Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Main page   Talk page   Nominations   Coordination   Holding Area   Schedule   Article collaboration   Members   Templates   Accomplishments   Archives  

Archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Threads older than 15 days days may be archived by MiszaBot II.


Contents

Bot was reverted earlier today on run, so {{TAFI}} tags are not on articles [edit]

While the bot was attempting to add/remove {{TAFI}} this morning to/from the new week's articles, each of its edits was reverted by User:Beyond My Ken. See my query at his talk page; any enlightenment would be great. —Theopolisme (talk) 11:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I saw this. I have restored the ones I could see. I guess keep an eye on it and if he does it again perhaps warn him again. I will go ahead and invite him to come over and discuss it here and if he persists then perhaps as an Admin needs to get involved...? -- MisterShiney ✉ 14:02, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

  • I have also restored the tags to articles, but User:Beyond My Ken has removed some of them again. I've tried to explain to this person on their talk page that use of the template has consensus, and asked them to discuss the matter here, but instead the user just keeps removing the tags. Here are the articles that this user has twice-removed the template from:

This user has also removed the tag from these articles once:

This type of unilateral removal of the template is troubling, because again, consensus was for it to be utilized. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No WikiProject has the inherent right to give itself authority to clutter up articles with unnecessary non-clean-up tags. Any "consensus" to do so should have come via a well-publicized community-wide RfC. Clean-up tags are - at the very best - a necessarey evil (if they are that), but adding totally unnecessary and frivolous tags to an article is not only detrimental to the reader's use of the encyclopedia, it opens an entirely new frontier for WikiProjects to decide to tag articles using their own criteria. Please do not tag any more articles. Opne an RfC and get the proper consensus from the community as a whole. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
For some background regarding consensus that has occurred, please read Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Unanswered questions - TAFI. In another later discussion, an RFC was placed (see Talk:Main Page/Archive 173#Today's article for improvement on the Main Page), and use of the template was mentioned there by User:David Levy in the TAFI moving forward? subsection, but nobody objected at that time. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Nothing to discuss here. Its an open-shut case where it's clear consensus through RFC has occured. I suggest taking it to ANI the first moment another revert occurs. [Or should that be done already] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
That may be worth it. Just to point out how foolish he is being. It's obviously a clear cut case of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. My experiences of this editor have been less than positive and he does not take criticism well. As such, any and all attempts at communication with him are reverted. Even the one that invited him to the discussion. He does not play well with others. Maybe maybe we should just ignore him? It is easy to undo his edits. Thoughts? -- MisterShiney ✉ 06:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I have only just seen this, so I am not familiar with all the background, but I have to agree with BeyondMyKen that banner templates are ugly and this one is unnecessary. The purpose of TAFI is to attract editors to the article, no? Once an editor is at the article reading the template, well, they are already at the article and still trying to attract them is superfluous. Consensus at the VP was mentioned above. After reading it, I see that the consensus was for an "edit notice". This is a different (and possibly more useful) thing to an article banner. The ambiguity was raised during the !vote but not clarified as far as I can see so it is reasonable to suppose that some participants may actually have been !voting for a real edit notice. SpinningSpark 06:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

What good does an edit notice do if no new editors are encouraged to click the 'edit' button? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 14:41, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to make todo lists a requirement to enter the schedule [edit]

Given the recent discussion, I think it might be prudent to make todo lists a requirement to be put into a scheduled group. And, if a todo list cannot be generated in a reasonable length of time, it will be accepted that the articles really didn't need much improving after all. I believe this will both improve the quality of the articles the appear on the Main Page, as well as the quality of the improvements (by guiding them in a more direct manner). --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. However the requirement should perhaps be a little way into the future (1 month?), so that in the interim people can start doing it as a recommendation, and minimise disruption to the nomination process. Rd232 talk 23:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Maybe a separate {{TAFI to-do}} template is in order? Somebody designing this? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
That might be pushing the envelope as far as main space templates go. I think it's a good idea, but it would likely encounter violent resistance. If we accept this proposal, then I would recommend we begin on Week 23, starting June 3rd. I would also recommend we define a list as "at least two items". --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Why not make use of the existing {{to do}} system? The to-do box could even be included in each nomination using {{To do|small=yes|collapsed=yes|target=Talk:Foobar}}, which would generate a box like:


Or the /to do talk subpage could just be automatically linked. - Evad37 (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
My primary concern with that template is that it isnt intuitive enough for anyone to try editing the "template" than try editing the page to edit the template. Not to forget it isnt transferrable within pages. What if we make the above template for all purposes within TAFI, and export to the {{to do}} system before being added as TAFI? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I'm also not sure why a new template would be an issue (as NickPenguin says above with "pushing the envelope"). Rd232 talk 10:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Why so official? Why don't we just add a note in the TAFI instructions asking our nominators to add a brief summary of what needs to be done. We havent needed strct protocol up until now, and there's no reason to start.--Coin945 (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The problem is that we did try making it optional. Nobody helped. With this, i think there will be a clear cut incentive to develop the lists. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I don't call "Any suggestions for article improvement and information about the article's topic(s) can be made in comments." tacked on the end of another point about including quality ratings, "making it optional". It's much more tame than that, essentially saying (to those who even happen to read it - i only noticed it there now) "if you happen to have any ideas about suggestions, the place you would then add then is in the nomination space itself". It doesn't seem to in any way suggest it should or must be done at all.--Coin945 (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
The to-do list has only one way to be changed - Use the "E" button, and not edit the page, which is not the first thing you'll try. Nick here says that using another OUR template on the main space (where this to do list will be) will be pushing things too much, given the current situation we are in because of {{TAFI}}. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
If we use the existing todo list system, then it might be possible to just place the todo template on the article page, in a small box, like is shown above. I would support that, however I do not know how to get wider community input on such an idea. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The collapsed version of the "to do" box above looks nice, and provides a space for input. Sure, use it, but at this time I'm against its use being mandatory for articles to be scheduled, because people may not contribute to the lists. If the latter occurs (no contributions), many articles would be skipped over. Also, input to lists as a mandatory prerequisite creates an unnecessary barrier, and may actually prevent collaborations from occurring, rather than encouraging and enabling them. Northamerica1000(talk) 16:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

After further reflection, making the todo lists mandatory seems unlikely to gain traction. It's just too bad we don't have a simpler way to guide article improvement other than saying 'well here they are' and setting them out in the wild. --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well let's at least add it as a recommendation to nominators. That certainly doesn't hurt, may help focus nominators' comments, and gets the ball rolling. Rd232 talk 23:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse TAFI banner [edit]

Heads up, there is no content loading in the TAFI banner on WP:THQ at the moment... Just a single quote, dash, and a link to TAFI. Technical 13 (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

YesY Done. Its because of how primitively this banner is designed. User:Jtmorgan/sandbox/11 is what was to be changed (updated). TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
N Not done Broken again... Technical 13 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Improvement tracking [edit]

NickPenguin, do we have any update on the tracking of the improvements for all the TAFI articles, and to compare them with our samples? It would be good for us to get those metrics fast, so we know what to improve and how to improve.

User:Theopolisme is the bot ready for moving the articles to HA and to archive them? Also, do we have any update on sending a message to the WikiProjects for collaboration on the TAFIs? And if its not too much problem, can we have a quick way to send a message/reminder to ALL TAFI members if required? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

User:EdwardsBot can be used to deliver a message to all TAFI members; let me know if the need arouses and I can configure it. The bot is running right now (moving to holding/archival), yet still in trial mode--I just pinged the powers that be to try to get approval. Theopolisme (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Another proposal [edit]

First of all, I want to say that I found this project a couple of days ago, and what I think you are doing here is excellent. I wish I had known about this sooner and I wish there were more visibility for the project, as more visibility would in theory bring more participation with it.

Earlier this year, I actually started working on a propsal of my own for a process that would encourage article improvement, before I knew of the existence of TAFI. It looks like you are doing pretty much what I wanted to be done, so that is wonderful. However, TAFI is only for articles that already meet the WP:GNG, even if only just barely, whereas my proposal went much further.

So what about articles that don't meet the GNG (yet)? I know I am not the only one who has found articles deleted at AFD such as Flint Dille, and worked to improve and restore them. And sometimes articles like Matt Forbeck or Don Bingle get deleted by PROD or speedy, when it would only have taken a little bit of work to make them GNG-compliant or better. And that's not to mention the many articles out there which don't yet meet the GNG but probably could.

I could rewrite my proposal if there is interest in a process which is strictly concerned with finding sources, with the aim of attracting users who are particularly skilled and knowledgeable in finding sources. Aside from already existing articles which just need sources, and potentially salvageable articles which have been deleted, this process can also look at articles which have been merged or just redirected due to notability concerns, failed Articles for Creation submissions, user space drafts, article incubator pages, or even articles that have yet to be started.

What do you think; is there some value in this? Would you want to make it maybe a subsection of TAFI or would this work best as a separate process? Let me know what you think. BOZ (talk) 17:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

What generally happens (as what happened with History of music for example) is that the article is nominated as a redlink, and after it is supported, a short stub is written about it, in preparation for its main page appearance.--Coin945 (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Are you aware of WP:RESCUE? ~KvnG 19:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome. Another helping hand would be just as good :) We're already having what you said, but only with a focus on the more vital articles. As Coin said above, your suggestions would come under what we do, as we tend to (and did) make a short stub before the article makes to the main page.
As for the idea itself, you're free to nominate any articles for TAFI; though I dont think it will be feasible for us to have a 'subsection'. The only thing that might be a problem with them is that the articles you mention might not get the 3 Supports required.
So feel free to directly nominate those articles, or I think having a specialised project to do that could be good too. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Coin945, by redlink do you mean an article that hasn’t been created yet, or one that has been deleted and could be restored or restarted? What about an article that was merged due to notability reasons, could I nominate it with a link to the last good diff?
KvnG, I am aware of the ARS, which is actually how I found this project.  :) But they are generally best useful for articles currently at threat of deletion, which is not what I was talking about.
TheOriginalSoni, would love to help out when I can. I have notified a number of good source finding people/article improving people about this project, so who knows who that might attract.  :) I know the focus here is on more vital articles – essentially, assuming those where the GNG is already met – which is why I bring this up as a concern to focus on articles where the GNG has yet to be met, in hopes of finding RS's.
And how about the other things I mention, like failed Articles for Creation submissions, user space drafts, or article incubator pages – would those be moved into article space on a successful nomination?
My concern was that the nominations page says "Please do not nominate an article unless you are fairly certain that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Any nomination of an article that does not meet this criteria may be removed." So I was thinking that the focus of this project was on articles that don't need to prove their notability, but if you're saying to give it a try anyway, then I guess it is just a matter of making a good enough case to garner those support votes?  :) BOZ (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
No I dont think they would be moved here for a successful nomination. Also, I want to clarify that we cant have articles likely to be AfDed under notability here. That would not be acceptable. What would be, will be articles which are notable, but were deleted in their previous form due to reasons other than notability [promotional and copyright etc]. If the notability itself is under doubt, I dont think its likely to be selected here.
[Note that the TAFI articles are at the main page. So it would be a whole set of problems in itself if an article was AfDed while at the main page] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, so that brings me back to my original problem – maybe we do need a separate process just for articles which do not currently meet the GNG, but for which there is a good chance they may if sources can be found. My goal is to take articles that don't yet meet the GNG, and have people who can find sources so that they will meet the GNG. BOZ (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh sorry.. I misunderstood. Yes, by redlink I meant articles that had just not been created yet, not those that had been deleted. This isn't a good place for article bordering on notability. It's mainly for common articles that everyone naturally assumes will have great articles but actually don't. To refute the notion that "all the good topics have already be written about".--Coin945 (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
This is my understanding of the project too. When I make and review nominations, I'm personally looking for fairly undeveloped articles on accessible topics that are receiving a lot of page hits. We're trying to address a specific point in the lifecycle of an article where new editors can make meaningful contributions. ~KvnG 22:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I got it. Yes, I think I will have to give some more thought to this. Perhaps I will bring it up at the ARS too. BOZ (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Failure [edit]

I don't mean to seem harsh, but it's difficult to describe TAFI's main page trial as a success. Despite the exposure, the articles are barely being edited. It seemed prudent to wait for the endeavor to gain momentum, but I just noticed that no one even bothered to set up the next queue. As we're less than a day from week 21, Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/21 and its subpages have been cascade-protected, so it's too late for a non-administrator to create them.
If nothing is done by 00:00, the main page's readers will see "Please check back later." below the TAFI heading. I'm inclined to remove the section, effectively ending the trial and sending us back to the drawing board. This simply isn't working. —David Levy 00:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Too many articles. One at a time would've made sense. —Designate (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Well I think we'd all agree that's largely due to its current format - basically listing the names of 3 articles in a row. You have to be willing to give TAFI the prominence on the main page it deserves in order to see a difference. Its like in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy when the Vogons (if i remember correctly) put the Earth demolition notice in an underground bus station somewhere, and then getting annoyed when the Earth's population got upset when nobody read it. You can't not advertise something very well and then say it's a faliure. The project can't stand up on its merits alone. It has to be delivered in an engaging way. How is its current format engaging at all? But we put up with it because it was that or nothing, remember? Maybe the solution is to upgrade our little box to something that actually encourages people to get involved, not to bombard them with an acronym and then 3 random articles.--Coin945 (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the implementation is key. That's why I referred to the main page trial (not the entire TAFI project) as a failure and recommended that we go "back to the drawing board". As you might recall, I've suggested that the TAFI section be placed in a full-width box, thereby enabling substantial expansion. —David Levy 04:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Colin, you do not remember correctly. Bus stations were not involved in any way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I've removed TAFI from the main page. —David Levy 14:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I disabled the bot task that automatically tags articles with {{TAFI}}. Let me know when to reenable it. Theopolisme (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that if it be reinstated, we have some blurbs about what those articles are about and what needs to be done with them. Everything else on the Main Page has some attached text (and images, too). It was easy to miss them, and even if you saw them, you would have been at a loss to know what was needed. Daniel Case (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to try and improve this from where it is rather than starting over again? There was good consensus that it is a good idea. why not try a few different things before giving up? ~KvnG 17:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Editors keeping up with the project's Schedule is key here. As of the time of this post, I've updated this page to week 22, and will likely perform more updating to prevent this problem from occurring again. The schedule can be updated for many weeks at a time due to a backlog of entries at the Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Holding area, which would solve the problem of it not being updated in a timely manner. I disagree with discontinuing TAFI's place on Main page so soon, it's only been around a month. It took much longer than this just to obtain consensus to move forward with TAFI on Main page. Conversely, I fully support using a full-width box that includes topic descriptions. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
As discussed before TAFI was placed on the main page, this was a trial (the failure of which would result in TAFI's removal, with a new consensus required to restore it). I'm biased in favor of TAFI's inclusion, but even I must acknowledge that the attempt was unsuccessful.
Users weren't editing the articles to a significant extent. The implementation likely played a major role in this, but a different one would require a new consensus anyway. It simply isn't feasible to fit a more elaborate presentation into the space allotted. I wish that I'd noticed the original discussion before the decision to use the column was made, as this jumped out at me as a big problem.
But the missing week 21 queue was an even bigger problem. As you noted, remaining up to date is key. We knew this from the beginning. (NickPenguin was quite right in stating that "once this goes on the main page, there best be content set up and ready to go.") We can't rely on last-minute scrambling (or, in this case, after-the-fact scrambling that wouldn't even have been possible if the protection were still in effect). We need to ensure that measures are in place to prevent something like this from occurring again before we can even consider another main page trial. —David Levy 04:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
We can't rely on last-minute scrambling
That's an over-statement. It looks bad, yes, but it's not terrible. There are so many times I've been the one to create the POTD Main Page template in the final minutes of the previous day or the first minutes of the current: for example, on May 10, May 11, and May 12, I created them between 00:00 and 00:34 (UTC). The Main Page didn't collapse, and no one seems to point it out. But it does look bad. Forgetting to update TAFI is even more subtle, but for the unsubtle "Check back for today's" message. -- tariqabjotu 06:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
There are so many times I've been the one to create the POTD Main Page template in the final minutes of the previous day or the first minutes of the current
As have I. That isn't good (and I recently discussed a possible modification to the setup), but it isn't comparable to what just occurred here.
This wasn't merely about creating a protected transclusion. No one had scheduled this week's ten articles, which was supposed to have been done weeks ago (leaving plenty of time to resolve potential issues). I noticed this less than a day in advance, so the nonexistent subpages had been automatically cascade-protected (rendering it impossible for a non-administrator to create them in their correct locations). I lacked sufficient familiarity with the process to select articles myself, so I posted a message here. Twenty-six hours elapsed before someone stepped in to perform the scheduling, and I can only assume that the correct steps were followed.
The problem is that TAFI evidently lacks an infrastructure ensuring that someone does (or at least is supposed to do) the necessary work. Users x, y and z weren't late or forgetful. They simply don't exist. It was no one's responsibility to schedule the articles, so no one did it (despite a lead time of several weeks). Surely, this can be corrected. —David Levy 09:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
So that's it then? Sorry David, but I will state that this comes across as slightly WP:SUPERVOTE-ish, just because it does. However, you did the right thing in updating Main page (removing TAFI) when the red links appeared, that's for sure. Maybe my proposal below to utilize a bot to stop these types of errors from occurring can correct this problem. Northamerica1000(talk) 00:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
To what "supervote" are you referring? Do you think that I wanted to remove TAFI from the main page? Are you suggesting that the trial actually succeeded? —David Levy 07:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Just pointing out that months of working to get TAFI on Main page by numerous editors is able to be stopped by one admin and declared as entirely a failure, in part per one problem that occurred which was promptly fixed (by me). No offense intended, and I'm aware that you're supportive of the project. Again, if a bot will be updating everything per the proposal below, the problem that occurred will be permanently solved. I think it's premature to declare the entire run as unsuccessful, but that's just my opinion. Perhaps when matters are smoothed over we will have to start all over again, gain community consensus for what already had consensus, and then take it from there. That, or just forget about the whole thing. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 12:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
"Supervote" implies that I substituted my preferred outcome for that which the available evidence supported. On the contrary, my preferred outcome was for TAFI to remain on the main page, but the evidence — including the virtual absence of editing — shows that the trial failed. Do you disagree?
I don't want my efforts or anyone else's to have been in vain, but we need to learn from what's happened and work toward actual success. The consensus for including a TAFI section on the main page still stands (though restoring it in a broken state probably would engender opposition). We need only establish consensus for a new implementation.
This isn't about starting over from scratch; it's about moving forward. —David Levy 02:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I would like to see TAI return to the main page, but like others I did not find the way it was being presented to be very engaging. One article at a time, with maybe a short blurb detailing what was needed, would be much better than just listing three article names and leaving it at that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Request to reinstate TAFI on main page denied [edit]

EMERGENCY [edit]

There are NO articles linked from the protect page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panpog1 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As discussed above, no articles were selected for this week. I've removed the broken list. —David Levy 02:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Northamerica1000 created a list and added it to the page. —David Levy 02:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Fixed Everything should be in order at this time. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Images for upcoming weeks [edit]

Posting this to request discussion for images to use for the upcoming weeks 22 and 23. Northamerica1000(talk) 04:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: use Theo's Little Bot to automate the schedule and queue [edit]

A solution to the problem that occurred with the TAFI queue not being populated is to see if User:Theo's Little Bot could be used to create them automatically. The bot is already being used to move successful entries from the project's nomination page to the holding area, to archive unsuccessful entries after 15 days, and to place templates on new TAFI articles and remove them from expired ones.

Using a bot to automate the process seems likely to be possible per the current format we have with just bare entries (that were) listed on Main page's TAFI section. Here's what automating the process would entail:

  • Move 1 entry at the top of each section in the holding area to a new schedule entry (e.g. Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/21).
  • Since 10 entries were being listed weekly, consolidate one of the 11 sections down to 10, both on the nomination page and the holding page, to enable this to be performed automatically
  • Create the weekly queue page (e.g. Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/21)
  • Populate the subpages of the queue page (e.g. 1 through 10).
  • In the event a section in the holding area is empty, the bot would randomly choose from another section to bring the number of articles to 10.

That's it. After this post, I'll ping User:Theopolisme to notify them about this discussion, along with people that have contributed to the above discussions and regular participants to this project. Northamerica1000(talk) 11:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure why a message was left on my page for this; however, it looks like there is a great plan in place and once the last little hiccup in ReGex of Theo's Little Bot 10 is corrected and the bot is approved. Good luck!
    Support: ✔ Technical 13 (talk) gives his support for this section's subject at 12:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC).
Since you made some contributions to the project a while back, I notified you with a neutrally-worded notice. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
I like this idea. Though I think we must be trying to balance the number of articles at backlog. Maybe Theo could add some script to make it more proportionate to the number of articles in HA?
A sample solution is as follows -
  1. All sections send the oldest x articles only to the Schedule.
  2. Every section with more than 10% articles at HA has 1 fixed slot. Sections with atleast 20% get two slots and so on.
  3. The remaining slots are distributed randomly to the sections. Thuese slots can go to any section with less than 2 slots already.
I think that might solve the problem of having to balance the number of sections or the backlog of articles from a single section that we are likely to have. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, as proposer. After performing updating manually for the next four weeks, it is quite a tedious process that could be much easier and better-accomplished with a bot. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support and support TheOriginalSoni's added rules. seems silly for various people to be managing manually some of the processes, Sadads (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Automation is our friend. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Braden 19:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Bot operator comment: I'll be happy to create whatever we decide we need--time is a bit tight, but once exact requirements for what the bot needs to do are drafted, I'll start coding. Theopolisme (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for responding here User:Theopolisme; I look forward to this prospect, and there is no deadline. 718smiley.svg Northamerica1000(talk) 21:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Help [edit]

Can you add what sections and information should the today's article contain? Something like a "to do" list...--MJ for U (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


Suggestions [edit]

I have made it in the past - as well as 'Random article' have a 'Random article needing improvement' - making use of the various categories etc.

What would be more useful generally is categorising 'articles for improvement' by theme as well as type of improvement required - so interested persons could find those that they can work on. Having a 'Category:Dewey Decimal Nimber' (or numbers) might be a simple way of organising the activity.

The latter is more practical than the former (as 'many WP-ians could add the codes) Jackiespeel (talk) 17:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment and suggestion [edit]

In my opinion, the problem is that there are two goals aimed at two different groups, and the project needs to recognise this. The two goals are: a) improve the quality of “important” but low rated articles and b) attract and retain new editors. The two groups are: a) experienced editors and b) new editors. For example, I enjoy working on the TAFI articles that the team indentifies. I find it intellectually stimulating and useful. I aim to fulfil goal (a). New editors need to be able to do something quickly and get it right so that they have a sense of the possibilities of working with Wikipedia and become motivated to continue. That is goal (b).

I think the TAFI project ought to work in cahoots with the Core Articles project to fulfil goal (a) and in cahoots with all the other Wikiprojects to fulfil goal (b).

To elaborate: The core articles project is a competition and runs for a short time; TAFI is its longer term version. Editors like me who like working on articles that need reconceptualising, research, rewriting, re-balancing, referencing and the like, can do one set of identified articles. This is not the work that new editors can do.

If we want to attract/retain NEW editors then we need to point them to articles that they could have a hope of being able to improve. To do this, we should ask the different Wikiprojects for suggestions for articles that need help – especially list articles, which require additions or other articles where easy improvements can usefully be made. This would enable the pre-existing Wikiproject to monitor article progress and support newbies as well. Newbies need simplicity and success. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou Whiteghost.ink for clearly explaining the issue to us all. I do think our aims became a bit muddled amidst the long convoluted discussion aiming to get TAFI up and running. But you are entirely correct. We have two different (some would say opposing) goals. It seems the first one is working and the second one isn't. If we refocus to only have Aim A (as you put is), then I guess the notion of this being a failure is false. Indeed, in that respect we have been very successful. Mostly due to you, i might add. But it also inspired the respective editors to get Sea to where it is today.--Coin945 (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Coin945, I don't think TAFI is a failure at all. It has inspired me to write on some topics I would not have noticed otherwise. It also offers support and members' contributions improve the work in the usual Wiki way. However, success and failure depends on what you are measuring. Measuring success in article improvement could be seen by the movement from stub class to start class or start class to B class etc. That record could be cumulated in the "Achievements" table. It would be easier if TAFI was connected to the other projects in the way I suggested above because that sort of upwards movement in article quality relies on articles being reassessed in a timely way. Assessment could be done by the relevant Wiki-projects if they had some sort of collaborative relationship with TAFI and had "bought into" the overall effort.
Following what I suggested in the previous post, it might work like this: if the chosen TAFI articles were ones suggested by the Wiki-project and the Wiki-projects were rotated (that is, Wiki-project Biology one period and Wiki-project Geography another period or a pair each period or whatever), we could highlight the Wiki-project on the main page, instead of the specific article. Interested would-be editors who clicked on the link would go to the project page where they would find two options selected by the Wiki-project members: one short set of articles that needed simple edits to improve and another short set that were more difficult and needed either more thinking/research or more technical skill. The Wiki-project people would monitor the changes, support newbies and re-assess the articles at the end of the period. Hopefully everyone wins - TAFI and the Wiki-project, and also the encyclopedia itself as some new editors come on board and some old editors improve difficult articles.
TAFI worked quite well as a motivator for the Australian Aboriginal sacred sites article when I brought it to people's attention. Although the edit-a-thon I was planning to run on it turned out to be more of an "encourage-a-thon", some new editors did work on it and the article is improved. This article should be re-assessed by Wiki-Project Australia. Similarly, the article Writer which was 4,104 bytes when I started on it, is now 66,302 and is still classified as start class. If Wiki-project Literature had "sponsored" it for TAFI, maybe it would have been re-assessed by now and TAFI could chalk up another success.
I understand that these ideas may not be the way people want to go but I throw them in as food for thought. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


I think what we need more is a restructuring in how we nominate and what we nominate. Whiteghost's comment makes perfect sense to me, and I think we can achieve both these goals if we try to balance the articles at TAFI to cover both these type of articles adequately. I however prefer it to not be any external ways to enforce this balance (like creating another parameter for our {{TAFI nom}} template and enforcing the balance by tweaking the bot scheduling). I've been requesting Theopolisme (Are you listening Theo?) for getting the bot to notify all the WikiProjects before the articles get to TAFI. I'll probably weigh in on the rest of the things dicussed here at a later time. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_articles_for_improvement&oldid=556249627"