Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Main page   Talk page   TAFI nominations   Holding Area   Schedule   Assessment   Members   Automation   Accomplishments   Archives  
TAFI Automated Checklist
Item This week Next week Week after
1. Weekly page created Yes Yes Yes
2. Article specified Yes Yes Yes
3. Picture/file chosen Yes Yes Yes
4. Caption written Yes Yes Yes
It is currently week 35 of 2014. Purge this page to refresh the checklist.

Choose the TAFI article for Week 36 of 2014[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Hello @Buster7, Northamerica1000, NickPenguin, Esoxid:, @Kvng, Whiteghost.ink, Ypnypn, Madalibi:, @Moswento, Kvng, Coin945, Mark Miller:, @WaitingForConnection, Evad37, Buffbills7701, Newyorkadam:, @Turn685, Victor falk, GiantSnowman, Melody Lavender: @EMachine03, Simplysavvy, EuroCarGT, CSJJ104: @Cloudz679, Iselilja, Khamar, Finnusertop: and others (anyone can participate!):

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

Please indicate, before 23:59 UTC Saturday, your top three preferences in order: your top pick first, then your second choice, and then your third. These will be allocated 3, 2, and 1 points respectively, and the most popular article (with the most points) will be added to the scheduled for week 35 of 2014. Articles that receive at least one vote will be returned to the holding area, while articles with no votes will be archived. On behalf of the TAFI project, --NickPenguin(contribs) 07:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Results:

I have moved Raven Tales to Ravens in Native American mythology, which is a subtopic of Cultural depictions of ravens. The new title is a little bit broader, and would probably be easier to improve. If this is a contentious decision we can discuss before the schedule rolls over. --NickPenguin(contribs) 06:39, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Best and Fairest from Week 31[edit]

Seven days and seven nights turned Vatican Library from this into this. Significant improvements included expanded History, Collections, Manuscripts and Staff sections, as well as a new Location and Building section, Library Organization, and a gallery with a dozen new images, as well as renaming a few sections. We also almost tripled the number of citations, as well as doubled the length.

Major contributions came from @Evad37:, @CSJJ104:, @Finnusertop:, @Madalibi:, @Melody Lavender: and myself. Other contributions came from @MirrorFreak:, @EuroCarGT:, @Khamar:, @Mum's taxi:, @Whiteghost.ink:, @Northamerica1000:, @Ryan115:, @Ceosad:.

Thanks everyone for all your work, let's make Animatronics another successful collaboration. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I really need Animatronics to be over, I'm getting obsessed. lol David Condrey (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Return to the Main Page[edit]

I think the last 8 weeks have demonstrated that this project can make dramatic improvements to articles. Tickle Me Elmo, National Library of China, Anubis, Java Man, Stir frying, C-4 (explosive), Jazz band and Vatican Library are all examples of the kinds of "WOW" improvements we needed. Now that we have proof that it can be done, it's time to start thinking about drafting a new proposal to return to the main page.

I'm going to break this into two sections, Housecleaning and Main Page Proposal. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Housecleaning[edit]

Automation: Some parts of the project are automated. The 3-2-1 sructure is working, so TAFI/Schedule/new and TAFI/Holding area/new should replace the pages at TAFI/Schedule and TAFI/Holding area, and the code updated to reflect this. We could also automate the closing of the weekly votes, and generating the start of new votes each Sunday.

Yes check.svg Done Archives and search either don't work or are just not updated. This would be a good area for a bot to administer for us.

We can probably stop the bot from rotating the sections on the Nominations page, it is likely no longer necessary. It would also be nice to automate the Past Accomplishments page, even if it was a date range, start and finish links.

Yes check.svg Done Templates: The {{TAFI editor notice}}, {{TAFI project notice}} and {{Today's article for improvement invitation}}, I haven't seen used much. Are these still useful templates or can they be depreciated and deleted?

Membership list Is there a standard to resetting a membership list? Most of these people listed as project members have not been involed with this project in over a year. Maybe archive and send everyone a message asking them to readd if the would consider themselves a member?

Yes check.svg Done Project name: I think we would probably have to change the project name back to the singular, "Today's article for improvement", unless anyone has an idea for a way to expand the project without watering down results. One idea I had, we add an extra article as a monthly improvement, one that's a GA, Former GA, FAC or Former FA we are improving to FA status. My thoughts on this are mixed, I'd like t expand, but I don't want to split our focus. Or maybe having two articles would increase participation?

Yes check.svg Done Landing page: We would have to update our landing page WP:TAFI to look more like WP:TFA or WP:TFP

How easy would it be for a bot to add the {{TAFI project notice}} to relevant wikiproject pages? CSJJ104 (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
That is already happening most weeks, eg for this week: [1][2] - Evad37 [talk] 01:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Re templates: I have updated {{TAFI project notice}} to more closely match the bot version, so it can be used when the bot fails or additional projects should be notified. I'm not sure the editor notice is useful – while it could be similarly updated, most significant contributors, if still active, would probably be watching the relevant article or wikiproject talk page. - Evad37 [talk] 07:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Re membership: While many are not actively involved in TAFI, a lot of them are still signed up to the weekly selection notices. Not sure if this means they don't care and haven't bothered to remove themselves from the mailing list, or if they are just waiting for an exciting article to come along? - Evad37 [talk] 07:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
I can only speak for myself here, but I took a back seat around the time this project was seriously in trouble. The excitement at the beginning of the project was infectious, but aims were not being met. The article choices were... difficult. The refocusing of the project was, beyond doubt, excellent. I'm a bit sheepish, so a strong core of members with a welcoming attitude let's me join any particular TAFI that floats my boat, especially when people start making edits straight away. IMHO, the most successful choices have a spread across cultural and technical topics, are not constrained by geography or are easy to improve rapidly by copying of text. In terms of quality improvements, the latter is less important. The real predictor of article improvement (qci) appears to be the number of useful (non-reverted) edits per editor, and not total editors. Once that figure exceeds 5, an article usually increases in quality class. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the old format left the project on shaky grounds; we spent so much time trying to organize the project that we spent almost no time improving articles. Now that everything seems to be clipping along at a good pace, maybe it would be a good time to reintroduce the project to older listed members, who may not be watching this page anymore. Most of them probably do not know about the new format, and other ideas we are working on. --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Re name: "This week's Article For Improvement" is probably more accurate whilst retaining the acronym TAFI, but the project pages are now sufficiently complicated/numerous that I wouldn't relish a mass pagemove. A rebranding of our messages and templates, without page moves, would certainly be an easier proposition. If we did want to expand, perhaps having two weekly articles at a time, but offset so that one runs from Monday to Sunday and another from (say) Thursday to Wednesday could be an option. - Evad37 [talk] 07:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
If the plural name is of no great concern, then we probably should just not worry about this. Plus we can keep it for possible future expansion. --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Updated Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Header to reflect current article selection process. This is subject to change in the future if we revert back to multiple articles per week (which is one of the reasons I support TAFI remaining what it originally stood for acronym-wise).--Coin945 (talk) 17:12, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Main Page Proposal[edit]

One thing I've noticed on the main page is that static content is unacceptable (except ITN, sort of). All content it rotated daily, and in the example of WP:TFL, items that run for a week are generally just shown one day in the week, in a full page width box.

This is the type of feature I think we should aim for, a full page width box, running once a week (probably Tuesdays since Monday is already taken by TFL). It would basically be an updated version of {{TAFI weekly selections notice}}. --NickPenguin(contribs) 05:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think one day a week, towards the beginning of the week, would be a good idea. The main page style would have to be used – I do have a couple of ideas, but have to see how they would work in practice. - Evad37 [talk] 07:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Here's something I just whipped up, what do you (NickPenguin and others) think?

Today's article for improvement

Solar activity is this week's article for improvement

Solar activity is this week's article for improvement, and you can participate in that collaborative effort – editing help is available.
(Pictured: A solar flare erupts from the Sun, an example of solar activity.)

Previous selections: History of West Africa • Ghost story • Animatronics

ArchiveNominate an articleChoose future selections
👍 Like NorthAmerica1000 07:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree, I think that looks excellent. --NickPenguin(contribs) 12:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
👍 Like Jim Carter (from public cyber) 12:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I really like this, and think it would fit right in on the main page. One comment, would scheduled selections perhaps be a better alternative to previous selections if the intention is to get more people involved into the future? CSJJ104 (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
That's a great idea, but we wouldn't want to show too far ahead, the final straw that got the project pulled off the main page last time was not having content scheduled properly in advance. That would be a tragic repetition. --NickPenguin(contribs) 21:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that's such a good idea because:
  • Previous selections fits in better with the other main page sections – TFA, TFP, TFL all show the previous three articles, and no future articles
  • It would look better (from stat's POV, or for arguments to keep TAFI on the MP) if the improvements to articles happened during their scheduled week, rather than beforehand
  • We don't want to split our attention between multiple articles, which was a significant failure in the previous main page implementation
  • Given the previous point, new/IP editors (if any) would be far better off being part of the collaboration, rather than being left on their own in an article which isn't the current TAFI.
  • As Nick points out, it reduces the amount of leeway we have if something goes wrong - Evad37 [talk] 01:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

The code for the content inside the box is now at Template:Today's articles for improvement. - Evad37 [talk] 08:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

These developed articled should be deleted from the Holding Area[edit]

Having gone through the articles in the Holding Area, I have chosen (through my albeit arbitrary methods) the following articles that I feel since being nominated have been expanded enough that TAFI is no longer suitable. It is worth noting that many of these articles actually did run for a week but were kept after switching to the 1-per-week system. Otherwise I just don't think the type of article works for us.

I hope none of these are contentious. This way we can free up contributions for articles that really need it. We've found that the less developed an article is, the better our collaboration is. (Our very first TAFI was Culture, despite my fervent objections. It went about as well as you'd expect).

I have not taken into account articles that probably need to have merge discussions, or even AFDs.--Coin945 (talk) 15:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment of all those articles. Some of them were nominated almost two years ago, so a lot has happened since then. Maybe we should make some (arbitrary) guidelines about article nominations. For me, length by itself is not reason enough to not support a nomination, but definitely having more than 20 citations, that is a sign that the article is already pretty developed. --NickPenguin(contribs) 17:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I look at a few main things: Length of article (i.e. how small the side-scroller becomes :P), how much of the content is sourced, number of sources, how well the citations have been written, whether there are whole sections missing, whether the article is below B-class.--Coin945 (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Regarding the lists above, if they're messy, it's a qualifier as an article for improvement, in my opinion. NorthAmerica1000 00:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I find the long lists intimidating, it would be difficult to imagine a new editor show up at List of types of marble and know what they could do to improve it. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
NickPenguin nailed it on the head. Every time one of the list pops up as one of the 10 articles, i skip straight over it. They are intimidating and confusing. Not conducive to group improvement at all.--Coin945 (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I would mention that shorter lists might actually be quite easy for newer editors to mention. It is a comparatively simple matter to add a link to a page, with or without a short description, and many are in need of formatting or a lead section. Perhaps using class definitions might help? E.g. anything above a C class is considered too developed. Another problem may be articles like Whaling (is this not to be archived anyway?) where discretionary sanctions can be imposed, possibly discouraging to new editors. CSJJ104 (talk) 23:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We have had success with lists, such as Life sciences (before), but a well developed, even if messy, list article is probably going to be just as hard to improve as a well developed, even if messy, B-Class article. And re classes: we have had proposals to limit the eligibility criteria based on class, but the outcome of such discussions has been to rely on editors' discretion in picking articles, rather than class (which isn't always up to date or accurate) - Evad37 [talk] 02:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Life sciences was kind of an interesting case, because there was essentially no new content created, it was just grabbing content from other articles. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But to touch on a point Coin945 said, I think we need to consider what will be "conductive to group improvement", in both the noms and the articles we vote for each week. Sometimes the articles I find interesting make just terrible collaborations. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps two separate votes - one for articles and one for lists? The lists vote could be monthly if there aren't many nominations. Or is this just complicating things innecessarily? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 17:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Sophie means wisdom: one vote would probably be the best system. I think we should focus on finding list articles that are good candidates for improvement to list as nominations. --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Reaching out to the DYK project[edit]

I can see a lot of similarities between our project and Did You Know?, and I feel like that the two groups could work well together. They have a large group of editors interested in improving content, and they may also find a project such as this interesting. Plus it would be good if we could have our improved content featured in DYK so as to raise project awareness. I'm looking for ideas of how we can encourage the projects to coordinate together. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Can't hurt to ask, can it? CSJJ104 (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Choose the TAFI article for Week 37 of 2014[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Hello @Buster7, Northamerica1000, NickPenguin, Esoxid:, @Kvng, Whiteghost.ink, Ypnypn, Madalibi:, @Moswento, Kvng, Coin945, Mark Miller:, @WaitingForConnection, Evad37, Buffbills7701, Newyorkadam:, @Turn685, Victor falk, GiantSnowman, Melody Lavender: @EMachine03, Simplysavvy, EuroCarGT, CSJJ104: @Cloudz679, Iselilja, Khamar, Finnusertop: @Tomásdearg92, CSJJ104, Davey2010, Stuartyeates: @Gongshow, Jim Carter - Public, Sophie means wisdom: and others (anyone can participate!):

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

Please indicate, before 23:59 UTC Saturday, your top three preferences in order: your top pick first, then your second choice, and then your third. These will be allocated 3, 2, and 1 points respectively, and the most popular article (with the most points) will be added to the scheduled for week 37 of 2014. Articles that receive at least one vote will be returned to the holding area, while articles with no votes will be archived. On behalf of the TAFI project, --NickPenguin(contribs) 06:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Results:

Thanks to everyone for their votes, much appreciated. --NickPenguin(contribs) 07:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

{{COTWs}}[edit]

Template:COTWs (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Article collaboration[edit]

Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Article collaboration has been nominated for deletion. This discussion is located here. NorthAmerica1000 07:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Best and Fairest from week 32[edit]

A marathon seven days brought Animatronics from this to this. This was definitely a turn around article, we began with only just a lede, history and construction section. By the seventh day, we had an improved lede, significantly improved history section, a timeline, an implementation section with dozens of examples, and an expanded construction section with information about various materials. As well as seven new images, a 6.5x expansion in length, and a 13x increase in the number of citations. Also, this would be eligible for a DYK if a project participant were to nominate it.

Many thanks go to @David Condrey:, @Horai 551:, @Tomásdearg92:, @Melody Lavender:, @EuroCarGT:, and @CSJJ104: as well as @Finnusertop:, @Northamerica1000:, @Buster7:, @Evad37: and @Sfan00 IMG:. As well as our faithful bot companions, always watching out for us.

Thanks again everyone, here's looking forward to another successful week with Ghost story. --NickPenguin(contribs) 03:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination[edit]

Nominated. David Condrey (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Animatronics

Lucky the Dinosaur audio-animatronic at Walt Disney World in 2005 was the first one to walk on land

  • ... that Abraham Lincoln was a major factor in today's popularization of modern-day animatronics?
  • ALT1:... that humanoid animatronics are in fact androids; animatronics is best reserved for non-humanoid lifelife characters?
  • ALT2:... that the lineage of modern-day animatronics can be traced back as far as 1220 in medieval Europe?
  • ALT3:... that Walt Disney's first interest in animatronics came after he happened upon a toy animatronics bird by chance while on vacation?
  • Comment: This article was last weeks featured Article for Improvement and with the efforts of the team, consisting of NickPenguin, David Condrey, Horai 551, Tomásdearg92, Melody Lavender, EuroCarGT, CSJJ104, Finnusertop, Northamerica1000, Buster7, Evad37, Sfan00 IMG we were able to turn the Animatronics article from this to this over a marathon 7 days of hard work.

5x expanded by Wikipedia Project:Today's Articles for Improvement Team (talk). Nominated by David Condrey (talk) at 07:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC).


Article reassessment[edit]

We need to update the article grades for certain TAFI selected articles. Unfortunately the WikiProjects in which Animatronics are listed are inactive, some members are still active on this site so asking them could be an option. Just to note. ///EuroCarGT 05:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

We could start our own assessment process, record the before/after assessments in the {{Former TAFI}} banner, and copy over the assessment to inactive or semi-active projects' banners. - Evad37 [talk] 05:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
WP:MILHIST has quite the advanced assessment process which gets pretty consistent results. Maybe we could copy some of their model. --NickPenguin(contribs) 12:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
I've started a sandbox/draft version of a TAFI Assessment page at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Assessment - Evad37 [talk] 13:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Wow, that was quick. That looks really good, and I especially like the part about assessing before as well as after. Sometimes assessments are just totally out to lunch. --NickPenguin(contribs) 13:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, most of it was a copy–paste – I still have to fix up/remove some references to MILHIST Face-tongue.svg - Evad37 [talk] 13:34, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Good stuff! I would suggest using switch templates for the template so it could be easily filled. ///EuroCarGT 15:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done (I think this is what you meant, please elaborate if it isn't): Filling out the B-class checklist will now automatically assign B-class or C-class when the relevant criteria are met. I've also added a separate checklist for the pre-improvement assessment. - Evad37 [talk] 02:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
I added the Assessment link to the tabbed header. --NickPenguin(contribs) 04:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks good. I think an improvement would be to include information about A-class, Good-class and Featured-class articles on the Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Assessment page, so that features are listed. NorthAmerica1000 06:31, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Crystal Clear action edit add.png Added to the Criteria section, and icons added to the links in the Introduction section - Evad37 [talk] 07:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The new template is now live at {{Former TAFI}}, and the Assessment page has been updated. Now all we need are assessors! Please add your name to the list on that page if you are willing to assess articles. - Evad37 [talk] 09:34, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

👍 Like Really nice. Lookin' good in the neighborhood. NorthAmerica1000 09:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
GG! ///EuroCarGT 00:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Is the intention to assess every article before and after, or is the pre-improvement check list only if articles have already been checked? CSJJ104 (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
The intention is to assess every article's before-improvement and after-improvement state. - Evad37 [talk] 00:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I was Bold and added the template with my assessment of the current state of History of West Africa hoping it might provide a guide for improvements. Let me no if this is a problem. CSJJ104 (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea... I'll look into programming the template to display more appropriate messages during the week of the collaboration - Evad37 [talk] 05:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 Done - Evad37 [talk] 00:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Automation[edit]

Per discussion further up the page, the project could do with some more automation, i.e. bot tasks. I have recently updated the Automation (previously named Templates) page to include details of the current bot tasks (none of which are working perfectly, but that's another matter). Please comment on the following potential bot tasks (or suggest others), which could then be requested at WP:BOTREQ. - Evad37 [talk] 09:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Manage weekly votes[edit]

1) Set up the weekly vote on a Monday (after closing previous vote):

  • 10 articles to be randomly selected from the numbered list in the holding area
  • New message posted on TAFI talk page, with:
    • {{Anchor|Vote}}
    • ping list
    • intro text
    • the 10 articles (moved out of holding area, and into this new message)
    • instructions

Notes: Templates for intro message and pings could be created. Very important that {{anchor|Vote}} is moved from old vote section to new vote section (it is linked from various templates). - Evad37 [talk] 09:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this would be an ideal thing to automate. I have put in a bot request but it has so far gone unreplied to. If @Theopolisme: continued to be unavailable I think we may be forced to disable his bot and force a reaction from him. --NickPenguin(contribs) 08:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
I think Theo is actually quite busy in real life and/or spending little time on-wiki, so I'm not sure disabling the bot tasks would actually get a positive reaction (or perhaps any reaction at all?) - Evad37 [talk] 05:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

2) Close weekly vote:

  • Each participant provides (or can instructed to provide) links to their top 3 articles. The first is worth 3 points, the second 2 points, the third 1 point. In accordance with this, tally the points for each of the 10 articles, and display the results below the vote.
  • The article(s) with the highest number of points to be marked as "to be scheduled"
  • Articles at or below a certain number of points (currently 0, but might be changed) are archived to the holding area archive
  • Articles above that threshold, but not with the highest number of points, will be returned to the list in the holding area
  • Mark section with {{closed}}, and remove {{Anchor|Vote}}

Notes: Instructions could specify that exact article titles/links must be used, like how nominations page says votes must be bolded. - Evad37 [talk] 09:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the automated closing is good, but the vote tallying would likely be easier to count by hand. I could see the tallying being difficult to automate. --NickPenguin(contribs) 08:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
It might be difficult, I'm not really sure – I suppose we'll have to see what the bot makers say. In any case, it would probably be better to split the requested task into 2) Close vote (Mark section with {{closed}}, and remove {{Anchor|Vote}}) and have the rest of it as an optional task, if it isn't too hard to code.

Manage Accomplishments page[edit]

  • Add a new row to Accomplishments page each week, with as much data as a bot can determine – at least year/week number and article title, more if possible.

Note: Template Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Accomplishments/row available, documentation there describes data required. Before/after prose size might also be a useful measurement. - Evad37 [talk] 09:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

This would be another ideal item to automate. --NickPenguin(contribs) 08:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Support. NorthAmerica1000 06:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Send out weekly user notification[edit]

Note: I'm not sure if bots can use the mass message, or if a bot would need to. - Evad37 [talk] 09:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I think automatically messaging WikiProjects related to the article would be useful, but project participants get pings already for the votes. I know I get a talk page notification every Monday,and I find that useful, although I think it might be courtesy from EuroCarGT and not strictly automated. --NickPenguin(contribs) 08:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
The existing talk page notification on Mondays is what I meant. Currently, a Mass Message Sender/admin (EuroCarGT been doing a great job for a while now, I was doing it a lot initially) sends the message each week semi-automatically, using Special:MassMessage (an interface to send the same message to everyone on a specially formatted list – ours is here). Since the message is actually just the substitution of Template:TAFI weekly selections notice, this seems like a task that could be fully automated by using a bot. - Evad37 [talk] 05:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I support using a bot to automatically send out weekly user notifications. This will streamline the process more, and automation will solve a potential problem of the message not being sent manually, which can occur when editors become busy with other matters, etc. NorthAmerica1000 06:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Choose the TAFI article for Week 38 of 2014[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

Hello @Buster7, Northamerica1000, NickPenguin, Esoxid, Kvng, Whiteghost.ink, Ypnypn, Madalibi, Moswento, Kvng, Coin945, Mark Miller, WaitingForConnection, Evad37, Buffbills7701, Newyorkadam, Turn685, Victor falk, GiantSnowman, Melody Lavender: EMachine03, Simplysavvy, EuroCarGT, CSJJ104, Cloudz679, Iselilja, Khamar, Finnusertop, Tomásdearg92, CSJJ104, Davey2010, Stuartyeates, Gongshow, Jim Carter - Public, Sophie means wisdom, SL93, MrWooHoo [edit ping list], and others (anyone can participate!):

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

Please indicate, before 23:59 UTC Saturday, your top three preferences in order: your top pick first, then your second choice, and then your third. These will be allocated 3, 2, and 1 points respectively, and the most popular article (with the most points) will be added to the scheduled for week 38 of 2014. Articles that receive at least one vote will be returned to the holding area, while articles with no votes will be archived. On behalf of the TAFI project, --NickPenguin(contribs) 07:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Results:

Result was Ancient Roman architecture, thanks everyone. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Best and Fairest from week 33[edit]

This week saw a bit of a challenging collaboration with Ghost story. After 7 days, we had turned this into this. It began with a quick copy paste from the relevant section on ghost, and continued with the integration of all of the examples into the Literature, Film and Television. We grouped the examples in the Literature together by genre/chronology, we also expanded the lede and History section, as well as a 4x increase in citations and a 3x increase in length. 7 new images (up from the original zero), and a sound file round out the improvements.

Many thanks to Evad37, Jim Carter - Public, Melody Lavender and CSJJ104, as well as David Condrey, Northamerica1000, Finnusertop, Horai 551, Kvng and SL93.

Well done once again everyone. Looking forward to another successful collaboration with History of West Africa. --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Very well done!--Mark Miller (talk) 05:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Redesigned TAFI main page[edit]

I have been experimenting with a redesign for the TAFI main page (WP:TAFI), see User:Evad37/Sandbox 3. I've tried to make it simpler and friendly, and reuse the content of the proposed main page box (as per WP:TFA, WP:TFL, WP:TFP). - Evad37 [talk] 07:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

That looks a lot better. You are really good at the design of these elements. --NickPenguin(contribs) 11:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
One matter is that the File:Writing Magnifying.PNG image atop at the right is used by the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. NorthAmerica1000 14:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I just took the image from {{Former TAFI}} (it's been in there for a couple of years). I'm sure there's other icons we could use instead (for both the template and redesigned main page). - Evad37 [talk] 00:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
How about this image Flest utökade.svg which shows collaborative editing (3 pens) and improvemet (+ symbol)? - Evad37 [talk] 08:26, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
👍 Like Nice find. NorthAmerica1000 10:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Choose the TAFI article for Week 39 of 2014[edit]

Hello @Buster7, Northamerica1000, NickPenguin, Esoxid, Kvng, Whiteghost.ink, Ypnypn, Madalibi, Moswento, Kvng, Coin945, Mark Miller, WaitingForConnection, Evad37, Buffbills7701, Newyorkadam, Turn685, Victor falk, GiantSnowman, Melody Lavender: EMachine03, Simplysavvy, EuroCarGT, CSJJ104, Cloudz679, Iselilja, Khamar, Finnusertop, Tomásdearg92, CSJJ104, Davey2010, Stuartyeates, Gongshow, Jim Carter - Public, Sophie means wisdom, SL93, MrWooHoo [edit ping list], and others (anyone can participate!):

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

Please indicate, before 23:59 UTC Saturday, your top three preferences in order: your top pick first, then your second choice, and then your third. These will be allocated 3, 2, and 1 points respectively, and the most popular article (with the most points) will be added to the scheduled for week 39 of 2014. Articles that receive at least one vote will be returned to the holding area, while articles with no votes will be archived. On behalf of the TAFI project, --NickPenguin(contribs) 00:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Main wikiproject page copyedit[edit]

Is the header line Project Organisation spelled correctly on the main page? It was just bugging me.. I guess organisation can be spelled either with a z or with an s. I was itching to copyedit the page but figured maybe I should check first.. David Condrey (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a typo... Unless there are national ties to a particular variety of English, any form is acceptable on Wikipedia. But perhaps there is an alternate word spelled the same in American and British/British-based English? - Evad37 [talk] 02:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Organization with an s is British (common), Australia, New Zealand, meanwhile elsewhere it's with a z. The section was written by Evad37, he or she is Australian so he or she used organization with a s. ///EuroCarGT 02:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
| A cup of jo.. :) David Condrey (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
According to that spreadsheet, Canadian English is the same as British English, or we are both just as sarcastic. --NickPenguin(contribs) 13:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Report tool[edit]

Just come across this tool for automatically compiling reports about state of articles. Would point out it's not always up to date, but still useful. CSJJ104 (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That is an excellent tool, it would be incredibly useful. Especially with articles that already have lots of content but might be difficult to work through manually. --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Nice find. Thanks for sharing. David Condrey (talk) 03:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
That tool and some others are listed on TAFI's main page, but if you find any other useful tools, you can add them there. - Evad37 [talk] 03:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Logistics of this project[edit]

I've done the maths, and as we've got 319 articles and one per week, atm it would take 6 years to run through them all (319 articles / 52 weeks per year = 6). This is simply ridiculous. The inflow and outflow should be relatively equal. The nominations page is still being flooded with nominations (yes, by me too), so I think it should be decided how this is going to work. --Coin945 (talk) 02:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, the holding area has been at around 300 or so articles for most of the year. Don't forget that articles are archived if they received no support during the weekly vote, and we can on occasion go through and prune out articles that have been improved (or merged or redirected) without our involvement. If we want to reduce the excess volume, we should probably be archiving the bottom two or three (or more?) articles from each week's vote, instead of just articles with zero votes. - Evad37 [talk] 02:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
What if we archived anything with less than 4 points? More than 4 means that at least two people voted for it. In general though, I have been thinking about the kinds of articles we have been improving, and I am looking at WP:AFC and wondering if there is some connection there. I am also noticing that for articles like solar activity, where it's basically just a bunch of content copying, once they're done they're done. The research type topics (stir fry, Java man) seem to generate more even distributed participation between high volume and casual participants. --NickPenguin(contribs) 11:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
We can experiment with a quicker turnover of articles, or having multiple ones running at a time. It might be plausible if we brand them as the "Art article of the week" and the "Sport article of the week" and the "Everyday life article of the week" to keep the naming scheme of the nominations page. Rather than an overwhelming amount of articles to edit, there is simply 1 edit for 1 topic. Maybe 3 per week or something. I dunno...--Coin945 (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I like that idea, and as a what I guess is perfect example of a casual editor I will most likely only work on things related to anthropology, psychology or medicine - where I believe my contributions have most value. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
What is the latest TAFI article (if any) you've felt particularly compelled to contribute to?--Coin945 (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that a rolling monthly schedule be developed that allows a new one at the start and the previous three to keep going. That is, if we want a new article each week, so be it, but the previous week's one goes into second place, the second into third and the fourth drops off. This would mean that the new article appears as usual but people who are working on a previous one have a bit more time before the template is removed and the stats prepared. I suggest this because I can't keep up with the weekly rotation. When I get started on one - and being TAFI, they often need time-consuming research - it is disheartening to have them disappear so quickly. This is not a suggesgtion to speed up getting through the articles; it is more a suggestion to try to meet the needs of fast collaboration on newly selected articles at the same time as give a bit more time for research to those who want to keep refining one for a while before it goes. Doing this wouldn't change the selection process or the announcement of the new one; it would just mean leaving the template on four articles at a time, a new one and the previous three. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 18:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Whiteghost, as someone who is deeply in awe of your contributions to not only this project but Wikipedia at large, I think your comments hold great value and though it is the opposite thing to what I am proposing, a very valid proposal in its own right. After all, getting through articles quicker naturally means less effort put into each, right? You are correct: a system of coping with the quick turnover of articles must be set up first before we can even think about making the burden greater. The main page might change all this in a dramatic and swift way though...--Coin945 (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I really like Whiteghost's proposal about having the rolling schedule, I think it can address some of the issues about appealing to the largest editor base. It also alleviates some of the reservations I have about splitting focus between several articles, because the emphasis is placed on one, but the total period lasts for four weeks. And really it would require just a bit of emphasis on the templates and in our project pages.
I am still hesitant about splitting classes of articles, because there number of articles in each class will always be disproportionate (more of type X than Y in holding area), and it may be difficult to continuously have enough in each class. However, I would be interested in exploring this idea further, and see how we might implement it. Would the idea be something like organizing articles into a series of classes, and then voting on groups from these classes? That might get the variety that may be missing. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your vote of confidence in me Coin945 and sorry if I seemed a bit off-topic with my suggestion. I realised that it wasn't quite what you were talking about but took the opportunity to suggest something that is about motivation (and self-interestedly, fits with my own). Personally, I find it fun to see what article has been nominated and would prefer to work on that surprise article than vote. Hence, I don't want a splitting of article suggestions into classes. Would like to say that I admire all the amazing behind-the-scenes work done on Wikipedia projects and processes and the standard that has been achieved here is a great example. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Best and Fairest from week 34 - History of West Africa[edit]

Our collaboration on History of West Africa began with this, and 7 days of hard work turned it into this.

Improvements included a large copy of material from History of Africa, which added a large amount of content to the pre-colonial kingdom/empire section. Other improvements included a significantly improved lede, a much improved lede image and caption, geographic and genetic background sections, improved prehistoric section, added health section including information on AIDS, Ebola virus and famine, as well as a cuisine section. In total there was a 5.5x increase in length (14k to 80k), a huge increase in citations (2 versus 103) and an increase from 5 to 17 images.

Many thanks go out to @David Condrey:, @Northamerica1000:, @Evad37:, @Finnusertop:, and @Melody Lavender:, as well as thanks to @Jim Carter - Public:, @Tomásdearg92:, @EuroCarGT:, @Matt Heard:, @MrWooHoo:, @CSJJ104:, @Comingdeer:, @Cloudz679:, @Prisencolinensinainciusol:, @KConWiki:, @Spirit of Eagle:, @Macofe:, @TheQ Editor:, and @:.

With that accomplishment, I would like to ask a general question about content copying. Certainly it is an easy to beef up an article, and in some past cases (like Life sciences), essentially the only easy way to improve articles. However I am worried it may stunt general participation. I imagine it is easier for new(er) editors to add to a blank slate, and more experienced editors to come around after and clean up content. At the same time, this article had both the largest number of edits and unique participants to date (except April Foods Day with vandals), and History of West Africa was certainly one of our most successful collaborations. Was this because of the subject? What are everyone's thoughts on copying content to improve articles? --NickPenguin(contribs) 11:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, it seems hard to predict what will be a good TAFI. At the start of the week I thought we might struggle with History of West Africa, and yet it turned out to be one of our best collaborations to date. Re copying: while it might dissuade some contributors, it might be quite good for others who like copyediting and gnomish edits to make a consistent, coherent, well-formatted article (as articles copied from are likely to differ somewhat in styles or other aspects). The other point to remember is that different articles that cover the same topic (in varying levels of detail) should be synchronised and should not contradict each other – copying and/or summarising other articles probably helps with this. - Evad37 [talk] 14:52, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Well fwiw, I wasn't a fan of Ravens in Native American mythology from the outset, but it was voted in so I'm not arguing. I guess we'll see how we go, but I don't feel compelled to improve it.--Coin945 (talk) 19:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I am curious to see how that one turns out, my moving of the article may make it easier to improve, but it is a relatively narrow subject. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)