week and beyond at the above locations. - Evad37 (talk) 03:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

There's still no picture/caption for any future weeks. Pinging some TAFI regulars @Northamerica1000:, @TheOriginalSoni:, @NickPenguin:, @Coin945: to see if anyone wants to create them (otherwise, the {{TAFI/Picture box}} template will have no visible output). Also, ping @Theopolisme: regarding TheOriginalSoni's query above. - Evad37 (talk) 08:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep, fairly trivial; I can do that tonight. Theopolisme (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
@TheOriginalSoni and Evad37:   Done Theopolisme (talk) 21:26, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This week's articles for improvement

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello, Today's articles for improvement:

The following are WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selections.

Posted by: Northamerica1000(talk) 11:57, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
@Matthew (wmf):   Done. It seems that it was lost in the process of reverting vandalism. - Evad37 (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
@Evad37: Merci and muchas gracias! Matthew (WMF) 22:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Re-nominate

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Are there rules about renominating articles. I was hoping the WP:POST article coming up this week would bring us more traffic that might support some of my previous noms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 17:52‎, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good example of when to ignore all rules (although in this case I don't think there are any preventing you)...why not? Theopolisme (talk) 23:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Renominations are fine. I would hesitate to renominate anything that was opposed, or too many articles that got no supports at all on their initial run. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

How do we get the word out that there is a vote going on?

Latest comment: 11 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

I am not too familiar with this project. How do we get the word out that we are looking for feedback on the format of the TAFI section? Who were the people that supported its first main page discussion?— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 23:07, 17 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Add it to WP:CENT, post a link at WP:VPP, and start a Request for comment? Just thinking aloud. Theopolisme (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
We could notify anyone who added themselves as a project member, that would give us around 100 potential voters, and return their focus to a project they may have put on the back burner. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you guys mentioning the stage we are at in WP:POST this week? Maybe we should put a banner up asking the public to tell us which format they would like to see when they visit us from POST. We have about 5 days to decide on a banner, I guess. I will put it at CENT and VPP. I think we should reserve RFC for the bigger discussion of nominating this. Plus, I think RFCs remain open for 30 days.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The reason I initially suggested a request for comment was if you wanted to get a (fairly sizable) number of (previously uninvolved) editors notified via User:RFC bot. A Signpost mention seems like a good idea. Theopolisme (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I think a week after the signpost runs, we should have plenty of feedback on our format. Then, we can talk about wrinkles to the format. Then we should nominate this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Here is the signpost mention.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 02:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone hang a banner.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 22:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I hung the banner. Please feel free to tweak it. We are set for the August 21 WP:POST now. Hopefully, the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-08-21/WikiProject report will bring some eyes to the project.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Getting more variety (but with lower-trafficed articles)?

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Hi! I heard about TAFI in the Signpost. I'm thinking of nominating some articles that could use quite a bit of improvements, and are about varied and notable topics, but which have average page views that aren't very strong. Examples: Ken Liu, Mistress of Spices, Plain dress, New German Cinema, Summer Palace of Peter the Great, with average daily pageviews varying between about 10 and 100. I looked at recent rejections and it sounds like these topics don't have the viewership to make it as TAFI nominations. Since one reason for stubs' low viewership is probably their low quality, how does TAFI balance a desire for variety and improvability with keeping up the general interest level in the topics at hand? Thanks! Sumana Harihareswara 03:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

First and foremost I would say nominate your articles. Secondly, if you look at the archives, you will see that many many articles do not get the 3 supports needed. But at the same time, I am sometimes quite surprised at what does. In any event, don't be discouraged if your nominations don't garner support. There's been a few articles I nominated that I thought were sure things, but apparently were not. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Here here. Yeah, essentially anyone can nominate and anyone can support. but at least 4 people (the original nominator and 3 others) must like the the article for it to be a successful nomination. So cross your finegrs and hope for the best. Like seriously, it's near impossible to tell what'll get supported and what won't.--Coin945 (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
P.S. most of those unsuccessful nominations are merely due to the nominations overload that I placed onto the page recelty because activity had crawled to a standstill and I wanted to spark some reinvogoration by throwing a whole bunch of stuff at the wall and seeing what stuck. I think we got about 10 or so out of the over-100 nominations. So nothing much to do with the articles themselves. Just too much of the same at one time.--Coin945 (talk) 08:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
@Sumanah:, a great way to start getting involved would be to support some of the existing nominations. There are a great number with two supports, so if you find them remotely interesting, throw down that essential third support. Our nomination system requires at least 4 people to function. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Much thanks, @NickPenguin: and @Coin945:. I've nominated those articles and supported a few others! (I had to reread the instructions to understand that any user may support or oppose nominations.) Sumana Harihareswara 23:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was just wondering why this page has two archive boxes? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if they are necessary. One seems to be embedded in standard talk page templates and the other may be necessary for User:MiszaBot II to do its archiving. Possibly, one could be removed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the bot still scheduling?

Latest comment: 11 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I noticed that the project's schedule is only updated for the next 3 weeks. Pinging User:Theopolisme: is Theo's Little Bot configured to automatically continue updating, or does the bot need to be prompted manually to do so? Northamerica1000(talk) 15:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Um...yes...it should be...*goes to check the logs* Theopolisme (talk) 21:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
  Fixed some old bugs and ran it for the next two weeks. It's set to schedule one week in advance at the moment...imho at the moment we should hold off on scheduling additional weeks (given current number of noms in HA). Theopolisme (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this; it cleared out the project's holding area a great deal. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:44, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
What is the algorythm? Why are Asian art and African art scheduled for the same week?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:56, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
The algorithm selects articles "oldest-first" from sections, with more slots given to sections with more items. There is no logic/AI preventing it from choosing 2 arts-related articles. Theopolisme (talk) 10:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
IMO, the following algorhythm would be best. The bot monitors the holding area to keep count of how many different sections have any articles. It also is aware of the current week and how many future weeks are queued. It has a maximum number of sets in advance that it will create queues for (lets say 8 or 10). Whenever 10 or more sections have articles and fewer than the maximum number of advance queues are set, it takes the oldest article from 10 different sections and creates a new set. If there are ever two sets queued it creates a notice on this talk page at the beginning of that week to encourage people to review articles and move them to the holding area. When there is only one set queued, it creates a daily alert on this talk page giving the same encouragement. This would keep people informed about queue shortages and instill some systematic variety to the articles.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Merging Holding Area and Scheduling pages

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I think the initial idea with the Holding Area was to generate further discussion on articles before they get scheduled. However, the reality is that this does not occur, and is therefore an unnecessary step. Also, the current Scheduling page has the Holding Area subst'd in it, so the merged page would look exactly like that. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

It looks like going forward each article may have hooks that total up to about 75 characters. How are we going to address this? There will need to be some discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:23, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
This raises a good point. How do the other projects handle hooks, DYK in particular I am thinking about, but also ITN and OTD. --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
  • OTD allows users to propose hooks on the dates page. On any given date you might find 15 hooks. There are regs (possibly admins) who then look at that date and bracket off just the six or seven to be shown after polishing them. There is no back and forth, really.
  • DYK use to have a single discussion page where all nominees are considered like we do. Now, each nominee has a dedicated unique nomination page where discussion is held for its own nomination. However, with both the old and new system, before being promoted the hook is agreed to with lots of discussion (keep in mind DYK wants you to clean the article up before putting it on the main page and we want to put things on the main page to get cleaned up). Once the hook is agreed to and the article is satisfactory, it is then moved to a two-stage prep area, where sets are put together by volunteers in the first stage. In the seconds stage, the hook can only be changed by admins.
  • I only have a few ITNs from 2009. I won't speak on the details of that process.
  • In our case, the nomination reviewers are only considering the article currently. It is probably best right now to leave this alone and have an OTD type model where some regs determine what hooks go on the main page with each article without a lot of debate with the original nominator. My thinking is that we should continue to keep the articles separate from the hooks so that {{cotd}} can still maintain the partial width format for users who don't want to take up a whole page, while adding the articles to hooks somewhere else for the full-width main page template. This process needs discussion. Also, we need to consider that our sets are currently compiled by bot rather than volunteers.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

TAFI template missing from this week's articles

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
It appears that Theo is taking a hiatus from the wiki. We will need to find a new bot operator. Is Theo's code available, or will someone have to recode the processes in a new bot? --NickPenguin(contribs) 13:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This is the repositopry, I think TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
-I would love to keep scheduling TAFI posts for social media, but we think it's pretty important to have the template on the articles to help direct newbies to resources if they need help. Probably not important for folks familiar with the wikis, but arguably it is for those with less experience. Can someone ping me when that gets sorted? Thank you! Matthew (WMF) 22:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Bot is back up. Sorry folks. Theopolisme (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

What is the expected improvement

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am noticing a high concentration of developed articles in need of citations among the nominees. Is that the type of help we should seek? What about those that need reorganization or wikification?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the number of articles that are important but have no content is growing smaller. We have to expand the idea of what constitutes improvement. Ultimately improvement means the increase of quality, and adding length does not always mean improving quality. Sometimes that might mean reducing article length, by editing down fluff words, copyediting, adding citations and images. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

On automated scheduling

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hey everyone. I've been thinking about this a fair bit, and I'd like to make a proposal:

Let's do away with the fully automated scheduling.

Why? This project is too automated. That's right, I, the bot op, said it. Let's face it, automated selection of articles is never going to have the human touch. I'm not going to spend 100 hours building a sophisticated AI engine to parse the contents of each article and determine the perfect blend for each week. That's what the human brain was built for, and, ultimately that's what the human brain should do.

Buuuuutttt... no human should be forced to manually schedule articles for TAFI. That's what I'm working on *gasp* a new web UI for scheduling, with drag-and-drop, one-click "remove from holding + add to schedule + add to subpages" functionality. The automation will still be there, but at the root of the automation will be human decision (and of course it's up to the project to work how you want that to work...if you want it to be only accessible to certain groups, or whatever). It's going to take a while, but I think it truly is the right way to go. I'd be happy to hear your thoughts. Theopolisme (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

That' brilliant, and awesome. Also, you're brilliant, and awesome. In my mind, the click should check for the next uncreated subpage at the last week it added to, and if it hits 10, it goes to the next week. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Possible sources

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just wanted to make sure everyone here knew that there are now actually quite a few reference sources in the public domain on what might be called broadly religion/philosophy, available at wikimedia commons at Category:Religious books and [Category:Religious encyclopedias], with even more in the broad general Category:Encyclopedias which might be useful in developing at least some articles which are discussed in such books. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Main page now! Everyone's forgotten about us.

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Social media gave us our second wind. But now even that's dried up. Partially due to the slackness in TAFI-related posts being made (not due to me). Anywho, we have got to get this thing up and running. And fast. 10 articles pass by every week, and hardly any, if any, get edited at all. And with articles being supported at such a slow pace, it's just a waste to see these great articles being flushed through the system without any real treatment. Like letting water run down your back without ever using soap or shampoo to help the water's cleaning ability. Weird analogy I know but I cant think of anything better atm. What's the course of action, guys..?--Coin945 (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Not many people edit! Reduce the article count to get more edits per page? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
And Coin945, why not just focus on articles that have had tags on them for a long time? Then we can double tag them. Category:Articles lacking sources from October 2006 has 1072 to pick from! I propose those! Any of them, I don't care. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
If spending time thinking about page views, etc. isn't getting us anywhere, we should abandon that practice. =) Scientists change their mind as data change. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
The question we should ask, is why are not many people editing? Is the window for improvement too narrow? Too many choices? Project not advertised well? Poor selections? No editing guidance or todo list? People just don't want to work on our selections, they want to make their own choices? There is probably not one essential reason, but maybe we can identify something we can improve. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:11, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Special:GettingStarted, while not optimal, works by matching tasks to tags (last I checked). We already have lots of tags. Can we match TAFI to tags? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Autoinclude FARs?

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Should we automatically include any article currently under a WP:FAR review as an article worth trying to help improve? What about adding WP:GAR candidates as well?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

  • AFAIK we were in agreement that TAFI is only for articles at C status or below. With the possible exception to B-class articles when it seems they have been incorrectly reviewed. The very first TAFI article (despite my reservations) was Culture. It failed miserably. That is the sort of article that just does not work in this context. We need to focus on articles where the main focus is adding information, not shifting around the info that is already there. If users do both, then great! But by chosing developed articles where very thought-out niche edits have to be made, you are barring out a huge number of potential editors. It has to be both interesting, notable enough that it triggers a hind of de ja vu when the article title meets your gaze, and also empty enough that one will be easily inspired to give it a crack.--Coin945 (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't know where that C-class agreerment came from. I do know that my GAs keep getting rejected, but I did not know it was based on policy. Unless I am mistaken we are only talking about 1 or 2 FAR articles per week and we are planning to list 10 per week. It might be the case that experienced editors prefer to help TAFI making niche edits. If we had one or two special cases a week, it could help save some of our best work and broaden the type of editor that gets involved in TAFI.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think the C class thing just came about because we were initially seeking articles that had no content but should. If we re-evaluate our goals, there's no reason we cannot include this type of content. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Calling for a vote on the format that we propose

Latest comment: 11 years ago65 comments20 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voting has commenced on the six proposed candidates below. You should be voting on which format looks best on the main page. We are trying to determine which will be most likely to entice TAFI activity. The coding elements from any of them can be transferred to the others. That should not be your focus. Think about what will be most likely to bring TAFI activity.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Voting will close at 0:00 September 5, 2013.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Voting

All proposed formats nominated before August 17 above are eligible for consideration as the project's official nomination. Proposals below may need further coding for automated updating. Above proposals must show what the nomination would look like.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 20:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. For those concerned about such a short notice, this is a second call for format submissions. On August 5, there was a request by NickPenguin (talk · contribs).--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 23:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Voting will not commence until August 17. Please allow all editors the final chance to submit proposed candidates--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC) Wait....shouldn't that last part...be up top and not the very last thing we see?--Mark 17:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Votes

3--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:00, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
6 - Any successful proposal must retain the randomizing element, it was a pretty critical feature from the original version. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:50, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Any of them can be randomized. You should be voting on which format will look best on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
6 - I agree with NickPenguin that the randomising/dynamic element is important, and I prefer this over number 2. The rest would be static content for a whole week, while the rest of the main page (except ITN) is updated at least every day. I could go with WFC's suggestion of dropping the small-text line, given that {{TAFI}} will be on each article. - Evad37 (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Any of them can be randomized. You should be voting on which format will look best on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The main point is not to present essentially the same thing to readers day after day after day. Only (prominently) featuring three at a time allows the section to be updated daily, with the rest of the main page, even though TAFI itself only updates weekly. The order doesn't have to be random, a standard pattern could be specified. - Evad37 (talk) 06:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it will only be on the main page one day a week. I don't think it will be on the main page everyday until we have multiple sets per week. But if rotation is essential a one or two column format could also be cycled to have a different article at the top everyday.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I find 6 to be very cluttered on a small screen. I am on a google chromebook this week. It might look good on a screen with more resolution, but not on this one. Take a look at it at about 800-1000 px wide resolution.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I am on a Google Chromebook all the time, I don't find it cluttered at all. Personal preference I suppose. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
3 AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 03:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
6 3 - The blurbs are nice, but it is important to ensure that if they're not being filled-in ahead of the deadline (for whatever reasons), that the template doesn't display incorrectly or with errors. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
This can easily be arranged - just keep the blurbs in separate subpages, eg Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/<year>/<week>/<number>/blurb. Then the coding can check if the page exists, and either display the blurb if it does, or otherwise just the article title. - Evad37 (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Changed my !vote to box #3 above, as it has a more uniform layout. Northamerica1000(talk) 23:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
3 - I appreciate the blurbs in it. ZappaOMati 21:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
6 - The blurbs give nice context, while showing a selection both trims down the height of the box (an important consideration for getting on the main page) and gives the impression they were chosen just for today (which may spur interest, provided they are eye-catching enough). In the absence of blurb writers, it might still work as is. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
3, although I don't really think the last sentence is necessary. Kaldari (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
6 - or 3, but with the picture size and caption of 5. Mark Hurd (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Tony pointed out on my talk page (in more generic words) that I'm almost a deciding vote, but I do prefer 6 over 3. I'd prefer the larger picture with caption of 5, and thus probably with two rows of two or three pages with blurbs. Mark Hurd (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
3 - But without the small font. And the header should not be linked. — Edokter (talk) — 13:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
6 - Six should be our base version and we can try additional tweaks, as required, to adjust it. I suggest setting up the necessary base for allowing this version (Getting a way to easily add the description). Also, I personally prefer 2 articles than 3. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
6 - Only thing I see wrong on 6 is that Wikipedia is misspelled. buffbills7701 13:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
3 (with 2's wording). But I do like the idea of 6 with two articles per day for 5 days (equaling 10 TAFI articles per week) instead.--Coin945 (talk) 15:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
6 Best one IMO -- Ϫ 01:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
6 - I think the rotations will be useful for distributing editing across these articles a bit better than 3. I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Extended content

One

Today's Articles For Improvement
Today's articles for improvement has a selection of articles that you can improve.

For help editing, see the cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ for additional information. You can also ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse. Editors are encouraged to create a Wikipedia account and watchlist this article.

Two

 
3 is one of today's articles for improvement, and you can help improve it by editing it or making suggestions on its talk page!

Ideas for improving the article (currently rated Wikipedia:TAFI/620/3 You can discuss how to improve it on its talk page and ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse.
See the cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ for additional information. Editors are encouraged to create a Wikipedia account and watchlist this article.

Or pick any of this weeks other articles for improvement:
First ♦ Second ♦ Third ♦ Fourth ♦ Fifth ♦ Sixth ♦ Seventh ♦ Eighth ♦ Ninth ♦ Last

Three

 

An elephant safari in India's
Jaldapara National Park

The following are today's articles for improvement. Please help improve them. You can discuss improvements on their talk pages and ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse.

See the cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ for additional information. Editors are encouraged to create a Wikipedia account and watchlist this article.

Four

 

An elephant safari in India's
Jaldapara National Park

The following are today's articles for improvement. Please help improve them. You can discuss improvements on their talk pages and ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse.

Five

 

An elephant safari through the Jaldapara
National Park in West Bengal, India.

The following are today's articles for improvement. Please help improve them. You can discuss improvements on their talk pages and ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse.

See the cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ for additional information. Editors are encouraged to create a Wikipedia account and watchlist this article.

Six

Reintroduce random rotations, with a few having descriptions and rest just listed. Use (pictured) like the other sections on the main page to save space. This would look something like

You can help improve Wikipedia's articles on:
  • National park (example pictured), a conservation term for protected regions

Get help with editing from the cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ. Ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse.

or

You can help improve Wikipedia's articles on:
  • Cookbook, a type of culinary publication

Get help with editing from the cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ. Ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse.

There could be a different configuration for each day of the week, or more often. (Coding could probably be improved, but this will do as a mockup.)

6b

Variation on 6 based on feedback. 2 articles prominently featured each day over 5 days = all 10 TAFI articles for the week. This should also make it less crowded on smaller screens. Heading is now in sentence case per the rest of the main page. As with any of the options, wording could be adjusted.

You can help improve Wikipedia's articles on:

Get help with editing from the cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ. Ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse.

Rotations do not have to be random, a set pattern could be used for each day.

Discussion

  • I completely support any additional blurb, as shown in format Three. I would also like to note that such an addition blurb was probably also approved by community consensus in the early days of the TAFI proposal. (I cant find the diff. If anyone can find it, it would be great. If I am incorrect, please correct me.) I would also agree to have another discussion, just to clarify it. I'll also be willing to help in the making of such blurbs, for as much time I can help with it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:10, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Just a note that the more processes that are involved, the less likely people are to continuously update entries (e.g. blurbs every week), because it takes more work and time. I think the blurbs are great, but I seriously doubt that people will be available to update them weekly (with a deadline) over the long term. TAFI was pulled from Main page last time due to lack of editor/project involvement in updating the weekly entries. Keeping things streamlined and as automated as possible is key, in my opinion. Just some advice to prevent the same problem from occurring again. That said, I'd go with number four above (based upon #3, which has a nice layout, is unobtrusive, and concise), but without the weekly blurbs. I also omitted the fine print at the bottom of the template in #3 (cheatsheet, et al.); simple layout will likely be met with greater approval compared to templates that are more complex and contain minutia. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Having blurbs will cause people to pay attention to the automated queue and make sure things are running smoothly. I have noticed with the automated queue the bot will sometimes put items from the same subject area among the same set of 10 (e.g. Asian art and African art are both listed in week 37). If we continue to keep the sets queued up 5 sets in advance, blurb writing will be a simple part of the process. Furthermore, we need the human eye paying attention to the process. Creating short blurbs will raise the level of attention paid to the simple process. It will also help the reader decide which item they would most likely be able to help improve without having to click through all 10.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 19:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with this sentiment. However, the one thing that this will create a static box for 7 days, while all the other content on the main page is changing daily. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
What we will need will be some sort of queueing system like DYK has. Let's say we have 5 weeks queued in advance. Once we get to within two weeks of a queue being on the main page, only admins can make changes. All the helpers can suggest blurbs for queues 3-5 weeks out in a prep area, but once it is in the final 2 weeks it is suppose to be basically set in stone except for some admins who have exceptional reasons to make changes. The helpers writing blurbs would notice things like Asian art and African art being in the same queue. They would also notice certain topics without any offerings in the holding area and pay special attention to supporting and opposing those types of articles so that queues can have some balance. To make a good set we need to have at least ten different topics with an article in the holding area. Right now for example only 6 different areas have articles in the holding area. People should be evaluating the other topics for articles. We need to have a reason for helpers to be active in this process. If we let it run just on a bot there will be all kinds of problems. Blurbs make for natural helper invovlment.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
If we're talking about format in isolation, and we fully intend to sort other elements of TAFI out before going to Talk:Main Page, then I support number six without the subscript. But I still believe that the unaddressed issues in my initial comment would condemn a Main Page run to failure. —WFC— FL wishlist 00:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Further to WFC's comments, Main page design/inclusion is just of the issues facing this project. As I see it, the other issues are: keeping up the schedule up to date; and getting readers to improve the articles.
The first is mostly automated thanks to Theo's bot, but a picture/caption and blurbs will have to be selected/written by hand. As was seen from the incident that ended TAFI's trial on the main page, good intentions now are not a guarantee of processes being followed later. The risk of such a failure could be reduced by implementing an early warning system, that posts here with a yellow alert when something's missing from the week after next, and daily red alerts when for next week's queue (possibly with mention WP:Notifications for an opt-in list of volunteers). And in the event of a failure, the templates / main page section should be programmed show just the article names, rather than broken code.
The second is harder to get right, and probably depends on the types of articles selected. For stubs, it is obvious that content is missing and could be added. For some of the better articles, it may not be obvious how the article can be improved (without going on a trip to the library to look for more sources). We probably need to make sure actual, actionable editing suggestions are on the talk, so when a user clicks on discuss how to improve it on its talk page (from {{TAFI}} template). Maybe if during the nomination stage, the nominator and/or supporters provide short suggestions of what to do, the bot could transfer them to the top of the talk page under a {{to do}} (or similar) template. We could leave the process as optional, but strongly encouraged, so that nominators/supporters aren't discouraged by an extra requirement (ping @Theopolisme: to see if the bot could do these things). - Evad37 (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

My general response to the first bit is more eyes = better execution. Automation has been largely achieved, the rest is up to current participants, and recruiting new ones. The easiest way to do this is to increase project visibility.
To the second bit, the idea has been kicked around about having improvement ideas required to nominate an article. The problem is that puts up an unnecessary (and huge) hurdle, as the ratio of successful to unsuccessful noms is far higher. If we opted this for articles in the holding area, then the question is, who needs to come up with the ideas? The original nominator, or the supporters? When the first few batches when live on the main page, I painstakingly came up with todo lists for all of the articles, and it took forever, and none of those articles were clear improvement successes. In contrast, all of the successes after that have had no todo lists. It's a good idea, but the invested time versus actual improvement are not good ratios. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Either the nominator, or a supporter, or maybe even a blurb writer. The idea is it would be optional, not required, and so not be a big hurdle for nominations. And not all nominations would need it, if there are obvious problems such as length (ie stubs) or marked by cleanup banners. - Evad37 (talk) 03:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Still inclined to support #4 even without the subscript.--Mark 03:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I have no preference on random vs. static order. Any of the above formats could be programmed for random order. What I am focussing on is the general look of the box. I don't know if that is correct. The formats I presented are hardcoded. I think one will update when the week changes over. None of that is what I am worried about, but I don't know what others will base their votes on. If you want some to appear to be more heavily featured than other that will necessitate randomization. However, nothing else on the main page is random. DYK does not use randomization. I am not sure why TAFI should if DYK doesn't.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Guys, lets please try to get people to select the format that they think looks best or most like what would entice them to get active in TAFI. If one randomizes, it does not mean it will help TAFI the most. Any of them can be programmed to randomize. What we need is to determine what visual appearance will make people want to be involved in TAFI.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The difference between DYK and TAFI is that DYK hooks are only on the main page for 6 hours before they are replaced with a fresh set of hooks. Most of the designs above are proposing having the same line for each article for a whole week. Randomising the order may help a bit, but a reader who visits the main page once a day will see that: TFA, DYK, TFP, OTD, and maybe ITN (depending on what happens in the news and discussion at ITN/C) will have been updated with new content. With the above TAFI designs, except for 2 and 6, readers will see that Today's articles for improvement are the same as yesterday's... and the day before... and the day before that, just in a different order if randomisation is used. Another option would be to completely overhaul the scheduling system so that one or two articles are promoted each day, rather than doing a bulk lot of 10 at the start of each week (but that could be a lot of work for potentially little benefit) - Evad37 (talk) 04:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
That is easy enough to implement, we just generate a list of articles and have the randomization grab CurrentDate+10 articles, and randomly display those. It would make changing the pictures challenging, but it could be done. The only tricky bit would be in the new year. We would have to do something about the staleness factor, and this is a decent enough idea. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Or we could change the format to this: articles are grouped weekly into bunches of 7. Every day, we highlight a single article on the Main Page, and a link to a 'more selections' which takes you to WP:TAFI with the week's full list. Eliminates the staleness problem, drivers traffic to a specific place each day. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Maybe we could adopt a 2 article blurb for 5 days a week? I would like to see option 6 adopted to include this format. A longer and more interesting blurb could be attractive for drawing editors.
  • What's with "Today's Article For Improvement"? To match other main page sections it should be "Today's article for improvement". — This, that and the other (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Ummm... I am glad I popped in. #2 looks like the mockup I was working on, only it's being misrepresented by the fact that it is missing its blurb about the article in the middle. I have to go out of state for three days for a surgery for my daughter and won't be back until the fifth. I see this is suppose to close on the fifth. I'm asking for a seven day relisting ss this process should go 30 days anyways and if it was started on the 17th, it shouldn't be closed until the 16th at the earliest. Thanks for your understanding and I'll update the example to be accurate as soon as I can. Also, I should note that #2 is fully randomized. Technical 13 (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Request for second can people chime in either to extend this vote for a week or until the 16th or to go ahead and close the vote on the 5th. I want to get TAFI moving along, but am open to extended time as seems appropriate to the crowd.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
It looks like we are pretty evenly split between 3 and 6. What is the primary difference between the two, and is there a way to create a design that meets in the middle somehow? I'm seeking an acceptable compromise here. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I am counting 7 votes for 3 and 6 for 6 (with one 6 voter almost being divided, i.e. almost 7.5 to 5.5). As the nominator of 3, I would accept the main body 10 article presentation of 3 with the above and below text of 6. I would also be open to rotating the top two elements of nominee 3's body daily as suggested by 6 if we are shooting for everyday exposure.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
7–6 or 7–7 (what is is currently) or 8–7 or whatever the final numbers are, it seems too close to call a consensus position either way (and WP:Polling is not a substitute for discussion). Nick asked what the primary difference was. In my opinion, it is that Six features some articles prominently each day, with the rest listed without blurbs, resulting in different blurbs each day (and would be best suited for two blurbs a day, five days a week). Three shows blurbs for each and every article. There is no new content for each subsequent day of a particular week, though the order can be rotated so different items show at the top. The other differences (wording above and below, use of (example pictured) or a picture caption) I would consider minor, and could easily be changed in either one. - Evad37 (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I had designed 3 for one day a week posting hoping that we would eventually grow to handling many more than 10 articles per week and change the whole slate a few times per week if not daily. If we are intending to apply for full week exposure and do not expect to grow beyond 10 articles per week 6 is as good for the reason that you mentioned. If we expect to grow to say Monday-Wednesday-Friday updates and 30 articles per week, then 6 is not as good because not all articles would get a chance for exposure with a blurb. What are the expectations for this project. Do we foresee ourselves growing to 30 (or even 70) articles per week at some point?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD)
Good point, it hasn't really been clear what the project is aiming for. It makes a big difference as to what is more appropriate. - Evad37 (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
P.S. A compromise could be that for any weeks in which we will only be posting a single slate of 10 format 6 should be used, but in weeks in which we will have multiple slates of 10 format 3 is used, assuming that we are going to be on the main page all week anyways. However, if we only get approved for one day a week on the main page we revert to format 3.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:27, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
We are the project. We are determining right now "what the project is aiming for", and it can be whatever we want it to be. Because we need to have another RC to get back on the main page anyways, maybe we should evaluate the project values and goals. What is our mission statement? How do the decisions we make support that goal?
As for the format, it looks like we all agree that blurbs are the way to go. So we just need to determine how we want to integrate the blurbs. Therefore, we should drop versions 1, 2 and 4 because they do not include blurbs, and focus on a single design that makes the blurbs the primary focus. Also, I realistically do not see us working with more than 14 articles week, as the current rate of nomination approval is ~10 a week. --NickPenguin(contribs) 12:59, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
What will the rate of approval be if we get on the main page with full week exposure and lots of articles start getting cleaned up? Sure the rate may be 10 per week now (making it difficult to see anything greater than 14 per week in the future). Full week main page exposure could lead to great successes for the project and thus lead to more frequent nominations and approvals.
We have two designs. One features 2 or 3 hooks per day, making it ideal for up to 21 hooks per week max. The other features all ten, but may be best for sets that are only on the main page for a few days since nothing else on the main page sits unchanged for the whole week, making it better for 20 or more hooks per week.
Do we know if we will be given a one day a week slot or a full week slot? Are we sure that in the long run we won't grow to 20 or more hooks per week?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:34, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
When it was on the main page, the approval rate was high, but not double the current rate. It was around ~15 to 18 a week. I think we should pick a design that can scale up, but be able to scale up slowly. I don't think we have come up with a proposal yet. My thoughts are, we would use the space that Today's Featured List takes on the remaining 6 days (Tues to Sun). Whatever the design, I firmly believe that the main blurbs should rotate daily. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

New main page

The new main page design discussion is flat on its behind, which is a shame because it could really benefit if these two projects collaborate. I have taken it upon myself to keep on designing the new main page with all points raised in the MP RfC in mind. With that, I feel TAFI could play an important role in engaging new editors more effectively. Apart from linking to articles, links to relevant introductory- and help pages should be more prominent.

You can see the current progress here. Is there a working template that contains content without markup, based on example 3? — Edokter (talk) — 13:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, the project as a whole needs to focus on editor engagement. I would also encourage anyone interested in reviving TAFI on the main page to help with the redesign as well. TAFI (or the idea that it represents: giving readers something to do) should be an integral part of the final main page redesign proposal. --NickPenguin(contribs) 15:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Why was two excluded when multiple members said they like the wording better? It does include blurbs, so that exclusion criteria I saw above is invalid. Going to add blurbs to the pages now so they show up... Technical 13 (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

There seems to be a split decision between these two designs:

 

An elephant safari in India's
Jaldapara National Park

The following are today's articles for improvement. Please help improve them. You can discuss improvements on their talk pages and ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse.

See the cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ for additional information. Editors are encouraged to create a Wikipedia account and watchlist this article.

You can help improve Wikipedia's articles on:
  • National park (example pictured), a conservation term for protected regions

Get help with editing from the cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ. Ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse.

The thing about them is that the first one fills the bar to it's full height, while the second one introduces the randomizing element, which is fairly critical. In order to move this proposal forward, we need to find some method to accomplish both of these things. --NickPenguin(contribs) 07:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

  • The first thing we need to do is either determine in advance how many days per week TAFI would be on the main page and base our decision on that or make a decision that will be conditional on how many days we are approved for. You have said in your mind that we should shoot for the WP:TFL slots complementary days. Are they going to stay at one day per week forever? We will either be on the main page 1 day per week, 7 days per week, the complement of the TFL days (currently 6 days per week) or some other number of days per week. In advance of formally nominating a proposal and awaiting feedback, we don't really know how many days we will be approved for.
  • Then we need to evaluate the number of hooks per week we think we need to run. My thinking is that this will be like WP:DYK with fluctuation in number of articles per week (which is largely influenced by the rules for eligible articles and approval procedures). As the queue lengths for WP:GAC and WP:DYK extend, it may be the case that classroom participation might migrate toward TAFI involvement. Activity could become seasonal. We could have times of the year when 30 articles per week is very normal. Who knows where TAFI goes in this regard. It might be the case that (like DYK) we need to be very flexible on the number of sets per week. With the old rules 28 DYK sets per week was normal. With the new rules there is fluctuation between 14 and 21 sets per week.
  • The fact that you think we should be approved for 6 days a week and that we will for a long time have 20 or less articles does not mean that is what will happen. Why don't we come up with compromise solutions that accommodate the possibility of any number of days per week and number of articles per week. I have no idea whether it will be 1 day, 6 days or 7 days. Suppose we get approved at 1 day per week and run steady at about 15 articles per week. We would need something different than either of the solutions above. We would probably need three columns of 5 articles. However, we might be like DYK where we have some fluctuation and have some times when we need 3 columns of 6 and other times when we need 2 columns of 6. However, if we get approved for 6 or 7 days and randomizing each day becomes very important, although I prefer a strict rotation to randomization.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Closure

In terms of closing the RFC, I've had a look and I'm not sure that there is a consensus here, and if there is it isn't clear.

From the voting section alone there is one more vote for 6 than there is for 3 (these are the only two options which have votes). From the various discussions etc, it appears there is a consensus to include a blurb with each article. However discussion seems to have stalled regarding how many articles for improvement are listed each day and hence each week.

I think the RFC could be closed with a comment to the affect of there is a consensus that a blurb be included, but no consensus as to how many articles for improvement are listed each day. For there to be a clear consensus regarding which design be used on the main page, this question needs to be addressed. My suggestion is that discussion continue regarding this (which it seems to be doing in a roundabout way below). I am happy to close the RFC (ie the level 2 section) so another can be started later on, or leave it open for further comments, which would people like? In any case it might be worth removing the entry from Template:Centralized discussion? Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a sufficiently well rounded close. I agree that a more focused discussion should follow. --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rotating sections

Latest comment: 11 years ago22 comments6 people in discussion

I think the reason we promote so many Arts articles is because they are first and people get tired of reviewing articles before they get to other sections. We need to rotate sections.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Good point. Is there a way for the page to consist of 10 columns so users can see at least one nomination from each of the sections at once?--Coin945 (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't know about changing the page layout. What we need is a bot that moves the top section to the bottom every day.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Unless someone objects, I will start to rotate sections daily by hand until someone designs a bot to do it. The first rotation will be at 0:00.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Tony, please dont. i have no idea how Theo designed the bot, and your manual rotation might end up breaking everything. Theo, can you look into this, and tell us if there is a good way to make this rotation? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
What bot are you talking about. It seems that the promotion of supported articles and archiving of rejected articles is all done by hand now. If we don't do something, we will end up with half Arts articles every week. I already did the rotation for today.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
P.S. wasn't the bot disabled for TAFI tasks in June? That seems to be what the top thread says.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 09:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome to rotate the sections manually (the bot doesn't care about the order). If this seems to have a positive effect, the bot could be programmed to do something similar automatically. Theopolisme (talk) 10:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes please program the bot to move the top section to the bottom every day. I will surely tire of doing it manually.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Theopolisme, I have completed one manual rotation. Have you had a chance to consider having the bot rotate the sections?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It looks like Theo is taking a hiatus from the wiki. If this is the case, then we will need to start manually scheduling weeks again. And soon, because we only have one more week setup after this one. --NickPenguin(contribs) 12:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
If we do these manually what is the full process. I.e., aside from slapping the articles in {{Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/YYYY/WW/#}}, what else do we do? How do we archive?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Ideally, we should identify X types of articles (sport / arts / science / geography etc. etc.) and then have one article from each 'category'. Wikial Pursuit, or something. GiantSnowman 13:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

In an ideal world, this would be the case. The problem is that the distribution of articles on the wiki favours things from the arts and popular culture. This is reflected in the categories of nominated articles, and the distribution of articles in the holding area. More people are interested in pop culture than math and sciences. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:32, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Then give the 'popular' categories 2 articles, simply not at the expense of the 'least' popular. Who knows how many prospective maths/science editors are put-off joining Wikipedia by not seeing anything of interest to them on the TAFI template. GiantSnowman 14:38, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough, that is a good ideal to strive for. However, the only way for that to be achievable is to nominate and support items from the math and sciences categories. We should all do our best to make an effort to support articles in these areas, even if they do not seem like slam dunk candidates for improvement. --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
What exactly are you talking about? If a section is empty, it should be tagged as such... Theopolisme (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

scheduling

Latest comment: 11 years ago13 comments5 people in discussion

I have looked at the holding area. It has 31 articles (13 from Arts). I have divided the 18 non-arts across three sets and put 4 arts in each set.

  1. Creative writing
  2. Craft
  3. Backup dancer
  4. Chord progression
  5. Geography of Madagascar
  6. Good old days
  7. HTTP 403
  8. Ukrainian wine
  9. Religious music
  10. Good governance

==

  1. Audience
  2. Costume
  3. Twentieth-century theatre
  4. Symphony
  5. Paparazzi
  6. Jazz Age
  7. Ticker tape
  8. Oceanography
  9. Circular reasoning
  10. Objection (law)

==

  1. Civilization
  2. Farce
  3. Theater of the United States
  4. Award ceremony
  5. Food industry
  6. National Geographic Society
  7. New Nationalism
  8. Computer hardware
  9. Proof by example
  10. Slogan

Somewhere above, I asked if there is anything to do in terms of archiving these. If I don't get any response I will just move them into their slots in the respective weeks in the next couple of days.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I just setup one group, and that was a huge pain in the ass. I really miss @Theopolisme: and his bot, I'm not going to lie. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:16, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I scheduled my three sets. We still have to select images.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello there. I heard the call out for the TheoBot tafi tasks to be accomplished. Theo left enough breadcrumbs behind that I think I can accomplish the tasks you want. There are 4 programs I see (3 that run on mondays)
  1. tafi_tagger.py: which appears to update the Template:TAFI/BLURB/static page
  2. tafi_scheduler.py: which appears to take nominations out of the Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Holding area and put them into individual days
  3. tafi_wikiprojectnotifier.py: which appears to nofiy project that have been put in the indivudal day page
  4. tafi_archiver_and_mover.py: which runs daily to archive.
Tell me which ones you want ran and how frequently and I'll do them right now. Hasteur (talk) 04:55, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Ideally, just as you said. The three on Monday at 00:00 UTC and the one everyday. Although, the everyday script could easily just archive once a week on Mondays, that particular once really makes no difference. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
He also said that the bot could be programmed to do a daily rotation of the nomination sections by rotating the top section to the bottom.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I threw in some pictures for the scheduled groups, however some of the pictures are larger than normal. They might get resized when they go in the box, I'm not sure. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
    • I've updated the {{TAFI/Picture box}} template. A custom width can be specified for tall images, instead of the default 230 px width, by creating a [[Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/YYYY/W/picture/size]] subpage for the relevant week, and specifying a different number number. (I expect that a main page banner would use different coding, so the size should just be based on where the picture box template is currently used) - Evad37 (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: Do you think we can get another batch of scheduled groups please? --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, the code for archiving the schedule needs to be adjusted, as the bot is archiving the current picture instead of last week's: [1] - Evad37 (talk) 03:39, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
*poof* scheduled. @Evad37: nobody told me they changed the format...I'm on it ;) Theopolisme (talk) 03:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
  fixed in a slightly roundabout way. @Everyone, please try to ping me in the future when making changes to the format of the pages. Thanks, Theopolisme (talk) 03:55, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: Do you think you could schedule 4 groups please? We should have enough articles in the holding area. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

There's plenty of room at the bottom.

Latest comment: 11 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Some collaborations such as science have dried up, the few contributors that were left moving here. More specialised collaborations like WP:ChemAID have been dead in the water for quite a while. I myself haven't helped the situation, not being involved, actively or otherwise, in any wikiproject. Ashamedly, I have only really observed.

Why mention this? People like to edit articles where they feel like they belong. In my case, mostly chemistry, some science, and from time to time other topics across the wiki. People first come across the more specialised wikiprojects and consider joining them. But people also like to be part of something bigger: A collaboration just isn't the same when there's no feeling of being able to get anywhere, or worse, no one to collaborate with. So they redirect themselves to a project one order higher up.

But the issue is that these projects don't seem to hold people either. They too get quiet, and now that we have reached the top of the mountain, there's nowhere else to climb to. So perhaps this should somehow be "devolved" to the more specialised collaborations, for example, with the lists for science collaborations on TAFI coming from the same place as they would on SCOTM. That collaborative activity in any area would show up in TAFI, and activity in that area in TAFI would show in the relevant wikiproject.

Is it worth a try? I don't know. But the issues of attracting and retaining users are more important than any percieved credibility crises. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 05:53, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

TL;DR? Maybe we can make TAFI a centralised hub for wikiproject collaborations, rather than a substitute. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 05:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting points Tomásdearg92. I think everything you say is very important if we're going to figure out how to make Wikipedia successful in the long term. Ping to User:Jtmorgan, whose research specializes in WikiProjects (and who I met at Wikimania 2012). I wonder this: why not just a "centralized hub for collaborations"? There is an IRC channel devoted to it, but I don't know if it's active. WikiProject Collaboration doesn't exist yet... But I digress? As for topic-specific collaobration and a WikiProject, I would point to WikiProject Military history as the best example. Do we have a great "bigger and broader" WikiProject? I'm not sure. We should. We should have several! See this story as well: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-09-11/News_and_notes (and see my link at the bottom about where to discuss things) because you might find some like-minds there who could help. I just created the shortcut m:Idea lab. I am brainstorming about a proposal. And please feel free to share any ideas you might have at the m:Idea lab. It does not have to be associated with any intent to file a grant proposal. Of course, WP:VPI exists, but I haven't found it to be particularly helpful lately. =) From my last IEG proposal, I've found meta to be a great place to lodge community concerns that get picked up by WMF staff who want to help (and potentially fund work) in these areas. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Ultimately the goal is to promote improvements, through collaboration. I think one of the problems you touched on is when people get here there's no one to collaborate with. You can build it, and they will come, but there needs to be something to retain interest in order for people to stay. How would you consider dividing collaborations into classes? --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:07, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll try and be brief this time. NickPenguin, it seems the architecture is already here. TAFI is already divided into 11 classes; with the exception of 'Everyday Life' they all have at least one related wikiproject. Not all have collaborations, of course. So, invite each to nominate articles in their class—e.g. by mining worklists and copying current collaborations straight into the TAFI list—such information could even flow the other way if one or the other is ailing. While people are drawn to activity, I'd try to keep people involved in the grass roots where they feel most passionate about WP. Allowing people to work in their chosen area while still being involved with a larger pool of (helpful!) editors is an attractive prospect. (Biosthmors) Tomásdearg92 (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Trust me, I don't mind the length. But yes, interesting concept. My initial reaction is that there's a lot of "and"s in the 11 groupings, like "History and Politics", so I imagine that has two wikiprojects attached to it. Aside from that, if we did move in this direction, what would be the functional aspect of this project? Would this be some sort of coordination/recognition page? How would the nomination process be integrated, or would it be heavily revised into something different to fit the new structure? Would we open the doors for other project to 'propose' a collaboration group/subpage and run independently? I find your ideas interesting, and I would like to explore this concept. Ultimately we need encourage editor engagement, both across the wiki and in this project. --NickPenguin(contribs) 12:39, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
After writing this, I took a quick look around at other collaborations listed at Category:Wikipedia collaborations, and I could find none that I considered 'active'. All of the ones listed at {{CotM}}, except perhaps WP:India, had almost no activity in the last 3 months, and around half had none in the last year. We would have to specifically target the wikiprojects themselves and ask them how they could support or promote a collaboration project. --NickPenguin(contribs) 13:09, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
I'll be honest and say that although I've been thinking about this, I'm still making it up as I go along, as it were. Bear that caveat in mind- I'm liable to change direction at any moment! I knew it was bad, NickPenguin, but I didn't realise it was so bad. I think you're right about going directly to the wikiprojects for input, if not for the awareness and call to action alone. I'm trying to think of an analogy for this 'vision' for TAFI, but I think that all the projects should keep their independance while still working together on the same or similar goals. Maybe submissions from projects could go straight to the holding area, as the projects would be aware that they require improvement. On the other hand, that formulation may seem overly expert for some wikipedians. Maybe TAFI updates will simply be provided to the projects. Perhaps work would extend only as far as the wikiwork tables on the projects being mined for suggestions. I'm just hoping to kick-start the conversation. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 05:37, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
It's really too bad that so much of the nomination process is dependant on manual actions. If we were able to nominate something and have it automatically connect with the wikiprojects, then it would make things much simpler. Or at least, grab the datae from the talk page about which wikiproject are attached to the articles and feed that into a list or table, I'm not sure. If other wikiprojects wanted to get involved, we would have to open some direct communication with them. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
How much is possible and automatable- actually, how much of that is doable based on the demands we all like to put on a few people like Theo? We could possibly make it easier for the WikiProjects (or ourselves? For sorting, etc.) if we were able to show the relevant links for the nominations.
It's a badly drawn up example, but I hope you catch my drift. For the Wikiprojects (in this case Food and Drink):
Current TAFI Nominations Scheduled
  Food industry (High)   Scotch whisky (High)   Stir frying (High)
  Golden rice (Mid)   Staple food (Mid)
  Superfood (Unassessed)
And on the nominations page, slightly extended to:
  Primitive Irish – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) – WikiProject Languages • Ireland • Middle Ages • Celts
  • Nom. --Nominator signature
  1. Support Tomásdearg92 (talk) 04:57, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  2. Support But is there a method to do this without having to manually add the project links? --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Therein lies the rub, can that information be accessed in the same way that the article quality class can? Tomásdearg92 (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Why supports should not be "enthusiastic"

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

WFC, this is why. Could someone change both the archive and the HA so its fixed? I'm not sure i wont break any of the bot's functioning. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Setting-up a bot to send weekly new selections notifications

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Regarding sending the TAFI weekly selections notice weekly to recipients located at the Opt-in list to receive project notifications, utilizing a bot to perform this would be a great way to encourage article improvements to occur. I presently don't have enough time to perform this (per other work being performed, etc.), but if anyone is interested this would surely improve the project. If anyone has the time or interest, an idea is to possibly utilize User:EdwardsBot for delivery. Northamerica1000(talk) 15:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_improvement/Archive_7&oldid=1255709139"