Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement: Difference between revisions

I have generated the first collection of noms to go live on Feb 9th. I went down the list of all noms and wrote down any article with 6 or more supports, and came up with 8. The tie breaker went to Tomboy over Slang, because Tomboy was submitted in October and Slang was submitted a few days ago. There is some category duplication, but I would still consider the list to be fairly diverse for a first go.

At any rate, now it's time to create the rotating template that will be shown on the main page. There was popular support for Tom Morris' layout, as shown here. It's my understanding that there is some randomization code kicking around that can be put to good use? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 01:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work moving forward. At this time, it would be functional to contact administrators who regularly edit on Wikipedia's Main page (only admins are allowed to modify it), to inform them about moving forward with TAFI on the Main page, per consensus at Village pump (proposals) discussions. It is likely that they may be of some assistance regarding the randomization of entries. One option is to utilize a Purge function which pulls entries from a subpage, as portals do in this manner. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Check out Wikipedia:Editing the main page and click around in the Main Page toolbox to different page version dates. From there, checking out the Revision histories can provide examples of admins who regularly participate in editing the Main page. Additional information can be viewed here: Wikipedia:FAQ/Main Page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I've created some test pages in Portal namespace to demonstrate how this can be implemented, at: Portal:Today's article for improvement. Check out how the purge function provides randomization. It appears that the Random portal component will not function in Main namespace to provide randomization, and something likely needs to be developed that will function in it.

The relevant subpages are: Portal:Today's article for improvement/box-header and Portal:Today's article for improvement/Main page queue. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progress - Random generation

Update: The Random component appears to be transferable and functional in various namespaces other than the portal one. Please see the new Template:TAFI Main page. To create randomization this utilizes Template:Random component main namespace, which was created by simply copying the wikicode from Random portal component. The Template:TAFI Main page randomly reads directly from one of 10 subpages:

It appears that a similar system is possible to be implemented for the Main page area. It's a turnkey process. The "max=" section on the template's edit page: {{Random component main namespace|max=7|header=|subpage=Main page queue}} is updated per the number of weekly articles, and the subpages are updated accordingly per week. In the event of more than 10, the max can be adjusted and new subpages created accordingly.

(Note: this has also been posted at the latest Village pump discussion.) Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For an overview, please see: User:Northamerica1000/TAFI random generation. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A solution to the tables problem

Hi all. I tool a peak at this discussion and came up with a solution but was on my phone and couldn't write my comment easily so eventually just chose to start a new section.

My idea is to add a new column to the table called "category" or something, which has all the things like "the arts" or "everyday life". Therefore you have one table instead of many, and ordering by category splits up the different categories. Any new suggestions can just be added to the bottom then.--Coin945 (talk) 10:15, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This might be a good solution. My general concern is that messing with table code can be difficult, so the code should be well spaced so new editors can modify it easily. What if we had the supports all go in one cell, and we have a blank nom cell at the top of the table that people can copy and paste for their use? So the cells from left to right would be: Article name, category, supports (with 3 # and <br), oppose (also 3 # and <br), comments. That would contain all the necessary info, and voters could just put their sig in the correct cell and line of the table. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article	Category	Nominator	Supports	Oppose	Comments
Acropolis of Athens	Architecture	ELEKHH^T 21:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]	1:--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] 2:--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] 3:--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]	1:--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] 2:--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] 3:--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]	This is some example text of how this might look. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds worth giving a try. But once again, I oppose an oppose column as that can be done in the comments itself. Discussion must be kept outside the table, not inside.

Another problem that I see is that there is no way to sort things datewise. Should we also have that? Also, we cant sort by the number of support votes. That will also need to be looked into. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my modification

Article	Category	Nomination Date	Nominator	Supports	Comments
Acropolis of Athens	Architecture	21:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)	ELEKHH^T	1:--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] 2:--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] 3:--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]	This is some example text of how this might look. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thought is to omit the categories section and continue have separate tables listed by category under page section headers. Otherwise, when people want to contribute, it will be difficult to find the entry they want to contribute to within one very long list, even when using a find function in their browser (which some might not think to do or know how to perform). We should likely be flexible regarding the use of tables: while aesthetically pleasing, they could potentially stifle participation if people have problems contributing within them. It sure would be cool to have an edit link option for each entry, so people could just click on the entry they want to contribute to. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The table presents well, but would become awfully long and cumbersome to newer contributors. Sections will help with organization. Also, if a Commons/Discussion column is not preferable, discussion could take place within the category sections. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Agreed. No use keeping a very long list.

As for the implementation, i am hoping someone would come forward to script something that will add a new nomination in an easy automated manner. Same for voting. Maybe we can go ask around for that? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a modified version based on that -

Article	Nomination Date	Nominator	Supports	Comments
Acropolis of Athens	21:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)	ELEKHH^T	1:--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] 2:--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] 3:--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]	This is some example text of how this might look. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps utilizing a filtered list would be functional. Check out: New pages feed, which utilizes a type of table format. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALT 4

Article	Nomination date & nominator	Supports	Comments/Opposes
Foo	Example User 00:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)	Example User 00:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Example User 00:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC) Example User 00:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)	I support foo, because foo is awesome. Example User 00:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC) I am in opposition to foo and oppose foo because foo is foo. Example User 00:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Alt 4 streamlines the signature process, in which 4 tildes are used throughout the table, as opposed to editors having to figure out tilde variations to use. The nomination date and nominator sections have been combined. This will likely omit sorting by date, but simplifying the tildes utilized may outweigh this in terms of user-friendliness and ease in merging content to the tables. I omitted the part about including a {{cross}} in the oppose, to simplify the process. I think editors should continue to nominate using the standard nomination template because it's easy to use, and new/inexperienced editors won't have to figure out the tables. Then, volunteers here can merge info to the tables. Moving entries with opposes to a discussion area makes sense, to prevent the tables from becoming long. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Among all the confusion that was there in the tables, this one looks surprisingly good and self sufficient. I like the part of having to nominate the normal way, though I still prefer a script.

The only thing among all thats possibly left out is the ease of adding supports. Maybe another column with a "Support" button? That button shall automatically run the script?

ON second thoughts, it might be prudent to keep the nominations and supporting from going haywire. It might be good to continue with what we have currently.

I wholeheartedly support Alt4 TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support Alt 4 at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:25, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also support Alt 4. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then. Given the number of editors active here, I believe 3 is quorum enough to implement Alt 4. Lets convert the nominations to the tables now!!! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The standard code for every row- ||  ||  ||   ||   |- TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alt 4 looks good. I might recommend bullet points before Support timestamps so that the number of support votes can be easily identified and wrapped text won't muddy the cell. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to bullet but couldnt. Any help here? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, maybe bullets are not possible. Perhaps people will be inclined to number their votes, 1, 2, 3, etc. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

_{n.b. Updated the instructions to reflect table format. —Theopolisme (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)}[reply]

Should column widths be "fixed" among the various tables so that they look consistent and more organized as you scroll down the page? --Another Believer _(Talk) 19:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I wonder if anyone can do that here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:45, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone mind fixing the nominations page?

Hello,

I seem to have messed up the nominations page. Can anyone fix it? Thanks

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit. What were you trying to do? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the nomination instructions to meet the currently approved format. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:16, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need someone with a bit more html skill than either of the two of us. If such a person is to read this thread, let them be aware that their help would be greatly appreciated. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to give it a whirl this morning. This is my worry about using tables tho. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 15:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I converted the next section to the tables, and it took about 30 minutes to do, and it does look pretty good on the TAFI page. However if you go to edit the nominations page, you are flung into a mess of code that is difficult for experienced editors to understand. I strongly believe that using tables will not be conductive in attracting new editors to the project unless we develop an extremely simple way to become involved with the nomination/voting/commenting procedured. I propose we halt further conversation to tables until we determine the simplest way to move forward.

What is the advantage of using a table versus the original method used for this page? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Allows us to view everything in a concise manner. We dont have to scrumage through pages of nominations. Simplifies the page in the long run, especially when we intend to nominate and select multiple articles in a week TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an instructions section and massively simplified the table formatting, removing hidden comments in the entries that are now in the instructions section. I've also added upper case to the hidden comments. Check it out. Furthermore, it's likely best to give people the option to nominate using the simplified method or in-table. I've updated the page per this idea. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ulgh. Not a big fan of the tables, mainly for reasons Nick stated above. Can we not revert back to the section by section format—which worked perfectly fine? —Theopolisme (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was not perfectly fine in my opinion. It was way too long and cumbersome to read for anyone. I am also tempted to think that tables can be easier to adjust to meet the specific concerns we are likely to face in the future.

P.S. Several editors had been in support originally, and now I think it has got way too much work to try reverting - Reverting shall require another 4-5 hours. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tables may be counterproductive at this time because TAFI appears very likely to be included on Wikipedia's Main page in the near future. In the interest of keeping the page very user friendly, particularly for new editors, it seems prudent at this time for us to consider retaining a list format, rather than using complicated tables. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tables (arbitrary section break)

While the tables look cool, they sure make it more complicated for people to contribute. Per the above, perhaps we should hold off on adding more at this time. The benefits of having an easy-to-use interface may outweigh the aesthetic appeal of the tables. Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very much agreed.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think that having an option to nominate using the old format solved this issue already. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another matter is that entries do not show up in the table of contents at the top of the page when the entries are in table format, which may make navigation more difficult for some editors. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think tables will be an improvement when the editability concerns are worked on. Cleaning up the code was a good step, but I think we need something more. Someone had mentioned creating an automated "fill out the boxes and it adds it into the table" thing, that would be good. If we could have a similar thing for supports, comments and the like I think it would make it the most accessible method. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my impatience, but I really think we ought to convert everything into tables. Have just one format, and not two. We are sortof dragging our feet on this one I think. Lets finish what we had started, and meanwhile find some decent programmer to help script quick support/comment and adding to tables. Maybe whoever helped design the Teahouse can help! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an easily-usable script should be developed prior to converting everything to table format. It would not surprise me to see participation here decline if it's even slightly difficult to contribute. With tables, users have to first search for an entry within a table, then learn how to add information to it, etc., rather than simply being able to press "edit" and go. A complicated approach that isn't user-friendly will ultimately discourage participation. That said, perhaps something similar to the recently-developed New pages feed page, which is easy to use, would be in order. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will echo Northamerica's comments. While I think the tables concept is essentially good, there are some technical obstacles that need to be overcome first. Until then, wee should note there was nothing inherently wrong with the original nomination method. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. Who do we ask? Is there any place where you can request for someone to script it? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With the simplified formatting now in the tables, and easier-to-find hidden comments that direct people where to edit, maybe the tables have potential to work out after all. After using them for some new nominations and adding some supports, it wasn't unduly difficult. Locating where to add supports and comments has been significantly simplified, and they do help to shorten the page. Not trying to be wishy-washy here; just stating some opinion about the benefits. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holding Area

I believe that now is the time to create a "Holding Area" for all the articles which meet the selection criteria and are selected; but just have not been given the dates yet.(The Feb 9 articles shall also go to the holding area) In this holding area, we shall list all the articles, and discuss possible issues and what needs to be improved and how. We also need to decide how the article is supposed to go from here.

Using the discussion, we shall create a To-Do list for each of them, that shall be displayed appropriately. This list will hopefully help other new editors to figure out what to do when its the TAFI. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I believe we had been talking about moving every article there when it reached 3 supports, and then determining the spots in rotation. The current two 7 article rotations are by no means not set in stone. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been created at WP:TAFIHA. Lets get started now. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Is there any difference between the Peer Review page and the Holding Area page? They look to be created for the same purpose. If they, they ought to be merged. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – If we're going to be using a Holding area, I strongly suggest that entries be placed there verbatim (copied word for word), rather than being reformatted there from the nominations page (e.g. numberic sequence using "#" being replaced there with bullet points). This will help to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the information there, and lessens the chances of errors and general ambiguity from occurring. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think I might disagree on it. Currently, we are dealing with at least 3 formats of nominations, and they all need to be synchronised to meet the holding area formatting. Without reformatting, it will be a gigantic mess of sorts. Plus, the current format used in HA suits its requirements I think. We can minimise the number of changes, but not completely remove them though. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I think someone can do just a quick manual check to ensure nothing is left out/ incorrect or anything of the sort. I on my part and trying my best to ensure no errors creep in. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't think it's necessary to add the "Potential Problems", "To Do" and "Comments" sections on the Holding area page. There's already a comments section in the nomination template, which is simply duplicated. If an article is to be listed, there really isn't much "to do", and the peer review section is more appropriate for collaborations. "Potential problems" can simply be stated in the comments section. It also makes the page unnecessarily longer. I will slightly change the layout to the page to reflect these ideas, and to simplify the page and process. Check it out after this is accomplished, and please feel free to comment here. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not currently understand the use or need of the "Peer Review" page. It appears that both serve the same use, and ought to be merged under a single header.

Looks good. Though I think the "To Do" section is to be added.

Just so we are on the same page, there was consensus to add a "To Do List" for every article before it was put up on the main page. I do not think we have yet decided on the "where", but that is what I intend the HA to be doing - To make sure everyone sees the article, decides what needs revamping, suggests whats to be done, and puts it all together into a "To-Do list" which will be then converted into the relevant displayed 'To do list'. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review is the standard format for WikiProjects to collaborate on articles. Since this project is highly related to collaboration, I feel that this project should include this option for editors. I see no problem with having separate peer review and holding area sections. Peer review to build up an article to good or featured article status will often take much more time compared to the amount of time entries are listed in the holding area. Per your comment above, I've put back the "To do" sections on the holding area page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I now understand what PR is for in a Project context. It still leaves me confused as to why we would need a Peer Review page. Isnt getting them to GA/FA separate from what TAFI doing? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improving articles to GA/FA is directly part of what TAFI is about. Please read the project's introduction on it's Main project page! Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Never read that page anyway!! ;) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I strongly request that all tables be converted into the HA format before we post them. Since we are having a comments section where there will be further commenting, I think we ought to leave the tables out of this since it will be a longer discussion here. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The tables do help to shorten the page, though. Check out how the "To do" sections are listed below them on the Holding area page, in which discussion can easily occur just by clicking on "edit." Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:32, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. As long as we make sure to make a successful transition to tables, and possibly have a separate comments section, I dont see why that could be a major issue. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added {{TAFI Archives}} ~~a searchable archive box and created the first archive page~~ for the Holding area page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need an archive for HA? I believe HA is just the transition between Schedule and Nominations page, to make sure everyone's informed and everything's ready for main page. We can simply use the Succesful nominations archive, right? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I missed this notion, and have replaced the box there with {{TAFI Archives}}. Thanks for pointing this out!

Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Function of the Holding area

The current structure of the Holding Page is difficult to navigate. Also, I'm not entirely sure of it's purpose. So the sequence of events would go like this: An article achieves 3 or more supports and gets moved to the holding area. Then... What? We've established that generating to-do lists are not 100% necessary. Is the purpose of the Holding Area to generate discussion further discussion? Once an article arrives in this area, to me it would have garnered sufficient support to warrant going into the queue. The last two groups of 7 that I selected were the oldest noms with the most support votes, and to me that seems the simplest manner; articles that are in the holding area the longest, go first.

Since we are now committed to using the table nomination structure, what I propose is that when an article goes into the holding area, we use the same table and change one of the headings to a to-do list. An example follows.

Table on the Nominations page:

Article	Nomination date & nominator	Supports	Comments/Opposes
Church (building)	Coin945 (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]	—Tom Morris (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Wizardman 15:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]	(Society) Start-class core article. Lots of coverage holes. Coin945 (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same table copied and pasted onto the holding area page:

Article	Nomination date & nominator	Supports	To-do list
Church (building)	Coin945 (talk) 07:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]	—Tom Morris (talk) 13:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply] Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply] Wizardman 15:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]	This is my to-do list First item Second item You get the idea

No signatures in the to-do column, just things that need to be done, added anonymously. This way we can still keep track of the oldest items by keeping the support and nom datestamps. Then every Saturday or Sunday, someone checks the oldest 7 items and adds them to the next available date. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The no of supports is also kindof irrelevant to the Holding Area. Whats not, is the To Do section, which I think should remain as it is, acting as a discussion cum To-Do list. Its basically a list of all those things that need to be done to the TAFI nomination as well as "the article" while it is at TAFI. This will be a to-do list that will be put up with the article while its at TAFI, so that any new editors will know where to begin. Could it be made clearer at the HA page? Please do so. Thanks. (I cant really find the best words to convey the same) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going with tables, then the nom should stay as a table from start to finish. I don't look forward to converting things to a next format every time they move places. The idea with converting one column is that the table formatting stays the same, without adding or removing columns. I see your point about the comments section being important, but if we lose the supports column, how can we tell which nom is older without the datestamps? We should be doing little to no reformatting when nominations move pages. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what NorthAmerica1000 said too. See the last 2-3 articles at the HA. I believe thats the format we could follow. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latest format is not bad. We still have to manually add the table headings when we do the move, but the modification is minimal. Looking at NA1000's structure, we just add articles until we get to 7, and then create a heading for the next schedule period. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:53, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or if we have more approved articles left, we can keep them in the undated period, maybe? The more time they spend in the HA, the more time we have to discuss on it TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but I wouldn't use the word 'discussion'. The discussion takes place before, on the nominations page. When it goes to the HA, the only job left is to identify the article's shortcomings and list them so editors can easily rectify them. I just don't want discussion to creep in somehow as a necessary criteria before they go into the schedule. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that we simply copy verbatim from the nominations page and add the "To do" section below as ===To do list===. It's keeps the process streamlined and simplified. I think the to do area should be optional, and not exist as a prerequisite for an article to become a TAFI. If participation diminishes, which often occurs at WikiProjects over time, all of the sudden the nominations won't go to the schedule from the holding area. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As evident from Amadscientist's edits at the HA, it looks like having Supports there making it confusing. Should we leave the Supports section out of it? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remain confident that verbatim copy/pasting, rather than modification and removal of information from entries moved from the nominations page to the Holding area will serve to 1) prevent ambiguity 2) maintain accuracy 3) simplify the process and 4) retain proper attribution, signatures and timestamps for moved entries. When information is modified, it creates significant potential for errors to occur, ad infinitum. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter if people add additional supports anyways, it doesn't affect the speed at which an article moved from the holding area into the schedule. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 15:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Collaboration

I think a great deal of progress has been made in recent months to promote collaboration on the Wiki, and I would like to update this page to reflect that. It has seen no major updates since 2007, and it would be nice to get some input on how it could promote collaboration. The page currently gets upwards of 1400 views a month and is linked from the Community Portal via the {Cotm} template. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 20:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like - Lets get that page overhauled now. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like - Some updating there would certainly benefit Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add a TAFI nomination (automated software)

If you would like to use this on your desktop or laptop, contact me.

Also, if you are a Wikipedia gadgeteer, and you understand how to install server-side scripts into Wikipedia, please contact me. I would like to transform this script into a very easy-to-use button that will simply add new TAFI nominations.

Thanks! --Carrot Lord (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's the ticket. If anyone knows how to manipulate this code into a button that would be great. I'm wondering how supports and comments can be added, I don't know if we can put buttons inside tables. If not, then doing anything other than adding a nom might still be manual. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like - Very nice. The ultimate would be to integrate this as a script to automate nominations, supports and comments/opposes on the nominations page. Thanks for helping out here! Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Biomedical content?

Is anyone here against selecting important biomedical content? I put pulmonary embolism up as a nomination and despite the article getting over 130,000 hits in the last 30 days, I see no supports and no opposes. I'm not sure what to make of it. The article needs work, and I want to attract potential new editors for content covered by WikiProject Medicine. Biosthmors (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will join you. Pulmonary embolism is an important topic.OakRunner (talk) 20:55, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. The reason why the nom's comments are so important is because most people will vote seeing only that, and not the article. Maybe you could actually point out what those two words actually mean so we can understand and give it the update it deserves. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip to actually describe what the two words mean. I overlooked doing that. Biosthmors (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my case I would probably not support that one because it has good length and is very well sourced. But I wouldn't oppose it either. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After further reflection, we don't have many articles in the natural science category, and this is in the top 500 importance for medical , so I'll throw down a support. It has the capacity to go to FA. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 15:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time to notify the authors and projects?

I think it might be time for us to notify the various involved WikiProjects and the authors that the articles shall be selected as the TAFI for February 9-16, and that discussion to improve the article is ongoing on the HA page. That could generate enough feedback for us to prepare our to do lists. Also, it will make sure thedose lists are done in time.

Before that, we need to clarify the wording of instructions in the HA page though. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doing so can be a part of the "To do" areas on the Holding area page for entries, and once performed, can be checked off with {{tick}}:

. While I wholly support this notion, it should likely not be made mandatory, in the event that interest and participation here wanes, which often occurs in WikiProjects. That said, as long as there are editors with the time and initiative to do so, this is a most functional idea. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:57, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestion for what the default message/Template should be? One for author and one for Project. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message for authors-

Hello,

This is to inform you that the article Article, which you have worked upon, has been selected for Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where a discussion is ongoing as to what needs to be done to improve the article. Once that is done, it shall be added to the TAFI Schedule, and it will appear on the Main Page in the Today's Article for Improvement section for one week.

You are invited to participate in the discussion at the Holding Area so we can all work together to make the article better.

Thank you,

~~~~

(From The TAFI Team)

How does it look? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, some minor phrasing I would adjust. People who receive this may not have worked on the article substantially, maybe drop the adverb. A similarly styled message appropriate for Wikiprojects: --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Message for Wikiprojects-

Hello,

This is to inform you that the article Article, which falls under this WikiProject's scope, has been selected for Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where it is being determined what needs to be done to improve the article. Once that is done, it will be added to the TAFI Schedule, and it will appear on the Main Page in the Today's Article for Improvement section for one week.

Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion at the Holding Area so we can all work together to make the article better.

Thank you,

~~~~

(From The TAFI Team)

Maybe if we make it clear that there is a discussion at the HA, it will be better? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We ought to have both of them as a template - Makes placing the notice everywhere a lot simpler. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's a good idea to notify WikiProjects. However, I am against discussion being a mandatory prerequisite prior to nominations going to the schedule. If discussions occur, great, but it's very likely in some cases that people simply won't respond at all. Some projects get a significant amount of traffic and discussion on their talk pages, while others receive very little. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If not from the people from the Wikiproject/authors, then from us at TAFI. We need to have some sense of direction of where the article should be going. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's ALT 3, which has some text revisions, a border and a graphic. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:52, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Please note that Article, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article.
Thank you,
~~~~
(From the TAFI team)

ALT 4

Hello,
The article, Article has been selected within the scope of our project to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article.
Thank you,
~~~~
(From the TAFI team)

--Amadscientist 00:23, 24 January 2013

Can anyone get these two into a template format? We need to be sending off these Notices soon enough for the 9 February batch. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/Notice Author and Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/Notice Project - Does this suffice or do we need a "Template"? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks perfect. We should move them into the template namespace and popularize their use. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how to, so can anyone else please make this template? I would like to send them through to the projects by today or tomorrow. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a framework over at {{TAFI editor notice}} and {{TAFI project notice}} but it is not functioning as planned. Maybe someone can look into the code for me, or everyone will get a notice from NickPenguin that [[:Template:|]] has been selected to be TAFI. Very popular article. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{TAFI project notice|Article=Article name|Sign=~~~~}} and {{TAFI editor notice|Article=Article name|Sign=~~~~}} Using this seems to solve the problem, apparently. If it does, then we can modify the template (and the Project template) and start using it. (Got to get it functional by looking at the Teahouse talkback template) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALT 5

Editor notice

{{TAFI editor notice|Article=Article|Sign=~~~~}}

Hello,
The article, Article has been selected within the scope of our project to become one of Today's Articles for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will be collaborated on for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article.
Thank you,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(From the TAFI team)

WikiProject notice

{{TAFI project notice|Article=Article|Sign=~~~~}}

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Article, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning Monday 29 July 2024. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
_{Delivered by ~~~~ on behalf of the AFI team}

Y Support - I support these ALT 5 notices at this time. Regarding this project notice, since essentially all Wikipedia articles are within the scope of this project, this is accurate in stating that the selected article is within the scope of the WikiProject receiving the message. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:55, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Project logo

Back when the project started up I suggested that perhaps we could use some original art. I boldy created something to keep along the lines what is currently used, which is a "Featured article collaboration" icon. I created a TAFI star.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have boldly added a new image to the main page but that can easily be changed. I would like to propose the replacement of the current logo for the project with:

with this:

the TAFI star. --Amadscientist (talk) 08:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ I prefer the former (star with people icons), as it has more color, page pop and eye appeal. Also, a significant aspect of this project is collaboration, which I feel the former demonstrates more. The latter is rather generic, and stars are used for many things on Wikipedia. The former is unique and serves as an icon to better-distinguish this project from other areas of Wikipedia. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:23, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Struck part of my comment above, because I like to be flexible. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly like either, if I'm being honest - but prefer the 2/3 star to the one with the jelly babies. Giant Snowman 11:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a suggestion?--Amadscientist (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you draft one up combining the two? Giant Snowman 11:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...I didn't like the jelly babies. LOL! Is there something else we could do?--Amadscientist (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we did that perhaps we could go back to the original figures

and combine them in to the 2/3 star?--Amadscientist (talk) 12:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those two trouble makers are way better than the jelly babies - maybe do one with them and the 2/3 star, and one with them and the full star? Giant Snowman 12:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Amadscientist (talk) 12:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an improvement, but the images look like jelly chess pawn pieces, although their pastel coloration adds eye appeal and contrasts the star image coloration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think that looks way better. Giant Snowman 14:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the star with the chess pawn gummy images, versus the plain star, for what it's worth. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff to consider utilizing: Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely like imagery created by the 2/3 start, something needing completion. As for the little people, I am indifferent. It doesn't even have to be people as far as I'm concerned. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 15:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We should create the "ultimate", a 3-dimensional graphic that will be the best ever graphic on Wikipedia to date! People can wear 3-D glasses to check it out and marvel at its superior characteristics! On a more serious note, I appreciate all of the ideation here, and at this time I like the original graphic and the one with the incomplete star and pastel-colored, chess-like pawn/people icons. Any other ideas?!

Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I really like it by itself.

I thought it got the point across, in an interesting way.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we can distinguish this project from other aspects of Wikipedia by being successful in our aims. I think the 2/3 star adequately captures the project message: working on something unfinished. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the 2/3 design, although there are some other good options to pick from. Nothing like having good choices! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 22:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I propose. Use the star as the main logo. Use the people icon as it is within the existing graphic set up on templates. I propose we use the TAFI star in combination with the existing two icons together when using to graphics and when we want both be have .--Amadscientist (talk) 04:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template updates

Since using the original graphic appears to be in disfavor, I have updated the templates. Here's what we have at this time, which seems to be functional. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been selected as today's article for improvement!
Please help edit it or discuss improving the article on the talk page.
The cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ pages can help you out.
You are encouraged to start an account and to ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse.
Happy editing!

An invitation for you!


	Hello, Today's article for improvement. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a member of WikiProject
Today's article for improvement.

A barnstar for you!

		The TAFI Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

Today's article for improvement is:

Calder's Flamingo in Chicago

List of public art in Chicago

Please help to improve this article!

Main page placement test page

User:Fuhghettaboutit created the following page back in July 2012, as a test area for TAFI's presentation on Wikipedia's Main page:

Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/main page placement.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:00, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the good ole days (of six months ago). It didn't always look like it was going to work. Back then, I didn't even know if it would ever get to the stage of selecting articles for improvement, let alone seeing them actually improved. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 05:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted invitations on the talk pages of a dozen or so admins to take a look here and help put the finishing touches on this in preparation for the launch on Feb 9th. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump discussion

Relisting this because it was auto-archived, but the Village pump discussion is still occurring:

Unanswered questions - TAFI

Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made a bold edit on the main TAFI template all I actually did was switch the templatebox to a messagebox, which is what should be used for the artcile space. Below is what is was to what it is now.

This article has been selected as today's article for improvement!
Please help edit it or discuss improving the article on the talk page.
The cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ pages can help you out.
You are encouraged to start an account and to ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse.
Happy editing!

to this:

--Amadscientist (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting this. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:00, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First notices sent

Hello, The notices for the articles going live on the 9th and the 16th (to the various WikiProjects involved) were sent by me just now. the template used was -

Hello,
Please note that TAFI, which is within this project's scope, has been selected to become a Today's Article for Improvement. The article is currently in the TAFI Holding Area, where comments are welcome about ideas to improve it. After the article is moved from the holding area to the TAFI schedule, it will appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's Article for Improvement" section for one week. Everyone is invited to participate in the discussion and encouraged to collaborate to improve the article.
Thank you,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(From the TAFI team)

Please note that the notices to the various authors are still yet to be sent. Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sending the notifications. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone mind sending the notifications for the authors too? I have no idea which will be the best way to find out who the authors are, and then send them their notifications, so another user doing the same will be better, IMO. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The Project noticed for the 23 February and the 2 March batches were also sent by me just now. Only the author notices for all four weeks remain now. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing column widths

This was one thing that I had been considering from quite a time, but I did not know how to, and which will be the best way to.Now that we have been using tables for some time, I think we are in a position to decide the correct widths to be used too. So should column widths be fixed? Can anyone here help in doing that?

I started this section due to a comment above, which I am copying here so it doesnt get lost in the many other sections -

Should column widths be "fixed" among the various tables so that they look consistent and more organized as you scroll down the page? --Another Believer (Talk) 19:33, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Can columns be set to be a % of the page width, or do they need to be fixed numerically? --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TAFI

Do we want to try and reduce the main TAFI messagebox that goes on every page that is chosen as a TAFI to something like this:

--Amadscientist (talk) 11:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ALT 2

Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:22, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like ALT 2. I agree that we don't need to completely clutter up pages with huge obnoxious notices; this should suffice. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support ALT 2 at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment GAN

Hi All,

Just to let you know that as a result of the TAFI project alerting me to the need for improvement in the article Entertainment, I set to work, and in the process became very involved in it. I wanted to make it provide a good and representative coverage of such a broad topic, as it is obvious that here is something with deep roots in our past that is still going strong. The challenge of making it comprehensive, while keeping it tight and interesting at the same time, was what kept me going, and some of you were very encouraging on the way, which also helped. Thanks! The most crucial tasks were to avoid both "recentism" and parochialism and I worked especially hard to convey a world wide view. Now I have nominated it for Good Article status. Nomination here: Wikipedia:GAN#Culture, sociology and psychology. Here's hoping the rest of the community thinks well of it!

Whiteghost.ink (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray! AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! We should go ahead and assume this project will do great things and create some sort of "accomplishments" page to showcase its work. :p --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:41, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly created Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/Accomplishments. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category assistance

Can anyone determine why all of the entries in Category:Today's article for improvement nominations also appear in Category:Today's article for improvement? And, more importantly, can someone make that not happen? No need for duplication when one category is a subcategory of the other. Thanks so much. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's cause they've been manually added to that category. I'm removing them now. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I think. May take a bit for categories to update themselves, though. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, nominations pages SHOULD be in the nominations category and NOT the parent category. I cannot tell that the entries have been added to the parent category manually. They SHOULD have been added to the nominations category manually. Does that make sense? --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; it made sense the first time, no need to SHOUT. ;) Look at this for an example of what I did. They were added to the parent category manually. —Theopolisme (talk) 00:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, sorry! Sometimes my attempts at stressing particular words are executed poorly. Apologies. :) I guess I am used to categories being added/removed instantaneously. Thanks for your assistance, hopefully this has solved the issue. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While on the subject, subcategories for Category:Today's article for improvement nominations could be Category:Today's article for improvement successful nominations vs. Category:Today's article for improvement unsuccessful nominations, or Category:Today's article for improvement nominations, 2012, etc. by year. Otherwise the category will fill up quite quickly! --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it — time is of the essence,* though, as more pages pile up. —Theopolisme (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

_{*Disregard this.}

Created nominations subcategories for 2012 and 2013. The nominations pages still appear in the parent Category:Today's article for improvement--is there a template of something being used to place them there automatically? --Another Believer _(Talk) 21:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Recent changes to table format

I noticed the recent changes to the table format, in which the tables appear as:

Article	Class	No. of daily hits	Nomination date & nominator	Supports	Comments/Opposes
Article		(number)

While on the surface this looks cool, I foresee some problems in utilizing this format:

The icons under "Class" are ambiguous. There is no key for people to ascertain what they pertain to. It would be easier for people to simply type them in (e.g. "stub").
People will have to ascertain which icon to use under the Class section and then copy/paste one of them, which significantly complicates the process of nominating.
While the number of daily hits is a nice feature, it also requires more research and time for editors to make a nomination.

It may be prudent to retain a simplified format, rather than a more-complicated one. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of having this information, but I am not sure how to check the number of daily hits myself, and I wouldn't want to imply that this information is necessary to nominate an article. As for the article rating, I don't see why we can't include the icon next to the article name in the Article column. I kind of like the rating circles and I think they're relatively intuitive. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following can be used to determine article traffic: http://stats.grok.se/. How about adding to the top of the nominations page a key and entries that delineate which text to use to produce the icons? E.g. {{icon|start}} produces

, etc. Without this information, people are going to have to research or guess what to use. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added information to clarify the icons at Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/Nominated articles. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations and the problems of scale

We have seen a large influx of legitimate nominations in the last week or so. It's become apparent that moving away from basic wikicode to tables was a good idea, as using the original nomination method would make this page unworkable. However now the scale of the project requires a new nomination method. Adding supports is extremely tedious, as well as moving articles from the nominations page to the archives or holding area. There's a lot of copy+paste and typing. Nominating articles is still not simple. A perfect solution would be easy to read in wikicode, and require absolutely no modification to move from one page to another. I propose the following:

A temporary hold on new nominations from our most prolific members.

After this next batch has gone through, we will likely have enough nominations to get us through until at least April. Also, the more nominations we have, the more difficult it is to convert everything to a different format. I myself have assembled a list of about 200 articles to nominate, but I think it can all wait until we fix the structure. Less prolific members should still be encouraged to nominate articles, so no banner messages at the top to say 'stop nominating'. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Biosthmors (talk) 01:55, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The design of an auto nomination template similar to {{article}}.

The purpose of this would be to basically duplicate the information contained in the table, but to use far less characters and to make nomination simpler. Under this proposed structure, we retain the class headings, and the nomination template goes in each section, and the nominator and date are automatically posted. The result of this would be a simple and streamlined nomination-holdingarea-schedule process. Supports and comments must be easy to insert, and locations quick to identify on the edit page. The ideal solution retains the visual simplicity of the table, ease of editability, and ease of transfer from page to page with no modification. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, yes. I'm getting the feeling, though, that either we need a script/form for users to fill out (i.e. something that uses Regex to determine where to place new submissions/etc), or alternatively break the nominations page into a series of subpages, do away with the difficult "table" format, and use "add new section" + preload templates to easily, with one click, add new submissions, complete with some sort of easy "one click support/oppose" — which I think could be done easily with an edit notice on each nomination page...i.e., one that copy/pastable text to support/oppose. Still, I don't think that is ideal, and would much more prefer someone gifted with Javascript (not me--I can do other languages but not Javascript) to write a series of scripts to handle this. Wishful thinking? I don't know. —Theopolisme (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using my extreme technical prowess, I have hacked together a poor example of how such a template might function in my sandbox:

Baking () - (page stats | edit| talk| history)

And that's as far as I can take it. The generated code looks ugly, the sign function doesn't work, you can't include nomination text and theres no way to indicate the article class rating. Work in progress. Anyways, my vision is for a similar subst template that a user pastes under each article, and it automatically fills out their # signature + comment with all the appropriate spacing. If it generates correctly, it might actually take up less vertical space than the current tables.

I'm not sure we need separate pages for categories, as long as the information is organized appropriately. I personally would rather keep one page, even if it grows in length. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:00, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we could hide some of the ugly code by calling another template after we subst the static information (nominator, datestamp and nom text). The other information could be condensed into a smaller template and be placed after, just passing the article value. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:12, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Modifications:

Baking – (page view stats • edit • talk • history)

I'm still working, but that's what I've come up with so far. See User:NickPenguin/sandbox/TAFI for details. Note that it doesn't require substitution, for maximum clean code. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well. That's the difference between code monkey and code phytoplankton. Myself being the plankton. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 22:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a 4 article mockup using the template Theopolisme's perfected. Compare examples of the table with the template. Roughly 20-30% reduction in page bytesize, and about the same in page length. I think it remains to be discussed if the use of the template is more editor-friendly. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nigerian literature – (page view stats • edit • talk • history)

Unsourced stub, with plenty of potential sources available. Opportunity to address systematic bias too. Moswento ^talky 11:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:15, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For Dummies – (page view stats • edit • talk • history)

Start-class article about a well-known series of books. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pig Latin – (page view stats • edit • talk • history)

Start-class article about a topic that many people are familiar with. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

Little John – (page view stats • edit • talk • history)

Start class, Robinhood's right hand man, needs sources and expansion on his role in folklore, depictions in media, etc. Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

It would be nice if the template didn't require the user the put their nomination reason and criteria into the template, but somehow it could show up on the same line. Then the template would just be article name and class rating, and the rest would be normal wiki markup. I also notice that the page stats link converts spaces into + signs, which breaks the links to grok.se. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 15:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy with the new plan below; while the current version was recently added, I believe that is a bit messy and the below would probably solve that issue; not everything can really fit on a template in this case, but the below seems to work. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 23:08, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having the article title in bold would be an improvement, in my opinion. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had set it to bold, too many apostrophes it seems. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May I offer a suggestion here? The idea of using separate templates sounds great. But let us not forget why we switched to tables in the first place - To collapse everything into a more readable format. I support any template format which can successfully do what the tables set out to do - To be succinct, as well as to make sure to include all the nexeccary details present in the table format. Not to forget we ought to have a bot be doing the transfer from the table to the template format. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - The tables are yet to be made of a consistent width. I have no idea how to, but can anyone who knows do the same? Until we decide on a template, we are going to stay with tables, so its better to better what we currently have as well as to think about the future. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Whatever the nomination format we determine to use, it has to meet those criteria, and I certainly don't want to be changing formats on a whim, only if everyone agrees that a different format includes sufficient benefits.

I would say one of my major concerns has to do with moving an item from the nom page to the holding area. You have to copy the table header for each individual item, make a header and title in the holding area and then generate a one line table, and create a to do subsection. That's really a lot of typing and copy+paste. In truth, I haven't noticed a whole lot of participation with the to do lists, and I think we might chalk it up as one of those great ideas that no one wants to do. The perfect transfer scenario involves just copy and pasting all the information regarding one nom and putting it in the HA. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like you thinking here, and I agree that it is to difficult to nominate, edit, or move the current tables. I would suggest that in the nominations section, there should be a button labeled "Nominate Arrticle". When clicked, a pop up window would appear. In it you can write the name, class, and an optional comment section. You then choose the right topic, click save, and it would appear. Next to the nomination, there should be a support/oppose button.Horai 551 05:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Love it!--Coin945 (talk) 05:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any examples of this sort of functionality on the wiki? Truthfully I've never run across something like this. If so, maybe I can trick the code author into coming by here and giving us a hand. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Writ Keeper is the javascript guru here on wiki: maybe give him a ping? —Theopolisme (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely have come across something like this before, although I can't remember where...--Coin945 (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If someone (not me) can determine the right person to design this sort of thing, I think it is a great idea. If not, then I think the solution should be sufficiently simple to not require boxes and buttons.

More generally, I like the idea of modeling things in the style of the XfD discussions: a template at the top, and then supports/opposes/comments following afterwards in a structured but organic fashion. And with a template, nominations can be completed as simply as adding something like {{TAFInom|article=Article|class=start}} --~~~~, and we have the advantage of reformatting things at a later date simply by changing the template. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 23:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Teahouse uses a button system similar to what we are trying to do. Maybe we can tweek that a little bit and add it here.Horai 551 09:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It draws a button, but it just opens up a link to the create new section page, it doesn't autofill anything on the edit page. It looks like {{Clickable_button}} is the underlying object we are looking for, but I'm not sure how to modify it to suit our needs. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 13:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The link needs to add the suffix &section=new&preload=Template%3ATAFI/preload. Example]. -- YPN YPN ✡ 14:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template nomination system, start to finish

So here's my vision of how the new template system would function, from start to finish:

Nominations are listed using a to-be-created template called {{tafinom}}, and it handles two variables, article name and article class rating. It outputs a bunch of relevant links that may be helpful in determining if the article is a good candidate for improvement. Beside the outputted links, nominationers post a brief message and their signature. Below that, editors express their support/oppose/comments in an XfD type fashion.

One of the links in the template is to the todo list for the article, which may need to be created. Todo items should be placed directly onto the article's todo list rather than on the holding area page. Editors are encouraged to discuss all improvement related ideas on the nominated article's talk page, rather than the TAFI page. This will focus discussion and also to engage editors that may be watching that article's talk page.

When an article gains sufficient support, it goes to the Holding Area. The purpose of this page is not to generate further discussion, but only to keep track of the pool of articles approved to be TAFI. All discussion about improvement should be focused on the article's talk page. The Holding Area is divided into two areas, Successful Nominations and Scheduled Nominations. The Successful Nominations section is divided into the same categories as the nominations page, and items simply move from one page to another. The Scheduled Nomination section is just a transclusion of the Schedule page, and a notice is placed above it directing discussion to the specific article talk pages. Each round of scheduled items are selected from the oldest nominations, using as many different categories as possible.

All 3 pages (Nominations, Holding Area and Schedules) use the same tafinom template, and it is just copied from one place to the next. The result should be a clean, simple and easy to use system that focuses improvement discussion at the article talk page, while keeping the system here focused purely on selecting articles. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:33, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no objections to converting the process to this, then I will begin by converting the tables to the template and continue with the other stuff. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing an automated bot process to perform the archiving and transferring to holding area.

If the process is streamlined so that is requires no typing other than copy-pasting, it can be performed by a bot. Then we can focus on looking for articles, discussing their merits, looking for ways to improve them, and integrating them into the schedule. The only way to bring the process to this level will be to come up with a clear method the achieve the previous two goals. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 18:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I suggest we lay this suggestion on a freeze for the moment. Lets solidify a process for selection and how its going to be displayed in the Holding Area. After this happens, and we have gone through two weeks at the Main Page, it will make a lot more sense to ask a bot developer to do it for us. I think that way it will be a lot better to deal with things. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main page

Is there any news about working on putting TAFI on the Main page? -- YPN YPN ✡ 02:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progress is being made. Sufficient articles have been selected for the schedule, and a working example page has been developed by Northamerica1000 and David Levy. The only hurdle left is an iron clad technical implementation actually on the Main Page. As it turns out, a few hours ago I put up a request at the technical village pump for input of this nature. My current hope is to have the system in place to go live on Feb 9th, but that basically being one week, I suspect it might be delayed until the 16th. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to assist in incorporating TAFI into the main page. The example page just seems to be a mockup, no working code. I just need to know where the live content resides (which templates), and I will construct a working main page at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox. — Edokter (talk) — 10:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Edokter and all editors: here are some links:

Template:TAFI Main page - Example page that utilizes random generation (press on purge there)
User:Northamerica1000/TAFI random generation - An overview with examples, how-to information about what needs to be created in Main page space
Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/main page placement - Test page for layout of TAFI information on main page

Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:18, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that means {{TAFI Main page}} will most likely be trancluded to the main page. Here are some issues though:

The table layout needs to be stripped, as only content is allowed to be transcluded; the layout will be done on the main page.
There is no "Main page space"; all content on the main page is transcluded from regular template space.
Layout is not a problem, all layout on the main page is done inline. — Edokter (talk) — 11:53, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NA, is it possible to add the extra line of explanation into those mock-ups too? The one that's currently there in the Holding Area, that is. Also we might want to lose the extra hyphen and the capitalization on "Build" TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The queue pages have been updated. Check out Template:TAFI Main page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that people are working at Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox for everything now. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Increase number of weekly selections?

Just a note, since there have been considerable nominations and we currently have many selected articles in the holding area, we can always increase the number of weekly selections. For example, utilizing 11 selections, one for each of the main categories on the nominations page, would increase the number of choices editors have when choosing potential articles to improve. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about that too. Two things, one is that the number of nominated articles has only accelerated over the last month, and might suddenly drop if one or two people start to lose interest. Two is that some categories seem to garner more support than others, so we might not have enough articles from one category to put one in each weeks grouping. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 13:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather wait until we actually see the first two weeks of Main Page before thinking of such "expansion" issues. We need to be getting a good rough estimate as to who our potential target will be, and how many there will be. I see some potential issues with edit conflicts and to guide new editors in the first few weeks. We might want to add a "edit notice" for the latter (The kind of notice that only shows up when you edit the article, not on talk and article pages). TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thknk we should add something about edit conflicts and how to overcome them in the TAFI template. Also, random point, I thin we should encourage others to support articles. Right now theres only about 6 of us nominating/supporting... and others need to know they can get in on the action... there are many articles that have 2 supports. Statistically, not many have 3 or more.--Coin945 (talk) 14:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if people do not understand what I am trying to say or if they are just ignoring me :P I once again try to say that there is one way where people can see a notice only when they try to edit a page, and not when they see the page (See User talk:AutomaticStrikeout for an example). We could also be using THAT.

I agree. We should create a sample message [Something along the lines of "TAFI is about to hit the Main Page soon and there is a lot of new things happening there. You are invited to be a part of it. You can nominate or support new articles at the WP:TAFIN, help in their development at WP:TAFIHA or help edit the current article List of furniture types. You can also check out the talk page for discussion on the TAFI process and to help better it."] This sample message ought to be sent to all the current members of the project. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. :). Maybe even a banner on the main page, just to let them know the basics about TAFI so they're not like: "WTF is this new thing?!" ?--Coin945 (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why not write up a Signpost piece? Biosthmors (talk) 03:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Data derived from the WP:5000 was written up and even received external media coverage.[1] Biosthmors (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas for nominations (to be added later)

Please place your idea below. We can add them to the nominations page once the current nominations run their course.--Coin945 (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TAFI Reminder Template

I have created this template to be posted at the talk pages of all the members of the project, so that we can invite all of them to come back and join us in our final efforts to polish the project.

Please use the following code at their pages to send over the reminder - '''{{subst:TAFI Reminder|Sign=~~~~}}'''. The code will come out as follows -

Hello,
In the past few days, Today's Article for Improvement has gone through many changes.

We have modified the process for adding Nominations, which now uses a table format and requires only 3 supports for an article to be selected.
There is now a new Holding Area, where articles are kept for discussion before being selected for a particular date.
The new TAFI schedule now involves adding 7 articles weekly, chosen from a variety of topics.
We now have an Accomplishments page where we will be highlighting our older TAFI articles which have now become quality articles on the Wikipedia.

The Project is almost ready to hit the Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. One article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at the Main Page template. There is also an ongoing discussion at the Technical Village Pump over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page.

If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the Holding Area.

Above all, please do not forget to improve our current Today's Article for Improvement - Fun.

Thank you and hoping to have some productive work from you at the Project,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(From the TAFI team)

I have not sent any invites as of yet, and somebody else will have to do it to inform all the other members. We also might require an entry or two in the SignPost to boost our membership so someone might want to look into it.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Functional randomization on the Main Page Sandbox

It took a few hours, but I got the random function working properly on the Main page sandbox.

I took NorthAmerica1000's basic design, and relocated the base directory to "Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/today's date in week, year format". So for example, this weeks is located at Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/06, 2013, because this is the 6th week of the year. Each article blurb is at a subpage to that one, numbered 1 through 7 (example Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/06, 2013/4. It randomly loads one of those subpages, but to display another you have to click on the link to reload it. Which is an unfortunate technical limitation.

To create the next (or any future weeks selections), we simply create a new subpage with the correct date format, like Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/07, 2013 or Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/08, 2013, copy the code from Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/06, 2013, and then create the necessary number of subpages, complete with blurbs. The Main Page will automatically update when the time ticks over into the next week, which I guess is on Sundays.

Further tweaking and copyediting is in order, but the basic code seems pretty solid to me, I mostly copied it out of the Featured Article section and made some adjustments. once some experts examine the code, we should be able to post a notice on the Main Page talk, and then get it up and running once it meets approval. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! NickPenguin invited me to comment. The setup seems about right to me.

My one suggestion is to tweak the page name format to "Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/year/week number" (For example, this week's would be Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/2013/6. This seems more intuitive and would organize each year's content in a single directory.

Nice work! —David Levy 03:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I haven't used the {{CURRENTWEEK}} magic word, but my understanding was incorrect; see below. is that the week numbered "1" begins on 1 January (regardless of what day it happens to be), with all subsequent weeks beginning on Sunday. For example, this year's week 1 began on a Tuesday and lasted five days (and next year's week 1 will begin on a Wednesday and last four days). And because partial weeks are counted, some years (including 2013) reach number 53.

~~With some additional code, we can delay a year's first update until the first Sunday. (Next year, we'll retain 2012's week 53 update for week 1, switching to 2014's week 2 update on 5 January.)~~ —David Levy 04:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: It appears that MediaWiki actually relies on the ISO week date system, in which weeks begin on Monday (as is customary in much of the world) and the first week of a year is the week containing the year's first Thursday.

Therefore, each numbered week contains seven days, running from Monday to Sunday and spanning Gregorian years when necessary (so no code-based delay is required). We need only be mindful of the fact that a year may contain either 52 or 53 weeks. —David Levy 16:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything wrong with the code. On question though, If the week's subpages are guaranteed to exixt, the main page logic seems a bit redundant. If a week's subpage is missing, then the entire section should be hidden, or replaced by some apologetic text instead of just not showing the blurb. — Edokter (talk) — 20:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Truthfully I only understood the code enough to get it to work. If there are redundant items there, please help make it simpler. I am on the fence about having an error message, it certainly wouldn't hurt, but my thinking is that once this goes on the main page, there best be content setup and ready to go. To David's comment, I relocated the page and modified the code, it now follows the "Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/year/week number" structure. Given that there are no major objections, I will post a notice about this on Talk:Main Page and see what happens. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 02:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that MediaWiki's magic words (e.g. {{CURRENTYEAR}}/{{CURRENTWEEK}}) theoretically require less server-side overhead than ParserFunctions (e.g. {{#time:Y}}/{{#time:W}}) do, which might have a non-trivial impact at a high-traffic page that users are encouraged to purge. So I'll make the switch, which will entail the leading zero's removal (which I'd already done before my sleep-deprived brain remembered what type of code was in use). —David Levy 05:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the change, which has no effect on the rendered page. —David Levy 06:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In the example, only some of the selections contain images. Surprisingly, the section looks much better without an image, which seems distracting/unbalancing in this context.
Also, on the actual main page, having some selections with images and others without images (or even using images with different heights) isn't a viable option, as this would make it impossible for us to balance the two columns. So I strongly suggest that no images be used. —David Levy 06:06, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: I assume that the selection of seven articles per week is based upon the idea of having one for each day (except all at once). But if we increase the quantity to eight and eliminate the images (as suggested above), we can link to two at a time (simply by using the randomizing code twice, once with the first half of the range and once with the second half).
In addition to making better use of the allotted space, this would reduce the frequency of reloading the page without receiving at least one different selection from 14.28% to 6.25%. (And if we could go up to ten articles at a time, the frequency would be reduced to only 4%.) —David Levy 06:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking about increasing the number of articles, it has been brought up before. Increasing to ten might be the best solution. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Another advantage is that people are fond of round numbers, so a list of ten items tends to be more appealing and engaging. This is psychologically ingrained, owing to most human societies' use of a base ten numeral system (itself stemming from the fact that most people have ten fingers and ten toes). —David Levy 15:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the code on the Sandbox page, and I made it display 3 random articles. I'm not sure if that's too many or not. As an aside, whenever it does go live, I think we should run the first batch of ten we've come up with, even if they start on the 11th and run until this all gets setup. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! I don't think that three is too many, but it would be good if the total number of articles were evenly divisible by the number displayed at one time. (Currently, the second selection is drawn from a pool of four instead of three, so those articles would receive less exposure.)

Do you think that 12 articles is feasible? "A dozen" is a popular/promotable concept too. —David Levy 04:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. That's almost twice the original article pool. But for some perspective on the numbers side of things, since I showed up in the first week of January, 75 articles have been successfully nominated. That's an average of about two a day. If the stream of nominations continues at this pace, then two successful noms a day lets us use 12 a week, with a surplus of about 50 articles at the end of the year. My only worry is that participation might slow. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If necessary, we could reduce the quantity (e.g. to nine) or recycle some articles (which always could use further improvement). —David Levy 05:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Protected articles

Fun is semi-protected. New editors aren't going to have much fun with this. Do we want to restrict nominations to unprotected articles? -—Kvng 21:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really good point. Thankyou for bringing it to our attention. We'd better get it unlocked asap. Even if there is some vandalism, we'll have many people there to help clean it up.--Coin945 (talk) 06:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's unprotected now. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 14:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fun". I see what you did there... :) • Jesse V.^(talk) 16:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Converting tables to templates

I started doing some converting and quickly stopped, because it was absolutely mind-numbing. I have posted a bot request to do the converting for us, but the more likely solution is that the tables will go away as the existing nominations clear through.

I have updated the nomination instructions, and if everything looks acceptable to everyone, I would request that we resume nominating, and use the new template at the top of each category. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Given the upcoming involvement of seven articles at a time (and possibly more in the future), I suggest that this process be renamed "Today's articles for improvement" (a phrase already used in the main page draft). This would better convey the project's nature and reduce the potential for confusion. Opinions? —David Levy 06:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Y Support a name change to Today's articles for improvement, per the plan for 7 articles to be listed on Main page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as well. I'll be happy to handle page moves (using a nifty little script I wrote). ;) —Theopolisme (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good plan. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 14:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support By the way, any idea on when this will be on the main page? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 14:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Given the progress made so far and the details still being ironed out, February 18 seems like a realistic goal (but any date should be regarded as tentative, as postponing the main page debut is vastly preferable to going live with a setup that isn't quite ready.) —David Levy 15:59, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems to be a great idea. TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 14:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bold

I've boldly started moving the pages. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins

How many editors active here are Admins? Could be useful to know for protecting/un-protecting articles that feature etc. I'm one btw. Giant Snowman 14:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an admin. I'm new to TAFI, but I like what I'm seeing and want to help out. —David Levy 14:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome aboard. Would you like to add your name to the list of members? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 14:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've now done so. Thanks! —David Levy 14:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Along with you (GS), there is Joe Decker, Jayron32, Tom Morris, Casliber, John Carter and Ponyo (and now David Levy) showing on the members list. I don't believe I missed anyone. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 14:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TW

It is not a problem, but perhaps the today's article for improvement tag can be added to the Twinkle system under tags. Perhaps it would be an easier way to place this tag on a page rather than manually, but Twinkle's manufacturers would need to do something first. Opinions? TBr and ley ^{(what's up)} 15:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that is really necessary. As far as I know, we're still just adding {{TAFI}} to the articles, correct? If so, that's a fairly simple edit to make. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Currently, the schedule is based on week-long periods beginning on Saturday (apparently because the first week began on September 1, 2012). In preparation for the upcoming main page transclusion, we need to change this to Monday, as the necessary code relies on the ISO week date system (in which weeks run from Monday to Sunday, as is customary in much of the world). —David Levy 16:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the schedule dates, and increased the number of articles to 10 per period. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 03:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A message from one of the founders

Although I cannot claim credit for laying all or even most of the groundwork for this project, it is my "brainchild", so to speak. As I am now leaving Wikipedia, I no longer expect to be involved in the operation here, not that I have been doing much for the last little while anyway. Before I go, I would like to remind everyone here of what the purpose of this project is: To improve articles. It is my hope that this will blossom into something very big, something that makes Wikipedia much more informative and reliable. I don't feel that I have really been much of a factor here recently, but I would like to try and encourage all of you to work hard at making the visions for this project become realities. Goodbye and good luck. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 04:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Myself, I left for about a year and only found my way back because of your idea. It's just my suspicion that you will keep tabs on things and put in an appearance when you're ready. Cheers. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I like history lessons, so I jumped in the Wayback Machine and found Automatic's original proposal. Interesting read. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 04:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:TAFI nom

I've made a few minor changes to {{TAFI nom}}:

Slightly increased the point size for article titles, so they stand out a little more
Removed bold from the article links area (in parentheses to the right of the article title), so the amount of bold isn't overbearing on the page
Removed the "to-do list" links, which are creating red links that don't appear likely to be used (people can always use the to-do lists in the holding area).

Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Suggestion

It seems like every article that gets three votes goes to the "Holding Area", and were it will eventually be selected for one of the articles we will edit. However, there are over 40 articles there, and many more will come there soon. It would take weeks for an article to finally get improvement. Though if we add many articles for improvement in one week, it is likely most of the articles will not get edited that much and not get improved. My suggestion is that once an article goes into holding area, users can still vote for it, and the ones with the most votes get selected, as oppesed to adding more articles to be improved for one week. After an article is in the holding area for one month and isn't doing so well, we can take it out.Horai 551 08:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually prefer keeping it at 7 articles per week, but that's what's been chosen so I'm just running with it. In any case, I think this is a "cross that bridge" types thing.--Coin945 (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not attached to any particular number of articles that are scheduled every week. I guess time will tell how well they get improved, I think the theory is that once on the Main Page, the many hands will find something to work on. As far as the nominations themselves, the articles that make it into the Holding Area (for the most part) seems to have good enough subjects to be of wide appeal. There might be some that have more appeal, but I'm not sure we need a second tier for nominations. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that assessment. Although I will add that after TAFI goes live, we may get a surge of participation in nominations, so the 3-support limit may have to be increased. But again, we may be walking across flatlands for all me know.--Coin945 (talk) 17:51, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Which is why I want to wait and check what happens when we get to the main page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the main page exposure's impact should not be underestimated. Many editors (myself included) expressed the concern that the articles might receive too much simultaneous attention, with continual edit conflicts leading frustrated users to abandon their efforts (and possibly never attempt to edit Wikipedia again). That's why the quantity was increased.

It's very important to err on the side of caution. If articles receive too little attention, this will cause no lasting harm; we can simply reduce the quantity accordingly (and maybe even recycle articles in need of further improvement). —David Levy 20:39, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion

Just had a thought: we should add to the TAFI t5emplate that one should add the article to their watchlist. Theoretically, if someone becomes attached to an article, and checks it out, and then goes back to the main page later on in the day only to find a different article there, they may get very frustrated. This way, at least they will have quick access to the article, and will be constantly reminded of its existence when others edit it.--Coin945 (talk) 11:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we both had the same thought at the same time. ;) I actually just added the watchlist link to the template.... —Theopolisme (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great wiki-minds things alike.. :D--Coin945 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for template

Having the number of page hits as an (optional) addition to the template would be useful. I think page hits is one resource we ought to be having in our template setting. If other people nominating articles dont put it, we can always place it ourselves (as we have been doing all this while) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can the template be made so the pagehits is not a requirement for the template to work? If so I agree it is useful (not mandatory) information. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 19:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it can be done. Not sure how though. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?

Before everyone gets too carried away with introducing the current TAFI design proposal (which creates serious amounts of blank space opposite the TAFI box), could someone point out where consensus was obtained to use multiple hooks (with multiple wikilinks in each hook) instead of the simple "Help Wikipedia and join fellow editors in building _______ - today's Article for Improvement" wording that was approved by the discussion at the village pump in December 2012? Bencherlite ^Talk 22:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this section of that close, the closing admin said in their close that "This option can be revisited later." I suppose we should do a little more revisiting before we get too carried away. Time for an RFC over at Talk:Main Page. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 07:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think consensus for the same was established. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number of TAFI entries for Main page

See [2], a diff page of Wikipedia:Main Page/sandbox for further context, where there are 3 TAFI entries. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:07, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GAN update

The GA Review for Entertainment is in and I have started to work through the suggestions so the article can pass. I was held up by Fun and will probably be held up by other things like work and sleep but I hope we can make it. I didn't mean to work on "Fun" but it jumped out of the internet and hit me (or something like that). Whiteghost.ink (talk) 10:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion occurring at Talk:Main Page

See Talk:Main Page#Today's article for improvement on the Main Page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Large discussion. Can you summarize? Do you need help? -—Kvng 18:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are several problems with implementing.

With respect to placing the section, the consensus was to put it under DYK, but there are also proposals to put it under the OTD or as a section of its own, spanning both sides of the page.
The main problem is on how to balance the sections. Adding a new section for TAFI will add several lines to the Left side of the Main page, which will need to be balanced by reducing the number of lines in TFA, DYK or TAFI; or by increasing the number of blurbs in OTD or ITN (or more than one of these). There is no discussion or agreement to reduce TFA. DYK seems unlikely to be reduced. ITN may be increased; but OTD has its own problems (Some days of the year have few notable events even currently; and another blurb will increase this problems for those days).
A third question is what the section should be. There is disagreement on whether to add "Help Wikipedia and join fellow editors in building _______ - one of today's Article for Improvement" or something similar before the section. There is disagreement on whether to add a button to purge the page, by means of a "More selections" link. There is disagreement on whether or not to have another line of description about the article which is selected. There is disagreement over how many articles to display. Also, there is disagreement over whether or not to add an image.
When we approached the technical VP, it was also suggested that there be another RfC finalising everything. Also, there are versions of the section which are not community approved, which might be problematic in itself.
Finally, and most importantly, everyone has their own perfect version of the section; and nobody seems to be interested in anybody else's version. Which leads to no result whatsoever on how to go forward.

So yes. We need help. We really need someone to bring the discussion all together, and make it more forward. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions for moving entries to the holding area

I've updated the Holding area page with instructions:
Instructions

Please start at the bottom of the lists at the nominations page when moving entries here, to ensure that the oldest successful entries are moved here first.
New entries here should be placed at the end of the lists.

Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number of hits at the template

{{TAFI nom|article=Circus music|class=stub|hits=100}} now produces this-

Circus music – (page view stats • edit • talk • history) - 100 daily hits

Do let me know what you think of the daily hits feature. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good, I would probably put the daily hits first, before the page stats link. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit the TAFI nom template to do so. (If not, just leave a mockup here; and we'll do it) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to add "daily edits," since the purpose is to encourage editing and not just viewing? Both would probably be good, because over time it would show what type of articles are more likely to attract a higher ratio of editors/viewers. (DYK, on the other hand, is aiming towards number of "hits" (readers) First Light (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The reason "daily hits" is there so we know how important the article is. Not to mention the fact that the ideal articles we aim for have not been edited since a very long time, and require immediate help. We could, however, keep track of the number of edits it receives during its time as TAFI. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I thought it was similar to Wikipedia:DYKSTATS, which lets editors know which articles were most viewed while on the main page. Though it's still a good idea to do followup tracking to see which types of TAFI articles are most effective at attracting editors. First Light (talk) 18:03, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule and the Main Page

It was my hope that we would have this implemented on the Main Page by now. Since it isn't, I have temporarily changed the schedule to remove the specific dates, and put a hold at the top of the schedule. I don't know if we should revert back to one article per week for now, or just hold with the current group of ten until the implementation discussion has been resolved. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 20:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support reverting to one article per week until the week when we hit the main page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:24, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's functional to hold off on publishing the queue for now, and then use Group 1 at the Schedule when TAFI goes live on Main page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New template sent out to all members

Hello,

I have sent out this message/template to all members.

Hello,
In the past few days, Today's Articles for Improvement has gone through many changes.

We have modified the process for adding Nominations, which now uses a template/table format and requires only 3 supports for an article to be selected.
There is now a Holding Area, where articles are kept for discussion before being selected for a particular date.
The TAFI schedule now involves adding 10 articles weekly, chosen from a variety of topics.
We now have an Accomplishments page where we will be highlighting our older TAFI articles which have now become quality articles on the Wikipedia.

The Project is almost ready to hit the Main Page, where it will be occupying a section just below "Did you Know" section. Three article from the weekly batch of 7 will be displayed randomly at the main page, the format of which can be seen at the Main Page sandbox. There is also an ongoing discussion at the Main page talk over the final details before we can go forward with the Main Page.

If you have any ideas to discuss with everyone else, please visit the TAFI Talk Page and join in on the ongoing discussions there. You are also invited to add new nominations, and comment and suport on the current ones at the Nominations page. You can also help by helping in the discussions at the Holding Area.

Above all, please do not forget to improve our current Today's Articles for Improvement

Thank you and hoping to have some productive work from you at the Project,
TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(From the TAFI team)

Thanks for volunteering your time to notify members about current events at the project. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks cool. However, is says "Three article from the weekly batch of 7...". I am not quite sure, but don't we have a weekly batch of 10, and not 7?Horai 551 10:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. My bad. I thought I had updated the template from when I had originally made it. Lets hope no-one else notices this error. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
 |algo = old(15d)
-|archive = Wikipedia talk:Today's article for improvement/Archive %(counter)d
+|archive = Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement/Archive %(counter)d
 }}