Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

TAFI box

I'd previously created this box to showcase and try to advertise TAFI in other WikiProjects, userpages, and anywhere else you can think of. Please do tell if I should keep updating it for next week, and the weeks after that, or should I discontinue? [If it isn't likely to be used a lot, I'll want to remove it.] If this box is likely to be used, I suggest moving it under the project namespace. 10:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

ALT1 - Check out this alternate below, with project information at top and an article example below. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:56, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Please help Wikipedia by improving one of Today's Articles for Improvement!

User:TheOriginalSoni/TAFI ad box/lines

Writer

I have been working on Writer since it was first scheduled and before it was suddenly removed. In between its disappearance and reappearance from TAFI, other work intervened so I had to stop anyway. Even so, although it's not yet finished, it's a lot better than when it was first listed. During the course of my research for it, I found the wonderful Japanese print of Carlyle's horror at his burning manuscript, uploaded it and used it in the article. (It's not an accurate representation of the situation but it's a marvellous image, being from a Japanese educational text about an English writer's experience - interesting!)
Commons link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carlyle_manuscript_burning_Japan_cph.3g10399.tif

REQUESTS: Can someone crop the image to remove the colour separations on the right side? And can someone translate the Japanese text?

On another point, I thought the main purpose of this project was to improve the articles but it looks like the main purpose is moving more towards attracting new editors. Both of these are valuable goals but there may be some conflict between them. The type of article suitable for a new editor is not the same type of article that needs a thorough rethink by a reasonably experienced editor to make it coherent. I hope we can find a way that these goals do not get into a fight with one another. For example, any metrics should reflect qualitative improvements as well as quantitative increases in edits by newcomers. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I cropped and straightened the photo. Braden 01:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Great! Thanks. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 01:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

In truth, the original idea behind this project was to encourage new editors. I agree that experienced editors might make certain kinds of edits, and new editors might make other kinds. The underlying question is, "what do either of those two groups want to do?" I don't know if there has been any studies done or data gathered on the wiki, maybe someone knows for certain. Over time we might discover certain article types or article deficiencies receive more edits, and we promote articles with those features. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is in a reasonable state at the moment, I think. That is, the structure is established and the sections all begun. Obviously, it is not complete - for example, as I said on its Talk Page (where I set out some thoughts about how this article works), at some point it needs the bullet points turned into good prose before it can become a good article. I will come back to this when I can. Meanwhile, I don't think it is start class anymore. Can someone reassess it? Cheers, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A bot to automatically handle nominations?

What are everyone's thoughts on this? It'd be a fairly simple task to code a bot to:

• Move unsuccessful (i.e., <3 supports after 10 days) nominations to archive; and
• move nominations with 3+ supports to the holding area.

Thanks, —Theopolisme (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the prospect of having a bot, but there must a also be the possiblity of Oppose to act as a -1 vote.

Also, rather than archive in 10 days, it must be 10 days from "last activity".

Not to forget the fact that nominations will be in a huge mess, and therefore need to be taken care of first before using a bot for archival.

All these concerns fulfilling, I think I like the idea of having something like this. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:52, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be great for a bot to place entries in the correct sections on the holding page (if this is possible), rather than just dumping entries there at the top of the page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

 Coding... with all of the requested functions above. —Theopolisme (talk) 10:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

BRFA filed. —Theopolisme (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

What is TAFI for?

What is TAFI for? I see two things TAFI can do:

1. Announce some articles selected as targets for collaborative improvement
2. Encourage reader-to-editor conversion

1. seems to be going OK (though not perhaps leading to a great deal of article improvement?), whilst 2. seems woefully underserved. Both can be improved.

To serve these two goals better, TAFI needs to go across the whole Main Page to have enough space. It needs to have a little blurb about "yes, you too can edit", and each selected TAFI article needs a couple of suggestions on what needs improving about the article - something that might induce readers to go "I might be able to do that", so it's not just a uselessly vague "this can be improved". There needs to be a real call to action to get users to have a look at what they can do. And help links of course for users to get started with editing. Also a clear suggestion that signing up for an account is helpful but optional, and that if getting involved with editing is too scary to begin with, then providing comments on the talk page can also be very helpful.

What would this look like? Well looking at Wikipedia_talk:TAFI#TAFI_layout_on_Main_Page - something like Format 1, but with help links and "what needs improving" instructions instead of the first line from the article. {{TAFI}} as the header for the TAFI article is OK, but some of that "get stuck in, here's how" attitude and instruction needs to be on the Main Page. Rd232 ^talk 14:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

A more detailed presence on Main page that at least includes blurbs about the articles would certainly be an improvement. I personally like the layout of using a 100% width directly below the "Did you know" and "On this day" sections to enable this type of simple, but functional expansion and layout improvement (see the discussion above on this talk page). The notion of offering suggestions for improvements is unique here at this time; this could also be functional to encourage participation. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:31, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Based on your Format 1 in the discussion above, here's more of an idea of what I have in mind:

Today's articles for improvement Foobar is one of today's articles for improvement, and you can help improve it by editing it or making suggestions on its talk page! Ideas for improving the article (currently rated SNAFU-class) include expanding the early history expanding coverage of Foobar in non-Western cultures more and better-quality illustrations You can discuss how to improve it on its talk page and ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse. See the cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ for additional information. Editors are encouraged to create a Wikipedia account and watchlist this article.

If it's going to be 100% of the page width, there's room for more on the right-hand side - eg more about what quality the article is to begin with, which WikiProjects it's important for, or other things that might be relevant for getting readers a taste of what this is all about, and hopefully entice them to jump in. Rd232 ^talk 13:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the new idea. A list of what can be done might interest the user more. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea too. However...

If it's going to be 100% of the page width, there's room for more on the right-hand side

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'll again note that this is highly dependent on a user's display settings (resolution, window size, text size, etc.). In the above example, you and I see available space on the right. Others would not.

That's why longer segments of text (with fewer breaks) are a safer choice. At higher resolutions, they span more of the box's width. At lower resolutions, they simply wrap to multiple lines.

But again, I do like the underlying concept and believe that it should be pursued.

Note that the "reload" link is obsolete; a bot is purging the main page's cache every fifteen minutes, and the link to Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement enables users to view all of the other selections instead of having to reload over and over in the hope of eventually seeing them. (And the "reload" link was problematic to begin with, as it confusingly reloads the entire page and fails to change the selection 10% of the time.) —David Levy 17:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, reload link removed. I take your point about the design issues, though I'm not immediately sure what to do about it. Rd232 ^talk 17:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of having a box, but I notice that the content in the FP and FL boxes are centred, and contain a picture. If this box follows a similar structure, then we would either need to generate a filled template for all of the weeks items, or we would in essence be creating a 'featured article for improvement', where some articles are promoted more aggressively than others. In any scenario, the boxshould still feature the complete list, randomly displaying a particular number of articles.

Ultimately what is the goal of adding more space? Is it for information on how to improve a specific article, or is it for more general information on how to improve articles, register an account and such? The original proposal to put TAFI on the main page was to encourage new editors. I think we would get the best results if the box promoted 50% how to become and editor and 50% list of articles to be improved. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with all of these comments. —David Levy 20:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is to convey the information via fewer and longer paragraphs. This wouldn't preclude the use of bullet points, which needn't have intrinsic line breaks. Example:

• Article improvement suggestion #1      • Article improvement suggestion #2      • Article improvement suggestion #3      • Article improvement suggestion #4

With the above formatting (merely a rough demonstration, incidentally) an item wraps to a second line (in its entirety) only when necessary. (To see what I mean, you might want to increase your text size and/or reduce your window size.)

I'm fairly busy at the moment, but I should have time to work on a mockup next week. —David Levy 20:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with all the above. Let's knock some ideas round with different (but not too many...) mockups. Rd232 ^talk 20:33, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

David, I'd like to see an upper limit on the number of points we add to a given line, maybe 2 or 3. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that you want to limit the total number of points, or do you mean that you want to insert line breaks? —David Levy 21:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

We do not have any more than "n" points in a line in any given format. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that you want to limit the total number of points, or do you mean that you want to insert line breaks? —David Levy 22:50, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Line break. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm attempting to explain that hard-coded line breaks can prevent the browser from wrapping the content in a manner suited to the user's display configuration.

To illustrate the issue, I've compiled screen captures. —David Levy 01:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Random point: If nothing else, I think we should add the article-class symbol to in front of each article, like we have in the nominations tab. It conveys a heck of a lot more info than you can put in words - really painting the picture that these are article in need by contrasting them with the FA star two boxes above.--Coin945 (talk) 23:06, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. Apparently there is no FA star in the FA section. Well anyways, I still think this would be a good idea. :)--Coin945 (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

But do readers (not editors) have any clue what article rating is? – Ypnypn (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably not - but probably they should... Rd232 ^talk 23:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think the article ratings icons will be a useful addition for Wikipedians, and it's also an opportunity to educate readers and potential editors about what article ratings are (so it might be spelled out in words as well, eg Rated Start-class). There'd be a link to an explanatory page, along with a tooltip. That education would have to be somehow within a TAFI context, so not sending people off to go read about all the ins and outs of article assessment in general. It's also another opportunity to think about how to improve the particular article: what's good enough about the article that it deserves the rating it has, and what's missing for it to reach the next level. Rd232 ^talk 23:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I also added a linked image with the Words in the template above. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Two issues:

1. Many Wikipedians oppose the addition of editor-centric material to the main page. An invitation to edit is one thing, but wiki-jargon along the lines of the article class might be seen as crossing a line (which would be a liability when it comes time to present the proposed changes to the community for approval).

2. All ten ratings would be subject to change during the course of the week in which the articles are listed (particularly if TAFI's goals are met).

—David Levy 01:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There's always going to be opposition to any new change. The thing is, there's even more opposition to the way the main page is at the moment tha any propsed changed such as TAFI... but we put up with it because of tradition. And that has no logical basis; only a sentimental one. So regardless of what people oppose, we have to look at their ideological reasoning behind it and sift out those who are only opposing things because "theoretically" it won't work or isn't what the main page is "supposed" to be. What the main page "was", was decided about a decade ago, but times have massively changed, and so I think any opposition to such edits is ludicrous. Until you've actually attempted something there's no way of knowing. And that's why I find beaucracy so bloody annoying. All it does it creates a system of rules and regulations with the sole purpose of keeping things as they are - upholding the current systems of power and making it appear as if that is the only way things can ever be done. But the thing is, any new idea will have opposition, and I think that if the system of Wikipedia was different, and if the current way of doing things was presented as a new idea in a similar format to how TAFI has been presented, it'd have just as much (most probably more) criticism from the community. But because that system happened to be there first, it stays no matter what. I guess we just have to cope the changephobia and see what we can do... :/--Coin945 (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir. I find the bureaucracy as frustrating as you do, but I don't know how to counter it. So I'm trying to approach the situation as pragmatically as possible.

The addition of article classes strikes me as the sort of thing that could tip the scales from support to opposition. Given its nonessential nature, its inclusion doesn't seem worth the risk of derailing the entire proposal.

If we can establish consensus for the fundamental elements, modifications can always be discussed later (and if the implementation has been successful, the community might be more receptive). —David Levy 02:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

There is bureaucracy, and there are standards. Consider the standards we have created for the nomination process; they were not created at random, the fulfilled the purpose of ensuring a certain level of quality. Standards can change, but just as when they were initially formed, there needs to be a purpose for which they need to change to fulfil. Putting TAFI on the Main Page challenged the current standard with something it couldn't do effectively: attract new editors. Don't lose sight of the original purpose of TAFI on the Main Page: it's purpose is to attract editors, through the means of giving them something to do. All future changes to TAFI and the process must be evaluated with that mission statement in mind. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not losing sight of the mission statement. It's just frustrating, I guess when the discusison should be about what's best for the main page; what the most effective system for all of us is,, and then you have to take into consideration all these extra factors that really have no place being in such a discussion. You know, Wikiepdia had given me a lot of respect for people like politicians and lawyers, as the stuff they have to deal with is so convoluted and people-affecting, that of course masses of sentimentality will enter conversations and discussions, and often bring proposed changes to a halt. I give an open apology to David Levy, I guess this whole drawn out TAFI thing is starting to get to everyone. And I do understand you are doing your best to find the utilitarian solution. I suppose I still have my head stuck in a little bubble and can't see the bigger picture. But I really do appreciate everything you've contributed to these discussions. You're probably the glue that's kept the TAFI people and the other parties in a dualogue. :)--Coin945 (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely appreciate your kind words. (: —David Levy 12:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

And to your second point, firstly the class ratings will be the initial ones, and so will ont have to be changed throughout the course of the week. Secondly, the user's can't even easily see the ratings (i can as i've not that widget switched on) but newbies have to use the talk page...but they might not know to do that... so they'll most prob just base their quality knowledge off the main page.--Coin945 (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm confused. Isn't the idea to display the current rating? —David Levy 02:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

It's to display the rating the article was nominated with. And sometimes the class-ratings they have are actually inappropriate, so it is fine to change the ratings before actually nominating the article (E.g. I changed Humour from a C to stub earlier today).--Coin945 (talk) 05:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The wording in the example above is "currently rated". I suppose that this could be changed, but something along the lines of "nominated as" would add another layer of unfamiliarity. And I don't see how such information is even relevant to prospective editors. (Why should an outdated article assessment matter to someone with no prior involvement in the process?) —David Levy 06:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The information is relevant for even getting Out There the idea that articles have different quality ratings! re the "currently" issue - the wording should be "currently". So either TAFI articles should not be reassessed while they're on the Main Page, or it would need updating if they're re-assessed. Rd232 ^talk 07:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The first option looks reasonable enough to me. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

My apologies. I misunderstood.--Coin945 (talk) 10:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that I can get behind the idea of suppressing accuracy for the sake of reporting something (even if it's misleading) on the main page, especially when it would result in the appearance that no progress is ever made. (Readers and editors alike would see the same ratings all week long, conveying that TAFI — and their personal contributions — made no apparent difference.) —David Levy 12:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Our goal is to attract interest in editing. The announcement that these articles require improvement, with relevant areas listed, should convey the concept that their quality is variable.

New editors (and editors in general) needn't concern themselves with Wikipedia's assessment system. We're trying to explain that they can dive in and help, not that they need to learn our article quality grading scheme's criteria and terminology first. The more "inside" stuff we throw at people, the more likely they are to feel intimidated and discouraged. ("I'm supposed to understand the difference between "Start-Class" and "C-Class" before I can begin editing? Never mind.")

See also: KISS principle, Mission creep

—David Levy 12:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

If we're having a list of things that need doing to the article, I'd suggest including it on the talk page template (and possibly the article template during its TAFI week) as well. MChesterMC (talk) 09:25, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely - especially if we find we can't get that onto the Main Page. But even if we do, there's more space there to give more detail, and maybe do updates as the article evolves. Rd232 ^talk 10:07, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Full page box design

What does or does not work about the currently proposed full page box design? In my opinion, I think it could give more weight on what 'being and editor' means, perhaps by making the small text into big text. I'm also not sure about the idea of turning the box into a 'featured article for improvement' box. To do so would be to promote the more 'photogenic' articles for improvement over the less pretty ones, which may or may not play into the overall theme of the Main Page. I'm also considering an alternative to the list of suggestions on the Main Page; what if the {{TAFI}} template transcluded the todo list onto the article page for the duration of the week? Then every reader and editor could see what needs to be done as soon as they arrive on the page. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• Regardles of whether we get the list of things to do on the main page, it makes good sense to have it on the article page too, so the users can see it. To this effect, I think we should set out on the general principle of making to do list for the articles right now. [Making the template, getting the lists prepared, and setting a minimum standard for getting an article into the schedule] That way, we can make sure to get through the problems of implementing them, if and when they arise. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Old sections on the Talk page?

We reduced the archiving from 30 days to 15 recently. Yet the top of the page has some of the sections where the discussions are closed, and long past. Also, the bottom contains several sections which are already finished discussions. Can we do anything about it?

1. Reduce number of days again to 10. The last possibly-open discussion was 8-9 days old
2. Switch over to Cluebot so we have access to the archive now template
3. Use the closed discussion template
4. Reorder the page so that the closed discussions are always higher than the open discussions

What do you think should be done? I prefer using options 1 and 2.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this regarding the holding page? Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

No. This is about the talk page [This page]. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:52, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for revising the header to this section, so it's more specific (diff). Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No big deal. Don't worry about it; much ado about nothing. We can scroll! :) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

15 days seems to be reasonable; some users only log on every few days or so, and many even less. It seems prudent to allow entries to remain for around two weeks so people can see what's been going on, rather than having to go to archive pages. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Proposal withdrawn. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Improvement tracking

Since the project is now live on the Main Page, we should develop a method to determine if the exposure is resulting in articles actually being improved. What I'm thinking are tracking in each article:

• the number of edits the week before, the week of, and the week after
• compare the number of IP address edits versus registered users
• make note of how many edits are done by 'regular project participants'
• possibly investigating if any of the registered users have registered an account in the last 30 days

I think it would also be good to track the total number of characters added or removed, and comparing all this to average wiki development. All of this information can be tracked on a project subpage, for everyone anyone to contribute to. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Also relevant is the exposure levels for each article. The number of pageviews per article before, and during its time as TAFI is also to be considered. On an average, the articles got 300 extra pageviews yesterday.

At this point, it should also be considered to just announce the fact that TAFI is on the main page. It might help in gaining the exposure. A quick ping to all members might also be in order.

More relevant might be a Signpost article for TAFI, whenever that is possible. Also, the Teahouse is considering putting a banner to advertise TAFI. You are asked to comment on it at the Host Lounge.

223.176.222.186 (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Sad to say, at the moment there's very little to track. [1] [2] [3] (I'm excluding removing the protection and the bot fixing up) have had no edits so far). [4] has a fairly substantial edit but the person involved seems to have misunderstood the source and what they added was quickly removed and the other edits were minor. [5] has a lot of edits, but it seems to have mostly been coming from someone working on it before main page appearance although there were a few other editors. [6] had two minor edits. [7] had a few more and slightly more substantial although the article was protected for a fair part of the first day (probably the second or third most successful depending on the other edits to Writer). [8] a minor edit again by someone editing before. [9] two minor edits. [10] perhaps the most successful, it had a fair few edits from an established wikipedian and a bit more from someone who is fairly new and an IP. Hopefully there will be more. Nil Einne (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

 Doing... I'm currently working on a bot to automatically generate the four data points you listed in your initial post, Nick. Any others you can think of? —Theopolisme (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of anything else at the moment. It might be good to use the bot to add the {{TAFI}} tag on the article page when they go live, as well as the {{former TAFI}} on the talk page, that is extremely tedious for ten articles a week. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the ratio of minor edits to more extensive edits? Braden 00:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

That's an incredibly simple task for a bot, so I'll get working on that script + requesting approval now. —Theopolisme (talk) 23:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

BRFA filed here for the "auto-tag with {{TAFI}} and {{former TAFI}}" job—the bot will be able to start running immediately once approved (so for the next round of TAFIs, starting Monday). —Theopolisme (talk) 00:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you also make a bot to post a quick message onto all member's pages? From time to time, it is useful to send out a message to all the members, and its not feasible to do it manually. Currently {{TAFI Reminder 2}} is a template one can readily send over to all members, as well as on Jimbo's talk page. I am sure that could generate some interest and help work on the articles. 110.227.239.137 (talk) 06:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, if it were possible to notify all the Projects and primary authors associated with a TAFI article about a week before hitting the main page, that would be great. They happen to be the most probable people to work and help around on the respective pages. It would make sense to leave them a message of the same. 110.227.239.137 (talk) 06:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• It might be a good idea to compare the TAFI articles against the same data of a control group of articles, like 100 articles that were nominated for TAFI andwere unsuccessful, but had at least one support. Those kinds of articles would be among the same kind as the successful nominations, or at least, the group would be better than hitting the random button 100 times and comparing data against that. Actually, there about 500 articles with one support... maybe using unsuccessful nominations with two supports would be a better choice. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

How about comparing it with the articles already selected for TAFI for the weeks to come? Those would make a great control group for the current week. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

That is a much better control group. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Do we have any news regarding the tracking of improvements? Where are we on that front? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Arts section too bloated?

I have been noticing that the "Arts" section on the nomination page is starting to become rather long, so much so that it is almost bigger than all the other sections combined. I am beginning to fear that if the list continues to grow at the rate it is, we would end up only focusing on that section and trying to get those nominations passed or encouraging discussions there, at the expense of the others. To offset this, I propose that we make the section exclusively for paintings, architecture, and sculptures, and just split the rest to new sections. These new ones would be along the lines of a "Music" section, a "Literature" section, and a "Film and TV Shows" section, while individual artists would be relegated to the "People" section. For consistency reasons, we can organize the Holding Area into something similar as well. Your thoughts? Secret Saturdays (talk to me)^{what's new?} 04:51, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Music, literature and Film and TV shows seem like logical sections. I'd still prefer individual artists to stay in either the people section or their 'home' section, whichever is more relevant. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Pie chart of Wikipedia content by subject as of January 2008

Seems to be aligned with the overall trend on Wikipedia for culture and arts topics to receive a high degree of contributions. (See pie chart right). Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

HTML problem with TAFI

While experimenting with the Main Page layout, I found a problem with the TAFI markup; it only consists of two floating divs, which have no height, thus no static content that forces a proper document flow. On the Main Page itself, it is saved by the fact it is embedded in a table, but when nested within a div, it causes following content to overlap TAFI. The solution is quite simple; remove the first div, as it is simply a line of text anyway, and it will save a heap of trouble with future Main Page designs. I just can't find where the master template is located. — Edokter (talk) — 11:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If you're referring to a template used to create the weekly subpage, I don't believe that one exists.

I've modified Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/18, Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/19 and Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/20 accordingly. Presumably, this change will survive when the code is copied and pasted to create Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2013/21. —David Levy 01:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah OK, no wonder I couldn't find it. Copying code over and over again may not be the best way to create new pages. When I built TFL, I constructed it so that new entries are created with the help of a preload template. Thanks for the modifications. — Edokter (talk) — 18:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

We could subst {{Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/master}} to create the pages. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Week 19 picture for blurb

I think Ancient Roman architecture has the best candidates for the picture box, probably the one of the Colosseum, since it is a well known example of the article subject. Any other suggestions? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks nice; go with it! Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for comments on the Main Page

The 2013 main page redesign proposal is a holding a Request for comments on the Main Page, in order to design an alternative main page based on what the community asks for. As this may affect your project, I would encourage you to leave feedback and participate in the discussion.

Evad37 (talk) (on behalf of the 2013 main page redesign proposal team) 00:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Inactivity notice

I'm just here to express my presumed inactivity until the 15th of June. I've been pretty inactive already, but I thought I would just make it official, instead of just disappearing. Braden 19:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to make todo lists a requirement to enter the schedule

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

Makes sense to me. However the requirement should perhaps be a little way into the future (1 month?), so that in the interim people can start doing it as a recommendation, and minimise disruption to the nomination process. Rd232 ^talk 23:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe a separate {{TAFI to-do}} template is in order? Somebody designing this? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That might be pushing the envelope as far as main space templates go. I think it's a good idea, but it would likely encounter violent resistance. If we accept this proposal, then I would recommend we begin on Week 23, starting June 3rd. I would also recommend we define a list as "at least two items". --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not make use of the existing {{to do}} system? The to-do box could even be included in each nomination using {{To do|small=yes|collapsed=yes|target=Talk:Foobar}}, which would generate a box like:

Or the /to do talk subpage could just be automatically linked. - Evad37 (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

My primary concern with that template is that it isnt intuitive enough for anyone to try editing the "template" than try editing the page to edit the template. Not to forget it isnt transferrable within pages. What if we make the above template for all purposes within TAFI, and export to the {{to do}} system before being added as TAFI? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. I'm also not sure why a new template would be an issue (as NickPenguin says above with "pushing the envelope"). Rd232 ^talk 10:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Why so official? Why don't we just add a note in the TAFI instructions asking our nominators to add a brief summary of what needs to be done. We havent needed strct protocol up until now, and there's no reason to start.--Coin945 (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that we did try making it optional. Nobody helped. With this, i think there will be a clear cut incentive to develop the lists. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't call "Any suggestions for article improvement and information about the article's topic(s) can be made in comments." tacked on the end of another point about including quality ratings, "making it optional". It's much more tame than that, essentially saying (to those who even happen to read it - i only noticed it there now) "if you happen to have any ideas about suggestions, the place you would then add then is in the nomination space itself". It doesn't seem to in any way suggest it should or must be done at all.--Coin945 (talk) 06:53, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The to-do list has only one way to be changed - Use the "E" button, and not edit the page, which is not the first thing you'll try. Nick here says that using another OUR template on the main space (where this to do list will be) will be pushing things too much, given the current situation we are in because of {{TAFI}}. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:04, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

If we use the existing todo list system, then it might be possible to just place the todo template on the article page, in a small box, like is shown above. I would support that, however I do not know how to get wider community input on such an idea. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Fine art
• Canberra Marathon
• Restaurant
• Island

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

• Ernő Rubik
• Prayer meeting

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

No WikiProject has the inherent right to give itself authority to clutter up articles with unnecessary non-clean-up tags. Any "consensus" to do so should have come via a well-publicized community-wide RfC. Clean-up tags are - at the very best - a necessarey evil (if they are that), but adding totally unnecessary and frivolous tags to an article is not only detrimental to the reader's use of the encyclopedia, it opens an entirely new frontier for WikiProjects to decide to tag articles using their own criteria. Please do not tag any more articles. Opne an RfC and get the proper consensus from the community as a whole. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

For some background regarding consensus that has occurred, please read Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 98#Unanswered questions - TAFI. In another later discussion, an RFC was placed (see Talk:Main Page/Archive 173#Today's article for improvement on the Main Page), and use of the template was mentioned there by User:David Levy in the TAFI moving forward? subsection, but nobody objected at that time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Nothing to discuss here. Its an open-shut case where it's clear consensus through RFC has occured. I suggest taking it to ANI the first moment another revert occurs. [Or should that be done already] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That may be worth it. Just to point out how foolish he is being. It's obviously a clear cut case of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT. My experiences of this editor have been less than positive and he does not take criticism well. As such, any and all attempts at communication with him are reverted. Even the one that invited him to the discussion. He does not play well with others. Maybe maybe we should just ignore him? It is easy to undo his edits. Thoughts? -- MisterShiney ✉ 06:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• The edit warring by User:Beyond My Ken regarding tag removal from articles has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Beyond My Ken reported by User:Northamerica1000 (Result: No block). Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Improvement tracking

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

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

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

Another proposal

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

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

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

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

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

What generally happens (as what happened with History of music for example) is that the article is nominated as a redlink, and after it is supported, a short stub is written about it, in preparation for its main page appearance.--Coin945 (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you aware of WP:RESCUE? ~KvnG 19:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome. Another helping hand would be just as good :) We're already having what you said, but only with a focus on the more vital articles. As Coin said above, your suggestions would come under what we do, as we tend to (and did) make a short stub before the article makes to the main page.

As for the idea itself, you're free to nominate any articles for TAFI; though I dont think it will be feasible for us to have a 'subsection'. The only thing that might be a problem with them is that the articles you mention might not get the 3 Supports required.

So feel free to directly nominate those articles, or I think having a specialised project to do that could be good too. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Coin945, by redlink do you mean an article that hasn’t been created yet, or one that has been deleted and could be restored or restarted? What about an article that was merged due to notability reasons, could I nominate it with a link to the last good diff?

KvnG, I am aware of the ARS, which is actually how I found this project.  :) But they are generally best useful for articles currently at threat of deletion, which is not what I was talking about.

TheOriginalSoni, would love to help out when I can. I have notified a number of good source finding people/article improving people about this project, so who knows who that might attract.  :) I know the focus here is on more vital articles – essentially, assuming those where the GNG is already met – which is why I bring this up as a concern to focus on articles where the GNG has yet to be met, in hopes of finding RS's.

And how about the other things I mention, like failed Articles for Creation submissions, user space drafts, or article incubator pages – would those be moved into article space on a successful nomination?

My concern was that the nominations page says "Please do not nominate an article unless you are fairly certain that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Any nomination of an article that does not meet this criteria may be removed." So I was thinking that the focus of this project was on articles that don't need to prove their notability, but if you're saying to give it a try anyway, then I guess it is just a matter of making a good enough case to garner those support votes?  :) BOZ (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

No I dont think they would be moved here for a successful nomination. Also, I want to clarify that we cant have articles likely to be AfDed under notability here. That would not be acceptable. What would be, will be articles which are notable, but were deleted in their previous form due to reasons other than notability [promotional and copyright etc]. If the notability itself is under doubt, I dont think its likely to be selected here.

[Note that the TAFI articles are at the main page. So it would be a whole set of problems in itself if an article was AfDed while at the main page] TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, so that brings me back to my original problem – maybe we do need a separate process just for articles which do not currently meet the GNG, but for which there is a good chance they may if sources can be found. My goal is to take articles that don't yet meet the GNG, and have people who can find sources so that they will meet the GNG. BOZ (talk) 21:24, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh sorry.. I misunderstood. Yes, by redlink I meant articles that had just not been created yet, not those that had been deleted. This isn't a good place for article bordering on notability. It's mainly for common articles that everyone naturally assumes will have great articles but actually don't. To refute the notion that "all the good topics have already be written about".--Coin945 (talk) 16:08, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This is my understanding of the project too. When I make and review nominations, I'm personally looking for fairly undeveloped articles on accessible topics that are receiving a lot of page hits. We're trying to address a specific point in the lifecycle of an article where new editors can make meaningful contributions. ~KvnG 22:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I got it. Yes, I think I will have to give some more thought to this. Perhaps I will bring it up at the ARS too. BOZ (talk) 02:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

EMERGENCY

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

As discussed above, no articles were selected for this week. I've removed the broken list. —David Levy 02:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Northamerica1000 created a list and added it to the page. —David Levy 02:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Everything should be in order at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:18, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Images for upcoming weeks

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

Help

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

That's an idea that has been mentioned here before. A problem with this notion is that it introduces instruction creep and makes the process here more complex, rather than streamlined and user friendly for the majority of users. Most people that are interested just edit the articles directly, rather than first viewing a list stating what they should do. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions

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

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

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

Like The project is relatively active at this time; more processes added on may not actually receive significant contributions. It may be better for now to keep things simpler, rather than making matters more complex. However, I support procedural improvements to this project, such as the addition of article improvement categories. If this is to be implemented, there may be a noticeable lag before categories are sufficiently developed, though. It's ultimately dependent upon editor interest. From what I've seen, most people edit articles; categories generally receive much lesser contributions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment and suggestion

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

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

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

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

Thankyou Whiteghost.ink for clearly explaining the issue to us all. I do think our aims became a bit muddled amidst the long convoluted discussion aiming to get TAFI up and running. But you are entirely correct. We have two different (some would say opposing) goals. It seems the first one is working and the second one isn't. If we refocus to only have Aim A (as you put is), then I guess the notion of this being a failure is false. Indeed, in that respect we have been very successful. Mostly due to you, i might add. But it also inspired the respective editors to get Sea to where it is today.--Coin945 (talk) 10:53, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Coin945, I don't think TAFI is a failure at all. It has inspired me to write on some topics I would not have noticed otherwise. It also offers support and members' contributions improve the work in the usual Wiki way. However, success and failure depends on what you are measuring. Measuring success in article improvement could be seen by the movement from stub class to start class or start class to B class etc. That record could be cumulated in the "Achievements" table. It would be easier if TAFI was connected to the other projects in the way I suggested above because that sort of upwards movement in article quality relies on articles being reassessed in a timely way. Assessment could be done by the relevant Wiki-projects if they had some sort of collaborative relationship with TAFI and had "bought into" the overall effort.

Following what I suggested in the previous post, it might work like this: if the chosen TAFI articles were ones suggested by the Wiki-project and the Wiki-projects were rotated (that is, Wiki-project Biology one period and Wiki-project Geography another period or a pair each period or whatever), we could highlight the Wiki-project on the main page, instead of the specific article. Interested would-be editors who clicked on the link would go to the project page where they would find two options selected by the Wiki-project members: one short set of articles that needed simple edits to improve and another short set that were more difficult and needed either more thinking/research or more technical skill. The Wiki-project people would monitor the changes, support newbies and re-assess the articles at the end of the period. Hopefully everyone wins - TAFI and the Wiki-project, and also the encyclopedia itself as some new editors come on board and some old editors improve difficult articles.

TAFI worked quite well as a motivator for the Australian Aboriginal sacred sites article when I brought it to people's attention. Although the edit-a-thon I was planning to run on it turned out to be more of an "encourage-a-thon", some new editors did work on it and the article is improved. This article should be re-assessed by Wiki-Project Australia. Similarly, the article Writer which was 4,104 bytes when I started on it, is now 66,302 and is still classified as start class. If Wiki-project Literature had "sponsored" it for TAFI, maybe it would have been re-assessed by now and TAFI could chalk up another success.

I understand that these ideas may not be the way people want to go but I throw them in as food for thought. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 08:11, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

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

• The project's main focus should likely be based primarily upon article improvements to improve free educational content, and focus much, much less upon what type of person improves the articles. Who actually wants to go through article revision histories and make lists and tables of the types of editors that contributed to articles (new, unregistered, registered, etc.)? It's important to keep in mind the Wikimedia Foundation's core goals (quoted below). Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

“ The Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. is a nonprofit charitable organization dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free, multilingual, educational content, and to providing the full content of these wiki-based projects to the public free of charge. The Wikimedia Foundation operates some of the largest collaboratively edited reference projects in the world, including Wikipedia, a top-ten internet property. ”

That's all fine and good, but one of the specific goals of this project is to accomplish that by attracting new editors and getting them to get them to do the improving. The improving and attracting editors are two seperate goals, but they should, for the most part, go hand in hand when we make improvements to this process.--NickPenguin_(contribs) 13:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse TAFI banner

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T4170

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T27931

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

 Done. Its because of how primitively this banner is designed. User:Jtmorgan/sandbox/11 is what was to be changed (updated). TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

 Not done Broken again... Technical 13 (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

@Technical 13: Its a tedious and bad way to get that Teahouse Banner up to date. Could you please look into it, and tell if you can find a simpler one? There was a problem with calling the same template twice somewhere, which is why we couldnt use the random subpage method to directly use the articles. Fixed for one more week, anyway. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Where does the "list" come from? Technical 13 (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Currently its manually added by copying from the TAFI main page. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:08, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I think I fully understand what you guys currently have set up, although I'm not "entirely" sure why you are doing it that way. Let me sleep on it and I'll see if I can come up with a better plan tomorrow. :) Technical 13 (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've requested the "tracked" bug to the right re-opened on bugzilla as having this capability would make this process stupid easy being able to simply have the {{TAFI nom|article=|class=}} template currently used to display the articles formated on WP:Today's article for improvement/Schedule into Category:This weeks TAFIs and then just pick a random one with Special:Random/Category:This weeks TAFIs. Technical 13 (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

T13, if you can find, please do generate such a list for all articles in our schedule in a quick way. I'll find it much more easier to create the blurbs on them which we can use. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

At this time, it seems like forward progress in getting the core or an extension is going to be slow. It should probably be added as a task for the bot for now until something has been done at the wikimedia level. (see also link: mw:Extension talk:Random In Category#Requesting_more information on how this extension works. 27934) Technical 13 (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

@Technical 13: AFAI understand, the bot does the updating only for the current list, right? Can there be a way to populate a list for all the lists that are currently in the schedule? Automated or semi-automated, such a list is very helpful in creating the blurbs than the manual copy-paste method I usually use when I previously created the blurbs. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely sure, you would have to ask Theo. What I do know is that if there is some consistency (are there always ten per week?) then we could have the bot just create a raw list of article names on a page and use an existing Lua module in the template to do regex searches and automatically create the displayed lists for you. I'm really busy right now, but will look into it next week (saggy naggy is on my case about editing on the holiday weekend). Poke me if you haven't heard back by Wednesday evening or Thursday morning. Technical 13 (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The bot will create a raw list of article names for the current week at Template:TAFI/Blurb/static. With Lua, use regex to match * ARTICLENAME and store to a list. Math.random() to select a number from 0-9. Use list indexing to get an article name using the random number. Seems simple. Theopolisme (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what Lua is and I'd certainly find it a lot easier (if cumbersome) to simply type the lists for 4-5 full weeks than go through everything you said. Now if there is a way you can have that raw list extended so I have an automatic list of all the articles that have been selected yet, that would be great. It would really simplify atleast a couple stuff. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm not sure why a message was left on my page for this; however, it looks like there is a great plan in place and once the last little hiccup in ReGex of Theo's Little Bot 10 is corrected and the bot is approved. Good luck!

  Support:  Technical 13 (talk) gives his support for this section's subject at 12:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC).

Since you made some contributions to the project a while back, I notified you with a neutrally-worded notice. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I like this idea. Though I think we must be trying to balance the number of articles at backlog. Maybe Theo could add some script to make it more proportionate to the number of articles in HA?

A sample solution is as follows -

1. All sections send the oldest x articles only to the Schedule.
2. Every section with more than 10% articles at HA has 1 fixed slot. Sections with atleast 20% get two slots and so on.
3. The remaining slots are distributed randomly to the sections. Thuese slots can go to any section with less than 2 slots already.

I think that might solve the problem of having to balance the number of sections or the backlog of articles from a single section that we are likely to have. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. After performing updating manually for the next four weeks, it is quite a tedious process that could be much easier and better-accomplished with a bot. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support and support TheOriginalSoni's added rules. seems silly for various people to be managing manually some of the processes, Sadads (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Automation is our friend. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Braden 19:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
• Bot operator comment: I'll be happy to create whatever we decide we need--time is a bit tight, but once exact requirements for what the bot needs to do are drafted, I'll start coding. Theopolisme (talk) 20:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding here User:Theopolisme; I look forward to this prospect, and there is no deadline. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• support Panpog1 (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• SupportHorai 551 10:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support Automatic has to be good right...I am all for it, as long as there aren't any unforeseen circumstances... -- MisterShiney ✉ 21:13, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Bot operator comment: I had some time on my hands, so I coded the bot and filed a request for approval at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Theo's Little Bot 14. I'm using the exact methods as suggested by NA and TOS, and you can see an example of what the bot would do for week 26 here. Cheers, Theopolisme (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for performing this work, and from spot-checking, it appears to be working flawlessly! Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@Theopolisme: Could you please make the bot so it also produces just a simple list of the current articles at TAFI at a designated page? I find the lack of such a list making me go to very long lengths when I'm trying to do certain tasks (such as updating the Teahouse Questions banner or adding a blurb, and I imagine would be helpful in even more tasks) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Template:TAFI/Blurb/static will now be updated with the current week's articles whenever the bot runs in the * ARTICLE format. Is this what you wanted? Theopolisme (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

That would be what I wanted. Makes a few things quite simpler to work with for now. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh... I was just going to ask you to hold off on that a little. Let me look over the whole system tomorrow and see if I can come up with a more efficient method of populating those. :) Technical 13 (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Question: would it make sense for the bot to run and schedule as many weeks as possible (i.e., on the next run, get up to ~ wk 35+ depending on # of noms available), as opposed to just the current week? This would give human editors ample time to fine tune selections as needed. Theopolisme (talk) 00:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Answer to your question in the form of a question. What is the likelihood of nominations for that time frame to change? I'll admit, I've not had much time to familiarize myself with the process here and how things work... Technical 13 (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I find having a short schedule with a fixed length a lot better than a longer one with changing lengths. Also gives us relative flexiblity (as T13 said) with respect to altering the schedule and related things. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid I don't really understand what you're saying, TheOriginalSoni. Changing lengths? I'm simply talking about pre-scheduling many weeks into the future, so we don't run into the redlinks problem. Theopolisme (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I meant to say that by doing several weeks in bulk, we wont be making those schedules weekly, right? Which would mean the length of the schedule page will change every week, and that page will be quite large. (As it is, its already long enough a page already) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 09:51, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Ah, now I see your point. Sounds like a plan. I'll just run the script weekly once the schedule page gets a bit shorter. Theopolisme (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Failure

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

Too many articles. One at a time would've made sense. —Designate (talk) 00:46, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Well I think we'd all agree that's largely due to its current format - basically listing the names of 3 articles in a row. You have to be willing to give TAFI the prominence on the main page it deserves in order to see a difference. Its like in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy when the Vogons (if i remember correctly) put the Earth demolition notice in an underground bus station somewhere, and then getting annoyed when the Earth's population got upset when nobody read it. You can't not advertise something very well and then say it's a faliure. The project can't stand up on its merits alone. It has to be delivered in an engaging way. How is its current format engaging at all? But we put up with it because it was that or nothing, remember? Maybe the solution is to upgrade our little box to something that actually encourages people to get involved, not to bombard them with an acronym and then 3 random articles.--Coin945 (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the implementation is key. That's why I referred to the main page trial (not the entire TAFI project) as a failure and recommended that we go "back to the drawing board". As you might recall, I've suggested that the TAFI section be placed in a full-width box, thereby enabling substantial expansion. —David Levy 04:53, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Colin, you do not remember correctly. Bus stations were not involved in any way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Sir Rcsprinter, Bt (tell me stuff) @ 20:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Wouldn't it be better to try and improve this from where it is rather than starting over again? There was good consensus that it is a good idea. why not try a few different things before giving up? ~KvnG 17:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Editors keeping up with the project's Schedule is key here. As of the time of this post, I've updated this page to week 22, and will likely perform more updating to prevent this problem from occurring again. The schedule can be updated for many weeks at a time due to a backlog of entries at the Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Holding area, which would solve the problem of it not being updated in a timely manner. I disagree with discontinuing TAFI's place on Main page so soon, it's only been around a month. It took much longer than this just to obtain consensus to move forward with TAFI on Main page. Conversely, I fully support using a full-width box that includes topic descriptions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

As discussed before TAFI was placed on the main page, this was a trial (the failure of which would result in TAFI's removal, with a new consensus required to restore it). I'm biased in favor of TAFI's inclusion, but even I must acknowledge that the attempt was unsuccessful.

Users weren't editing the articles to a significant extent. The implementation likely played a major role in this, but a different one would require a new consensus anyway. It simply isn't feasible to fit a more elaborate presentation into the space allotted. I wish that I'd noticed the original discussion before the decision to use the column was made, as this jumped out at me as a big problem.

But the missing week 21 queue was an even bigger problem. As you noted, remaining up to date is key. We knew this from the beginning. (NickPenguin was quite right in stating that "once this goes on the main page, there best be content set up and ready to go.") We can't rely on last-minute scrambling (or, in this case, after-the-fact scrambling that wouldn't even have been possible if the protection were still in effect). We need to ensure that measures are in place to prevent something like this from occurring again before we can even consider another main page trial. —David Levy 04:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

We can't rely on last-minute scrambling

That's an over-statement. It looks bad, yes, but it's not terrible. There are so many times I've been the one to create the POTD Main Page template in the final minutes of the previous day or the first minutes of the current: for example, on May 10, May 11, and May 12, I created them between 00:00 and 00:34 (UTC). The Main Page didn't collapse, and no one seems to point it out. But it does look bad. Forgetting to update TAFI is even more subtle, but for the unsubtle "Check back for today's" message. -- tariqabjotu 06:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

There are so many times I've been the one to create the POTD Main Page template in the final minutes of the previous day or the first minutes of the current

As have I. That isn't good (and I recently discussed a possible modification to the setup), but it isn't comparable to what just occurred here.

This wasn't merely about creating a protected transclusion. No one had scheduled this week's ten articles, which was supposed to have been done weeks ago (leaving plenty of time to resolve potential issues). I noticed this less than a day in advance, so the nonexistent subpages had been automatically cascade-protected (rendering it impossible for a non-administrator to create them in their correct locations). I lacked sufficient familiarity with the process to select articles myself, so I posted a message here. Twenty-six hours elapsed before someone stepped in to perform the scheduling, and I can only assume that the correct steps were followed.

The problem is that TAFI evidently lacks an infrastructure ensuring that someone does (or at least is supposed to do) the necessary work. Users x, y and z weren't late or forgetful. They simply don't exist. It was no one's responsibility to schedule the articles, so no one did it (despite a lead time of several weeks). Surely, this can be corrected. —David Levy 09:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

So that's it then? Sorry David, but I will state that this comes across as slightly WP:SUPERVOTE-ish, just because it does. However, you did the right thing in updating Main page (removing TAFI) when the red links appeared, that's for sure. Maybe my proposal below to utilize a bot to stop these types of errors from occurring can correct this problem. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

To what "supervote" are you referring? Do you think that I wanted to remove TAFI from the main page? Are you suggesting that the trial actually succeeded? —David Levy 07:26, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Just pointing out that months of working to get TAFI on Main page by numerous editors is able to be stopped by one admin and declared as entirely a failure, in part per one problem that occurred which was promptly fixed (by me). No offense intended, and I'm aware that you're supportive of the project. Again, if a bot will be updating everything per the proposal below, the problem that occurred will be permanently solved. I think it's premature to declare the entire run as unsuccessful, but that's just my opinion. Perhaps when matters are smoothed over we will have to start all over again, gain community consensus for what already had consensus, and then take it from there. That, or just forget about the whole thing. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

"Supervote" implies that I substituted my preferred outcome for that which the available evidence supported. On the contrary, my preferred outcome was for TAFI to remain on the main page, but the evidence — including the virtual absence of editing — shows that the trial failed. Do you disagree?

I don't want my efforts or anyone else's to have been in vain, but we need to learn from what's happened and work toward actual success. The consensus for including a TAFI section on the main page still stands (though restoring it in a broken state probably would engender opposition). We need only establish consensus for a new implementation.

This isn't about starting over from scratch; it's about moving forward. —David Levy 02:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

There wasn't a "virtual absence of editing". Please see the summaries I have provided below. The opposite is the case, in which many articles received noticeable increased contributions during the time they were listed on Main page. I agree with the notion of moving forward, and reinstating TAFI on Main page would be a great way of doing so. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

[addressed below] —David Levy 14:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to see TAI return to the main page, but like others I did not find the way it was being presented to be very engaging. One article at a time, with maybe a short blurb detailing what was needed, would be much better than just listing three article names and leaving it at that. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Request to reinstate TAFI on main page denied

• See Talk:Main Page – TAFI's entry. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Articles were being improved!

I disagree with the assessment that people don't improve the articles, because some of them are. Here are some articles from Week 16, from April 15 – 21, 2013. This was TAFI's first week on Main page. Many were improved, and some quite significantly. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Summary from week 16
Week 16, during April 15 – 21, 2013

• Social experiment – Revision history
• Writer – Revision history
• Hammer – Revision history
• Recorded history – Revision history

Summary from Week 17
Here's a summary of contributions during Week 17, April 22 – 28, 2013. It's unlikely all of these contributions would have occurred if TAFI wasn't present on Main page during this time. At the very least, it was encouraging contributions and improvements to Wikipedia articles, the primary focus of the project. Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Geography of Niger – Revision history
• Pepperoni – Revision history
• Home page – Revision history
• Eureka (word) – Revision history

Summary from Week 18
Week 18, during April 29 – May 5, 2013. Notice the spike in contributions to these articles during this time period, and that many were not from members of this project. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Pig latin – Revision history
• Compass (drafting) – Revision history
• Restaurant – Revision history
• Prayer meeting – Revision history
• List of NASA aircraft – Revision history

Summary from Week 19
Week 19, during May 6 – 12, 2013. Again, notice the spike in contributions during the time these articles were listed on Main page. Again, many contributions were from non-members of this project. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Fashion accessory – Revision history
• Classroom – Revision history
• Catchiness – Revision history
• Little John – Revision history

Summary from Week 20
Week 20, during May 13 – 19, 2013. Notice the very high spike in contributions to the Australian Aboriginal sacred sites article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• Australian Aboriginal sacred sites – Revision history
• Construction worker – Revision history
• Atmosphere – Revision history

Discussion

From Week 16

You're pointing to edits by a handful of users (including some from this project). Is that truly your idea of successfully attracting new editors? —David Levy 17:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The primary scope of this project is article improvements. While attracting new editors is a hopeful side effect, it's not this project's primary focus. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

A TAFI section on the main page ≠ the TAFI project as a whole.

We can target established editors via project pages. The justification for advertising TAFI on a prominent reader-facing page was that it would serve to recruit new editors. That's how it overcame the longstanding "Main Page is for readers, not editors" sentiment.

For reference, please see the discussion in which TAFI's addition to the main page was approved (titled "Editor recruitment with TAFI", "Should we use the Main Page for editor recruitment?").

I still believe that the general idea is workable, but not by cramming TAFI into one of the columns. —David Levy 22:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I mostly agree with David Levy here. While I didn't take part that much in the discussion, from what I did read the primary reasoning behind adding TAFI to the main page was the idea it would help attract new editors to wikipedia. This makes sense since we seemed to be going against the long standing consensus the main page is for readers not editors, and more importantly, existing editors should not need the main page to give them hints at places to edit. We can develop a specialised place for that outside the main page which existing editors can check out if they want a hint or push of where to edit if this is deemed a good idea, this can be TAFI itself, but it's distinct from it appearing on the main page.

When analysing edits, we can perhaps including existing editors who don't edit wikipedia much in the list of successes, but definitely not anyone who is actively involved in this project, or for that matter anyone who would fit a reasonable definition of being a regular editor (say over 15 edits a week on average). I would note you include writer in this list. If you look at archive 5, I specifically commented on writer (and most of the others for the week) noting that many of the edits were coming from someone who started working on the article before it appeared on the main page. Of course if they'd waited until after it appeared on the main page to edit, that wouldn't make it any different, it simply helps to illustrate the point, there's no reason to include it as a success since while the edits are quite welcome and the editor should be thanked for them, they shouldn't need the article being shown on the main page to encourage editing.

If you really want to show TAFI is a success, it would be more fruitful to try and show the few edits we did get from people who weren't existing editors seemed to demonstrate success in some way. Is there anyone who became a regular editor who's first main edits seemed to be TAFI who is one now? You'd also likely need a better analysis of the actual edits, including perhaps a few controls and looking at all the articles not just those that were successful.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the project should be changed in scope to focus on editor recruitment, rather than article improvements? What do the actual articles matter if new editors don't edit them? Under this notion, any actual improvements aren't important and have no significance, unless a new editor performed them. Then we can ultimately just list new editors here, and ignore article improvements altogether. It's still "Today's articles for improvement", rather than "Articles for improvement that were contributed to by new editors." The listings were yanked from Main page much too soon, in my opinion. It's an an unfortunate increasing trend on Wikipedia, in which innovation and new ideas that are intended to and do improve the encyclopedia are prematurely dismissed and disallowed before their full potential has a chance to be realized. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

You're missing the point. No one asserts that article improvement is secondary to editor recruitment. We're saying that the latter was the rationale behind the idea to advertise TAFI on the main page. I've pointed you to the proposal/discussion, in which this was stated explicitly.

I don't even know why we're debating this, given the tiny amount of editing that occurred (irrespective of which users performed it).

I also don't know why you assert that the idea has been "dismissed". I've stated, quite unambiguously, that the trial's failure doesn't prevent us from creating a better implementation and trying again. —David Levy 17:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• As a functional comparison, it would be useful to view statistics for how many articles listed on Did you know... at Main page received improvements, to what degree, and then differentiate whether the contributions were from new, unregistered or autoconfirmed editors. It's my guess that TAFI entries received more contributions compared to DYK entries during this time period. The notion that the amount of editing was "tiny" can only be objective when it's compared to contributions that occurred to other entries listed on Main page during this time period. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

  Now you're resorting to comparisons with sections that don't even serve the same purpose?
  There appears to be general agreement that the trial didn't go very well. You seem determined to prove otherwise, to the exclusion of discussing the endeavor's next phase. —David Levy 11:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

From Week 20

You're still pointing to edits by handfuls of users (and these are the examples that you've cherry-picked as the most impressive). An ordinary WikiProject collaboration can result in far larger "spikes".

Those articles were listed on the main page, three at a time, for an entire week. If you honestly believe that this approaches the level of participation intended, we'll have to agree to disagree. —David Levy 22:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I was following the edits to articles fairly regularly, and I did notice a few interesting things:

• most of the editing was done by project members
• the number of edits from non-project members steadily increased each week
• a not insignificant number of editors who either hadn't edited for months/years with their account and restarted, or editors that registered a new account specifically to edit a TAFI article. There were perhaps slightly more than a dozen of these

What I didn't notice was the creation of 50 FA quality articles over the course of five weeks. But really, did everyone actually expect that? If so, I think our expectations might have been a little out of proportion. My take on the whole program was that improvement occurred, mostly from project members but also from some new editors. The function of the trial (and we should accept it as a first draft and move on) was to give it a good go, learn what we can from the experience, and draft a better system and proposal. My thoughts are that experienced editors are going to edit anyways, so what carrot do we need to dangle infront of new potential editors to get them to click? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No one expected "FA-quality articles" to suddenly arise. We did expect a good amount of participation. You noted above that over the course of five weeks, the TAFI articles attracted "perhaps slightly more than a dozen" new editors and editors returning from inactivity.

HostBot compiles a daily list of "highly active new editors" — those who "joined within the last 24 hours, have since made more than 10 edits, and were not blocked at the time the report was generated." During the same five-week period, 1,888 accounts met these criteria (intended to screen out vandals and other non-serious editors). That figure doesn't include editors returning from inactivity. —David Levy 23:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Participation was certainly not extremely high, although I haven't really seen the final numbers. I am open to any theories as to why it was low. I have my own theories why, but I would like to hear others first. In general, was there an increase of account activity when those 1888 accounts started business, compared to the previous 5 weeks? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am open to any theories as to why it was low.

I agree with those who've cited the main page implementation. I believe that we did what we could with the space allotted, but inserting a TAFI section in one of the columns was far from ideal.

In general, was there an increase of account activity when those 1888 accounts started business, compared to the previous 5 weeks?

I calculated that figure by manually copying and pasting the 35 daily reports (minus the headings) into a Word document and searching for "contribs" (which appears once per account) to check the total number of instances. I haven't done that for the previous five weeks, but based on past discussion, I can tell you that ~54 accounts per day falls within the normal range.

Out of curiosity, what's the relevance? —David Levy 01:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I was just wondering if the program actually had any effect on user registration at all. Apparently there was none, really. My theory is that the articles we selected presented too big a challenge. I consider there being two tiers of articles, basic and advanced, and we have really be contributing a lot to the advanced class. Maybe we need to promote more simple, gnomish improvements to entice editors to start with something small. In addition to the advanced articles. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if I am doing this wrong, this is my first attempt to add anything to wikipedia (although for some reason I received a note regarding changes somebody made to "Canadian Boreal Forests," but I have to add, I followed the TAFI front-page implementation for some time before it came out. I am fascinated with the inner workings of Wikipedia but feel very underqualified to edit articles. 5 weeks was hardly enough time for me to even consider making real edits. That said, over the course of the TAFI implementation, I did look at the articles available for edit and found them daunting. It's hard, for example to imagine how a casual new user could improve the "list of cheeses" an article which might never be comprehensive enough, one requiring very specific knowledge. Several other articles were also difficult to imagine improving and even had warning stating that they might never reach certain encyclopedic standards.

I think if you want real participation in article improvement, the front-page selections should be fairly basic-level. Articles where improvements to the writing style or where relatively simple research/sourcing could make a significant difference. Not articles that might not be improved with edits anyway, given their vague parameters. Otherwise you're hoping for someone with extremely erudite knowledge on a particular subject to just stumble onto the one of maybe four or five articles selected on the English front-page and fix it in one go. Just a newbie's observations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.92.220.239 (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your valued input; it is much appreciated. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank's for the comments, that's very valuable. I suspect that this isn't the only new potential editor that felt that way about the articles. What if we called them something like 'improvement challenges', and speak directly to the editor by asking them to accept a task, rather than requesting assistance. In either case, I think we should devise a method to present smaller, simpler challenges for more casual editing. Get them on the hook with something small, I believe my first ip edit as a spelling mistake in a music article of some kind. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 13:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• Just a reminder to whoever is working on getting a proper metric on what the improvement status is on our TAFIs (I would ordinarily use Number of different editors, Number of edits, Number of edits in the previous week, Number of reverts, Number of new/returned editors, Article (text) size before and after, number of references before and after, number of pictures before and after and a final diff between the first and the last version; and tabulate that) and I hope someone is/will be actually working on it (Nick and NA- Are the two of you listening?) - Please make sure we have definite results on the improvements on the articles. While the above results are handy as a reference point, its always better to have definite ones. Also, they need to be compared with the "next" weeks' TAFI for checking how the improvements have been. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)