Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

What are our primary goals?

There appears to be a lot of confusion on what the goals of this WikiProject are, and I think we should clarify it once and for all.

So Are we aimed at converting readers to new editors or are we aimed at improving articles by drawing focus on them (which is possibly achievably with older editors)?

• Option 1 - Our prime priority is newer editors. Any help we get on improving the articles is mainly a bonus.
• Option 2 - Our main focus is improving the vital articles. Anything getting our new editors to focus will be a helpful side effect.
• Option 3 - Our focus is both on new editors and on vital articles, and both our targets are to be taken equally.
• Option 3A - Our focus is on both, but converting new editors is more important.
• Option 3B - Our focus is on both, but improving the articles is more important.

Please indicate your preferred option along with a short reasoning below. Also, if you think we should be sending over invited to participate in this discussion/opening an RfC or something similar, please do the necessary. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• Both goals are important. TAFI was designed for both, ut it's clear that TAFI is better at the second (improving articles). Is there a way to change TAFI to be better at the first goal (attracting editors)? Or does this require a new, completely different project? Or is this just impossible? -- Ypnypn (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  I think it is not an immpossiblity at all. As the project currently stands, there still needs a little work to be done, but we're clearly on the right track to actually make that happen, if we can fix those patches. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the Wikimedia Foundation has been spending a lot of time and energy trying to get new editors and it is a really difficult process. I think any effort to do so is great, but I would just offer friendly caution that the challenge is really big and not to be disheartened if it takes time. This project is really awesome, IMO. Matthew (WMF) 01:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• 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 (as clearly indicated in the proposal/discussion, titled "Editor recruitment with TAFI", "Should we use the Main Page for editor recruitment?"). —David Levy 17:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  But since the above sections were creating so much confusion on this point already, I think its better we formally decide it once and for all. So that there is no confusion on what our goals are, and whether we're meeting it or not. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah, I see no harm in discussing the project's goals. I just don't want there to be any confusion regarding what was stated above. —David Levy 18:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The wikiproject can have more than one goal. The problem I think the trial run encountered was that the kinds of articles that we selected were the kinds of articles that we wanted to work on. And that's all fine and good for us experienced editors, however having been doing this for a while, I think we have all lost touch with what new editors want to do. What I would propose is to have a method to attract both, our selected article for improvement, and a link to a random article for improvement, one from Category:Wikipedia cleanup or something of that nature. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• We can manage the two goals but vital articles are not suitable for newcomers. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. We're selecting vital articles that are in bad shape. There's not so much a newcomer can do to make them significantly worse. And even if they do, there are enough experienced WP:TAFI editors monitoring the articles that we can easily manage this. ~KvnG 14:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• For me it would be option two, minus "the vital". Recruiting newcomers is important, but if that was our primary goal we wouldn't be touching reasonably well-developed articles at all. Core and vital articles are important, but generally speaking those are the ones which thousands of interested people read anyway – those are the articles which have the best chance of being improved organically, and relatively few of them offer the chance for quick wins. For me, articles should be selected based on the potential for random editors to improve them, with all other factors (including the importance of the topic and and attracting newcomers) being bonuses. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 13:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I prefer Option 3, with strong leanings toward Option 3B. While both the goals are important, TAFI must try and fulfill its primary purpose, which is to improve the articles, and get them into better shape. Editor conversion, while being an interesting and useful priority, must not come ahead of our first goal - Article improvement. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I think the goals are adequately stated as "Our focus is both on new editors and on vital articles". Let individual participants decide how the want to weight these goals. Calling one more important than the other or even calling them them "equally" important is just going to create unnecessary conflict among participants. ~KvnG 14:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for implementation

To recap: It is the case that TAFI is not longer featured on the main page. It was the case that there were some technical issues that needed automation to make the project go smoother, those have been ironed out and implemented. It was the case that articles were edited, and they were improved. Now, moving forward, it is time to determine what is the best way to reimagine this project's placement on the Main Page, draw up an implementation, and put out an RFC to get it reinstated.

I propose the following. A full page width box, with something along the lines of "You can improve Wikipedia by editing one of today's articles for improvement!". "For a simple challenge, try $type_of_article_issue" and we load a list of three random articles from one of the subcategories at Category:Wikipedia article cleanup. Ideas include, dead end articles, articles needing rewrites, articles needing wikification, articles with dead citation links, articles needing copyediting, etc. Then there is another paragraph that says something "For an advanced challenge, try $list_of_3_random_articles" Then it lists the three random articles, similar to the previous format. The scaling option also presents the opportunity to have a section for "For a more advanced challenge, try to improve this article to FA quality", but that might be going a bit on the crazy side.

The idea being that we can attract new editors with simple tasks, and they have the option to graduate to more complex tasks. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 23:09, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• I prefer a lot more minimalistic approach on the TAFI section. Maybe the TAFI line (You can improve...), a one line blurb on the listed TAFI, and another two lines - "New to Wikipedia? Consider learning how to edit using the _____" and a "Try improving some other articles from ______". The two proposed links will be either existing or new pages designed to help newcomers learn about Wiki [like a quick and simple Adoption/Tutorial course] (the first link) and to categorically list the simple problematic articles (stubs, CE etc) and focus editors on improving them. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Automate the processes here, and then let them transpire organically; the most popular articles are automatically promoted, scheduled and posted. Then place it back on Main page with a full-width box, a simpler intro, such as: "Articles for improvement", and perhaps add-in short descriptions (pending editor interest in doing so, every week ad infinitum, which is unlikely). It is much easier to omit the latter idea, rather than expect it to occur. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I can do that latter if someone is persisten enough to bother me and remind me to do so :) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:27, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-Protected

Ozone layer and infinity are currently semi-protected, isn't one of the points of TAFI to encourage new editors (which includes anon. IPs)? Perhaps the articles should be unprotected for the duration of the improvement drive, as one would hope that the extra vigilance from TAFI editors would prevent vandals taking over. Otherwise, more care should probably be exercised in nomination, with (semi-)protected articles being ignored. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Tomásdearg92, And its unprotected. We do need to be a lot more careful in the week leading to the nomination. Thanks for pointing it out. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This is one problem with automating so much of the process. This might have been noticed if a person were taking care of things. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ypnypn , I disagree. Unlike the rest of the projects on the main page, we do not have anyone designated (officially or otherwise) to make sure things are in order, which is what causes these problems, I think. We suffered a lag period of about two weeks during nothing except regular work on HA, Nominations page and the articles was done. Also, there is a (kindof hidden?) page at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Next Week as a list of what ought to be done each week. Should we make that page more prominent? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, the project is experiencing increased automation, which makes things easier for everyone. I was somewhat expecting that administrators would have had more interest in the processes here, particularly after TAFI began having a section on Main page. This didn't occur to a very high degree, though, which is a significant factor regarding its section being abruptly discontinued. The bottom line is: only Wikipedia administrators can edit Main page, and very few actually do so (compared to the total admin base). Perhaps adding on another task there was too much of a workload at that time. If Wikipedia administrators aren't interested in maintaining TAFI on Main page, it creates a gigantic barrier, because non-admins cannot edit Main page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh? TAFI's main page section required absolutely no routine maintenance by administrators in particular. Its subpages remained unprotected until 24 hours before their transclusion. —David Levy 11:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I had a faint expectation of minimal admin backup here which could have prevented red links from appearing on Main page; this didn't occur. That's the way it goes. This is a volunteer project, and non-admins ultimately cannot be expected to maintain entries on Main page. The good news is that the proposal above to automate all of the procedures would serve to correct these problems. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the red links wouldn't have reached the main page. As I noted above, a "Please check back later." message would have appeared.

Secondly, the problem in question could have been prevented if anyone had bothered to create the week 21 queue during the 26-day span between the week 20 queue's creation and the subpages' automatic protection.

When I noticed that this didn't occur, I warned the project and took emergency measures (which included edits to two other main page sections) when the problem hadn't been addressed (e.g. by compiling the list and asking me to move it to the correct location) more than 13 hours later.

Your assertions that the endeavor lacked "minimal admin backup" and that the section's maintenance required it are utterly baseless. —David Levy 13:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

We all know that Wikipedia is a volunteer project. That said, since you're a member of this project, why didn't you take initiative to create the queue page, rather than requesting that someone else do so? I know you weren't obligated, and this is not intended to be a negative comment whatsoever, but I'm just curious. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've explained that "I lacked sufficient familiarity with the process to select articles myself, so I posted a message here." —David Levy 22:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's not play the blame game. Shit happens, no one made the queue, now we should just deal with the consequences of that. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Until when? The automation process is complete (if I am not wrong) or will be within a few days (if I am), and we're ready with articles for a month now. Should we be not looking towards reinstating TAFI back on the main page? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we should be pursuing TAFI's return to the main page in a format that might actually work. —David Levy 15:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Like Go with a full-width box. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

how do I nominate something for TAFI?

The article I have in mind at the moment is New Westminster, which is the old colonial capital of British Columbia 1858-66 and was the province's mainland's biggest city until passed in population by Vaancouver in the zero-decade c.1905. Within BC it should be a top priority article; it has a mid rating in WP:CANADA. Some other less-significant cities and municipalities have larger writeups. It's kind of the poor sister to Vancouver but chock-full of heritage buildings. See its talkpage, if anyone's interested. But in general, in looking at this project, I saw nothing about how to nominate/add something; I post regularly at WP:CANTALK and any related WPs for expansion, but we're all deluged....'nuff said.Skookum1 (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Skookum! Follow the instructions in the "How to nominate an article" collapsed box at Wikipedia:Today's_articles_for_improvement/Nominated_articles#Instructions. Theopolisme (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Semi-Protected

Ozone layer and infinity are currently semi-protected, isn't one of the points of TAFI to encourage new editors (which includes anon. IPs)? Perhaps the articles should be unprotected for the duration of the improvement drive, as one would hope that the extra vigilance from TAFI editors would prevent vandals taking over. Otherwise, more care should probably be exercised in nomination, with (semi-)protected articles being ignored. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 21:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Tomásdearg92, And its unprotected. We do need to be a lot more careful in the week leading to the nomination. Thanks for pointing it out. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This is one problem with automating so much of the process. This might have been noticed if a person were taking care of things. -- Ypnypn (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Ypnypn , I disagree. Unlike the rest of the projects on the main page, we do not have anyone designated (officially or otherwise) to make sure things are in order, which is what causes these problems, I think. We suffered a lag period of about two weeks during nothing except regular work on HA, Nominations page and the articles was done. Also, there is a (kindof hidden?) page at Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Next Week as a list of what ought to be done each week. Should we make that page more prominent? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, the project is experiencing increased automation, which makes things easier for everyone. I was somewhat expecting that administrators would have had more interest in the processes here, particularly after TAFI began having a section on Main page. This didn't occur to a very high degree, though, which is a significant factor regarding its section being abruptly discontinued. The bottom line is: only Wikipedia administrators can edit Main page, and very few actually do so (compared to the total admin base). Perhaps adding on another task there was too much of a workload at that time. If Wikipedia administrators aren't interested in maintaining TAFI on Main page, it creates a gigantic barrier, because non-admins cannot edit Main page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh? TAFI's main page section required absolutely no routine maintenance by administrators in particular. Its subpages remained unprotected until 24 hours before their transclusion. —David Levy 11:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I had a faint expectation of minimal admin backup here which could have prevented red links from appearing on Main page; this didn't occur. That's the way it goes. This is a volunteer project, and non-admins ultimately cannot be expected to maintain entries on Main page. The good news is that the proposal above to automate all of the procedures would serve to correct these problems. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, the red links wouldn't have reached the main page. As I noted above, a "Please check back later." message would have appeared.

Secondly, the problem in question could have been prevented if anyone had bothered to create the week 21 queue during the 26-day span between the week 20 queue's creation and the subpages' automatic protection.

When I noticed that this didn't occur, I warned the project and took emergency measures (which included edits to two other main page sections) when the problem hadn't been addressed (e.g. by compiling the list and asking me to move it to the correct location) more than 13 hours later.

Your assertions that the endeavor lacked "minimal admin backup" and that the section's maintenance required it are utterly baseless. —David Levy 13:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

We all know that Wikipedia is a volunteer project. That said, since you're a member of this project, why didn't you take initiative to create the queue page, rather than requesting that someone else do so? I know you weren't obligated, and this is not intended to be a negative comment whatsoever, but I'm just curious. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:26, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I've explained that "I lacked sufficient familiarity with the process to select articles myself, so I posted a message here." —David Levy 22:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Let's not play the blame game. Shit happens, no one made the queue, now we should just deal with the consequences of that. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Until when? The automation process is complete (if I am not wrong) or will be within a few days (if I am), and we're ready with articles for a month now. Should we be not looking towards reinstating TAFI back on the main page? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we should be pursuing TAFI's return to the main page in a format that might actually work. —David Levy 15:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Like Go with a full-width box. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

how do I nominate something for TAFI?

The article I have in mind at the moment is New Westminster, which is the old colonial capital of British Columbia 1858-66 and was the province's mainland's biggest city until passed in population by Vaancouver in the zero-decade c.1905. Within BC it should be a top priority article; it has a mid rating in WP:CANADA. Some other less-significant cities and municipalities have larger writeups. It's kind of the poor sister to Vancouver but chock-full of heritage buildings. See its talkpage, if anyone's interested. But in general, in looking at this project, I saw nothing about how to nominate/add something; I post regularly at WP:CANTALK and any related WPs for expansion, but we're all deluged....'nuff said.Skookum1 (talk) 09:44, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Skookum! Follow the instructions in the "How to nominate an article" collapsed box at Wikipedia:Today's_articles_for_improvement/Nominated_articles#Instructions. Theopolisme (talk) 15:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Various miscellaneous TAFI pages used for Main page project

Placing here to preserve for historical purposes. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/main page placement - layout test page
• Wikipedia:TAFI random generation
• Template:Random component main namespace
• Portal:Today's article for improvement - created as an example for random entry generation

• Portal:Today's article for improvement/Main page queue
• Portal:Today's article for improvement/box-header

• Template:TAFI Main page

• Template:TAFI Main page/Main page queue/1 through Template:TAFI Main page/Main page queue/10
• Template:TAFI Main page/box-header

Transfer of effort?

There seems to be no shortage of enthusiasm amongst editors for rapidly creating articles about breaking news stories, which I would see as a relatively low priority for Wikipedia. I realise that this activity is much more exciting than improving substandard years-old articles about possibly unglamorous topics, but I do wonder whether some of the man-hours could be chanelled from the one into the other... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.171.43.236 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Incorporating social media?

Ironically, I was just talking yesterday with some colleagues at the Wikimedia Foundation's team that works on engaging new editors about an idea I had to use the @wikipedia Twitter handle to encourage new editors to the project. We occasionally feature OTD and DYKs from the en.wp home page, which adds interesting content to the Twitter feed, but doesn't exactly serve a strategic purpose. In discussing the matter, Steven Walling suggested that I could point people to TAFI, which he remembered being on the main page. That led me to this discussion. I wonder if we couldn't try to complement the TAFI work you're doing with targeted messages on the @wikipedia feed that encourage people to edit these articles? My plan would be to include a short blurb in each tweet about the article, much like you are discussing here, then a link to the article. There's no guarantee that the relatively small following on Twitter (compared the the amount of people who see the en.wp home page) would drive many new editors to the effort, but I thought I'd bring up the idea for discussion with you. Given that we're regularly producing content for the social media feeds at the WMF, it makes sense to me to try to align that with efforts already underway to improve content and attract new editors. Regardless of whether TAFI goes back on the home page, I would still be very interested in promoting it, if that's welcome. Matthew (WMF) 18:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

@Matthew (wmf): I already like that idea. It doesnt make sense for us not to tap into other social media while trying to get other editors to edit, and twitter sounds like an ideal base for something like that. Twitter might even have a higher tendency to promote Editor conversion than the Main Page becaus of the number of people who would actually notice it. A blurb (One-line preferably) for all the articles can easily be prepared and given where we are headed currently wrt getting back to the Main Page, it sound prudent to get them prepared for our current Schedule. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

#awesomeidea--Coin945 (talk) 14:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

As a start, I introduced the concept in one tweet/message on Twitter, Facebook, and Google Plus, then I tweeted/shared a post linking to the Infinity article on each of those as well [1] [2] [3] . We'll see what, if anything, happens. Also, I just picked that article from the list, so let me know if there should be more method in my madness :) Matthew (WMF) 22:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Like A great idea from the start. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Like AutomaticStrikeout  ?  12:56, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

I think the articles chosen should be very minimalistic. Try to find the stubs amongst those chosen articles, like Pinocchio, Lupus erythematosus, Meal, or Animatronics - hardly any text/images.references/etc at all. I'm not saying this hasnt been done so far, but I think it should continue into the future. :)--Coin945 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

We've started drafting social media messages on the Social Media portal on Meta, so if you're inclined, please feel free to draft the posts with links to the articles right there in the Calendar. As you probably know, Twitter's limit is 140 characters (consider that links are usually 20 characters) and Facebook allows more, though we try to keep it relatively short. We review the proposed messages each morning (Pacific Time) and then start posting. If you're inclined to set up the TAFI social media posts on Meta, as far out as you like, please feel free. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 03:05, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

user:Matthew (wmf) I've been chekcing out all the posts today, and I have to say, I'm in total awe of all your hard work in getting this to the people. It's been going marvelously well. I especially like the discussion the Islamic Golden Age sparked. If there's anything more important than creating a source of all knowledge, it's curing ignorance. A couple of things. Firstly, I think we should create a TAFI Twitter hastag. And ensure each update includes it. Secondly,. how are the articles being chosen because I can see some discrepancies between the Twitter and Facebook/Google+ Tafi choices. Thirdly, I love the little jokes included in the Facebook and Google+ statuses. Exactly the vision I had in mind when working on the original proposal. Though the Twitter statuses look a tad cluttered. Will def check out that link when I get the chance. :)--Coin945 (talk) 16:53, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

TAFI on other Wikipedias

Google+ user François Frémeau commented on one of the TAFI statuses: "You should do the same for french Wikipedia !" Considering the project's success and enthusiasm surrounding it (check out any of the conversations taking place on the twitter/facebook/google+ statuses, or the article revision histories), perhaps it's time for us to start this discussion.--Coin945 (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

April Fool's Day

I see that this article is one of this week's articles for improvement. What exactly does this article need to improve it further? It looks pretty good to me -- what more can be said on the subject? I wonder if maybe this project has an unrealistic idea of the level of depth that is possible for every topic on Wikipedia. Marla the Mop (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Today's articles for improvement are: The Lohner-Porsche Mixte Hybrid was the first gasoline-electric hybrid automobile. Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/1 Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/2 Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/3 Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/4 Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/5 Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/6 Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/7 Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/8 Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/9 Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/10 Please help to improve these articles!

People nominate articles; when they receive 3 supports with no opposes they are queued. Those that are opposed may not be queued. Perhaps consider working on a different article if you are interested in any of the other topics! Also, feel free to participate at the TAFI Nominations page! Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You completely missed the point of the editor's question: The original TAFI nominator presumably provided a reason for nomination somewhere in WP:TAFINOM. This nomination entry should be a parameter to {{TAFI}} and used to display a link to the article-specific nomination prominently at the top of the target article. Furthermore someone should investigate why "April Fool's Day" doesn't show up when using the Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Archives search feature. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Mafh01. Firstly, the article has been listed in the TAFI nominations page & queue for ages, and a simple history revision check will show you that in that time the article has been heavily worked on, so thankfully it is much improved from the state it was originally nominated in. Additionally, there is still much information that can be added. The article needs some more images. More info could be given to cultural significance of the holiday, the types of pranks traditionally done, controversy surrounding it etc. Thirdly, if you personally do not think you can add value to the article, as Northamerica1000 said simply work on an article you feel more comfortable with. But the TFAI crew (including me) have deemed this a TAFI-worthy article and await its increased improvement over the coming week. :)--Coin945 (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Your comment	My response
Firstly, the article has been listed in the TAFI nominations page & queue for ages	I don't see how this addresses the original poster's question. You may feel embattled and that the original poster is somehow your adversary, but the original poster is not trying to undermine you or persecute you. The original poster had (and still has) a legitimate question--I think you'll find that if you answer it directly and honestly, you'll gain an ally in your effort.
a simple history revision check will show you that in that time the article has been heavily worked on	I call your bluff: Here's the edit history between the time the TAFI tag was added yesterday and the time of this post. Looks like there was exactly one editor: Northamerica1000. Northamerica1000 added a whole bunch of templates, one image, and a "further reading" which I think is constructive and improves the article as per the project goal. What I think is unconstructive is the omission of exactly how many editors (one) have actually worked on the article in the day or so since it's been tagged and the mischaracterization of positive, but effectively minor edits as "the article has been heavily worked on". I acknowledge Northamerica1000's work on April Fools' Day and your joint work on TAFI as worthwhile, but really, is the intellectual dishonesty necessary?
The article needs some more images. More info could be given to cultural significance of the holiday, the types of pranks traditionally done, controversy surrounding it etc.	This sounds like the type of information the original poster requested. Why the stonewalling? Why the attitude of "well if you don't already know, then go find something else to do!"? Why not answer the original poster's question in an honest and forthright manner instead of dismissing it out of hand?
Thirdly, if you personally do not think you can add value to the article, as Northamerica1000 said simply work on an article you feel more comfortable with.	So the original poster had a polite inquiry about April Fools' Day, you dismissed him or her as uninformed when you could have just stated "The article needs some more images. More info could be given to cultural significance of the holiday, the types of pranks traditionally done, controversy surrounding it etc". Why the siege mentality?
But the TFAI crew (including me) have deemed this a TAFI-worthy article and await its increased improvement over the coming week.	Yes, I understand you and your small cadre of insiders own TAFI and everything marked with the TAFI template and that outsiders must prove their worthiness to edit in your presence.
(Question was dodged.)	Where is the original nomination for April Fools' Day in Wikipedia:TAFINOM?
(Question was dodged.)	Why can't a link to the original nomination be included as a matter of procedure in {{TAFI}} as a guide to editors who don't possess your insider's knowledge?

-- DanielPenfield (talk) 12:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

DanielPenfield, you'll find the points match up to each of the points you made. There are a few side points tagged onto the end.

1. I only mentioned the article being chosen yonks ago because it led me to my point about substantial work being done over that period of time. One could argue that that article has been a TAFI ever since it first appeared on the nominations page. That is usually the case, especially due to a project like TAFI where there is a substantial amount of time between original nomination and appearance in the official TAFI listings. For one reason or another, work on the article will occur prematurely. In my experience, it's a "why wait for 3 users to accept this then wait months for it to be chosen only for it to then be edited, when I can help right now".--Coin945 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
2. So if you do a history revision from when the article was first nominated, you'll see a respectable amount of improvement. No intellectual dishonesty at all. :)--Coin945 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
3. I'm not quite sure what you're talking about here. The original poster has asked about "What exactly does this article need to improve it further?", and I have provided a direct answer with some earnest suggestions. I fail to see your point..--Coin945 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
4. I think you're reading a bit too much into this. If Marla the Mop things I have constructed my response in a deliberately antagonistic way to break her down and make her run away in fear, or whatever it is you're suggesting, that is completely false. I gave a reasoned response saying if you do not think this article can reasonably be improved, then a more effectively way to spend both your and our time (considering we still see merit in improving the article), is simply to edit something you feel more comfortable with. That is a very logical response.--Coin945 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
5. The original poster questions whether there is enough information to warrant an improvement of this article. TAFI does have standards. Many, in fact, And one of the main ones that I helped ensure relatively early on to encourage newbie participation was that articles should ideally be stub or start, with a few Cs sneaking through i we feel they are incorrectly marked. In fact, the very first TAFI article, culture if i remember correctly, I was heavily opposed to because most of its work lay in copyediting not in the addition of information (" If we're trying to pull in newbies to the project, I think we really shouldn't start off with an article with loads of text. It's scary to people and they won't know what to get rid of and what to keep. I really think we should use (or at least start of with) articles that only have to really be added to, rather than changed entirely. That's much easier prospect, and one that can allow us to ease new editors in gently. Pick stubs. Pick starts. Articles with entirely missing sections. There are many out there. But I don't think type of article is a good way to go."[1]. While both valuable tasks to improve an article, the latter is a heck of lot easier than the former. Given our expertise in choosing and nominating articles over this period of time, the TAFI voters believed this was an article warranting sufficient improvement. Let me also point out that anyone can nominate or vote. Neither you or Marla have done this. If you feel left out of the process, please, don't hesistate to head on over to the TAFI nominations page and oppose articles that you don't think should be a part of TAFI. But since April Fools has already been nominated, leave it be.--Coin945 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
6. The original nomination can easily be located. Noone was hiding it from you. Noone thought to retrieve it. I don't see the merit of getting so caught up on one measley article anyways. Considering the amount of article with unsuccessful nominations for every couple of article with successful nominations, I think we've ended up with a pretty darn good selection of articles.--Coin945 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
7. Well, that is a fantastic suggestion!! We'll get straight on it. :)
8. Side note Remember, the most effective thing one can do is to actually improving articles, not to endless argue over the merits of improving them. The best argument I can think of for why this article was chosen is if we actually grab together some sources and get cracking. There is so much stuff left to be done in April Fools Day.--Coin945 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
9. Side note On 30 May 2013, Marla the Mop said on her talk page: "Hello, I'm new. Please be nice to me". I think it is fair to assume (as I have experienced countless times - for example on the previously woeful article Horrible Histories (2009 TV series) ([2]) which was consistently described as "perfect" via the feedback tool), that she doesn't understand all the possible things that can be added to this article to make it better. Rather than saying that 'yes, in fact, April Fools Day is an FA and we just didn't realise it yet', I decided it was better to explain our reasoning behind why this article that she deems unimprovable actually warrants improvement. And your backlash just seems random and uncalled for.--Coin945 (talk) 13:39, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I didn't mean to start an argument. It's just that I did a literature review on April Fool's Day and didn't come up with anything beyond what was already there, so I didn't think that there was anything more to say. I think the biggest impact can be made on editing articles that are currently stubs, since it's relatively easy to figure out what it might need to make it better. If it's not a stub, it would be really really helpful if there could be a list of suggestions for what the article needs to make it better. Thanks! Marla the Mop (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

This week's articles for improvement - 22 July 2013 to 28 July 2013

posted by Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ick. I'm not too crazy about the formatting of this mass-message (seems like it wastes a lot of space), and I'm also not too crazy about receiving it on my talk page...I didn't know joining the project would result in weekly notifications—and personally, I'd rather not receive them. Perhaps an opt-out list? :/ Theopolisme (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thought I am not as bothered by Theopolisme, I might also recommend a more banner-like notification box, rather than a box that floats on just one side of the screen. Just my two cents! I am fine receiving the notifications, but an opt-out list should definitely be created for those who do not wish to receive announcements on their talk page. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I am also fine receiving them (I can always roll back like I do with RfC) as I always forget to visit here, but can we change the format of the message please? Maybe a drop down banner? I don't like it on the side and how my messages all work around it.-- MisterShiney ✉ 17:50, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

While I can appreciate what is trying to be done here, this actually crosses the line into spam – sending unsolicited talk page messages advertising TAFI to users both on and off the members list. Like the others say, an opt-out is required, as well as a better format - maybe something similar to the full-width main page section proposals. - Evad37 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I had an idea to notify project members about the weekly selections, and figured I'd give it a go. I also sent a few to non-members that are likely to be interested in the project and/or articles. I have noticed that many of the articles often don't receive any improvements at all. Yes, an opt-in is in order, so only those that wish to receive notifications receive them, and I apologize for anyone that was bothered by the message being sent in this manner. My intentions were pure, though, in attempts to remind people about the project itself and its weekly selections. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Below is a design per suggestions above to use a full-width box, located at Template:TAFI weekly selections notice. A header2, the recipient's user name and the sender's signature is automatically added when posting the message. I've changed the formatting on this page to a header3, so it stays within this thread. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This week's articles for improvement

Hello, Today's articles for improvement: The following are WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selections. Architect Posted by: Northamerica1000(talk) 03:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• • I think this looks much better! --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
• I've added an opt-in section for those interested in receiving notifications on the project's main page, located here. Again, apologies to those who didn't wish to receive the notification. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

  Perhaps make it opt-out? [3] Theopolisme (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

At this time, there's no list to opt out of (the notices were manually sent). It seems easier for people to opt-in if they're interested. Also, those that don't opt-in won't receive the message again. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Coordinating social media messages

Hi all, we've been trying to coordinate our social media messages with the weekly TAFI updates and really enjoying having the good content to point to. Thanks to TheOriginalSoni and Coin945 for the work they've done to help us with the coordination. There are two issues I'd like to raise that may or may not be addressed, but I wanted to point them out.

1. With 10 posts per week and really only 5 publishing days (7 if we schedule ahead of time), we have been picking articles fairly arbitrarily from the list. Is there a way you would prefer we select the articles to coincide with your work or are you ok with us just going with what we fancy?
2. I feel bad with all the work Coin did to create that huge list of potential tweets and Facebook posts to not use them, but it seems pretty important to have the TAFI template on the articles when we point people to them to help direct their interest and answer any questions that may arise. I don't know if Coin wants to go back and add more of the creative posts (in addition to what we might do), but hewing closer to the schedule? Another option is for one of us to add the TAFI template to an article, but I don't want that to run afoul of the process here. In general should we not mess with the template?

Happy to hear any thoughts on these two points. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 21:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

In regard to the second point, we can always scrap the posts relating to articles in TAFI-weeks that have already come and gone (perhaps salvaging a few if we really like the hooks), and then sorting the remaining posts into sections in accordance to what week they refer to, in the latest few batches, I specifically chose articles from upcoming weeks to make it easier for you guys to synch up the process. P.S. I have read that negative comment on the Facebook page regarding the Q.E.D. update. TBH I understand where they were coming from, but I do think it is also important to keep TAFI lighthearted and friendly - if Horrible Histories has taught me anything, the way to get someone engaged in a boring topic is through humour and insight. But yes. I must concede that many of my proposals in retrospect are quite juvenile, and will need copyedits.--Coin945 (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)--Coin945

As an example, this week's TAFI articles are:

List of magic tricks

Monty Python's Flying Circus

Bird of prey

Lego Cuusoo

Poaching

Coffee production in Cuba

Common sense

Antônio Carlos Jobim

Home appliance

Amazon Basin.

AFAIK, I've written hooks for Lego Cuusoo, Coffee production in Cuba, Common sense, and Home appliance. Easy. Once the current hooks run their course, we'll make sure they synch up with the week's TAFIs. Although with the nominations happening at a much slower pace than weeks going by, a 5-per-week TAFI system would be much better.--Coin945 (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)--Coin945 (talk) 01:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• We should dump all those TAFIs which have passed, and continue with blurbs for the next few weeks. Having a social media blurb while the article's at TAFI sounds best. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• So far we've been manually giving articles the TAFI template again. As we've discussed, due to there being 10 articles per week, and due to there only being 5 publish days per week, many great articles never get their day in the sun. Due to the rapid pace that articles come and go, and due to the massive shrinkage of the nominations process in recent weeks, we're going to dry up pretty quickly. I attempted to salvage some of the older articles (which were for some reason still in the "schedule" page, so I assumed they were still relevant) by giving them hooks as well. But I see we have to move on. What do you suggest?--Coin945 (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• • Coin945, as far as I see, the TAFI template is given by the bot. Also, I support a reduction (hopefully temporary?) from 10 hooks a week to five. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• • • Java Man, QED, and Hors d'oeuvre were done manually. Btw do we really have to wait for a full-blown vote? It seems straightforward enough. Why do you only it to be temporary?--Coin945 (talk) 06:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• • • • Currently, the template is placed by the bot. I confirmed with Theo about it.

I want to wait for atleast one or two more editors to give their opinion before we reduce the length to 5 or 7 articles a week. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• • • • I'll try that again. Java Man, QED, and Hors d'oeuvre were done manually...by me. To match up with the Wikipedia social media statuses. Yes, they are done automatically but I manually added a few. We decided since the statuses were going ahead, it was a good idea to have a call to action on those pages.--Coin945 (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Disabling bot

Hi everyone. It's Theo, the operator of Theo's Little Bot, which runs a variety of custom tasks for the TAFI project. At the moment, articles are not being featured on the mainpage--hence, I've disabled the automated TAFI-article tagger/detagger and WikiProject notifier. I've left the auto-scheduling and archiving scripts running for now, but I'd like to make it clear that something needs to happen as far as determining next steps for the project, otherwise it can and will die. That'd be a huge waste of my programming time and the time of everyone else who has worked so hard to make TAFI a success. Please let me know what I can do to help. Theopolisme (talk) 23:50, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions. Something needs to be designed if we want to relaunch on the main page, it cannot be restored in the current format. I would also hate for this project to die, I think it worthwhile, but we need to take a serious look at the implementation; there are improvements to be made. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

How about we restart the original conversation on designs and see which is most acceptable to everyone? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If we do that, we need to proceed with the understanding that we need to compromise. If we have ten different visions for what to do, no progress can be made if no one is willing to adjust their own vision. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:05, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

NickPenguin requested that I comment on the reasons behind the TAFI section's removal from the main page and what steps are necessary to enable its reinstatement.
As discussed previously, the removal's timing was based upon the absence of a queue for the week that was about to begin. To my understanding, the underlying process flaw had been addressed, so that isn't an ongoing issue.
Had that problem not arisen, the section (in that form) wouldn't have lasted much longer anyway, as the trial simply wasn't successful (and it was determined beforehand that this would result in its termination, sending us back to the drawing board). As noted above, the section mustn't be restored in its original format; we need to design a better one and present it to the community at large for approval. (That discussion can focus on the specific content and layout, as consensus for the general concept of including TAFI on the main page has been established). —David Levy 01:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

It is the case that we are back at the drawing board. As an aside to that, in order to become successful, we need to determine our measurement for success. What is the threshold that this project needs to overcome? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

If you want a numerical formula, we can say 25 new users per week whose first edits are to a TAFI, of whom 15 are still active a month later. Or more or less. But I'm not sure there's any way to accurately quantify our goals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ypnypn (talk • contribs) 02:11, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary numbers are arbitrary, but we can't just have one group asserting that the results are a success, and the others asserting they are not. That sort of thing will get us nowhere. Success should be measure based on how well we achieve our goals. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:20, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we can simply rely upon the normal consensus process. —David Levy 02:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, I'm not sure that it would be feasible to establish specific numerical criteria (which can be unreliable and encourage gaming).

This might be an "I know it when I see it"-type of situation. Realistically, a level of participation that we might set as a goal would have to be much higher than that which we achieved in the first attempt. —David Levy 02:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with that sentiment. So what made participation so low? I saw some comments that thought the articles were too difficult for brand new users to improve. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

We can only speculate, of course. The selection of articles is a possible factor. The bare-bones layout (necessitated by the decision to place the section in one of the columns) is another, and there may be more. —David Levy 02:37, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The goal is for readers to go through the following stages:

1. Go to the main page
2. See the links to the TAFIs
3. Click on the links
4. Decide to try to edit
5. Click the [edit] link
6. Make a change
7. Save the change
8. Become long-term contributers

The questions is, at which point(s) are readers getting stuck? Ypnypn (talk) 02:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Other than article selection and barebones layout, what other possible factors could (in theory) affect participation? What if we automatically invited newly registered accounts to participate in the project? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I think we're probably getting stuck at step 2. The tradition is that "the main page is for readers." Unless that sentiment changes, we're not going to get much, if any, main page space and won't be able to attract new editors through this channel. ~KvnG 14:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• One of the key differences between TAFI and the other main page sections is that either those sections have someone (formally or otherwise) invested to carry out the tasks [OTD, TFA] or there are a number of dedicated contributers handling them [ITN, DYK, TFL]. TAFI currently has neither. The latter cannot be enforced by anyone, but we could "vest" the various manual tasks to some of our members to make sure the project as a whole does not run out of steam, as it has been on more than two occasions. I personally would be ready to carry out some of the tasks, and think someone else should also take the responiblity of the other tasks, so that they can ensure that the job is done should nobody else do it at the time. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Survival of desirable newcomers. The proportion of desirable newcomers continuing to edit for at least two months is plotted over time. (From "Rise and decline" of Wikipedia participation).

• It's very important to keep in mind that Wikipedia's overall participation rates have been noticeably declining, which has been documented, and that it is quite overreaching to expect miraculous results in recruiting new editors with this one project. It is very unlikely that this one project will be able to significantly counter this trend in decreased participation, and it is very unrealistic to place extra emphasis and weight upon this project to buck this ongoing trend. Perhaps the project should focus more upon article improvements, and much less upon the recruitment of new editors, because the latter is not very likely to be realized from the efforts of any one WikiProject alone. Placing unrealistic goals in place from which later project "success" is then based upon from is also counterproductive, in many ways.

• What is Causing the Decline in Wikipedia Participation?. New Media & Digital Culture M.A., University of Amsterdam. 2009.
• Is Wikipedia a Victim of Its Own Success?. Time Magazine. September 2009.
• Volunteers Log Off as Wikipedia Ages. The Wall Street Journal. November 2009.
• "Rise and decline" of Wikipedia participation. Wikipedia Signpost. September 2012.
• Editor Trends Study/Results. Wikimedia Strategic Planning. March 2011.
• Is Wikipedia “Slowly Dying”?. The Wikipedian. August 2011.
• Wikimedia Foundation 2011-12 Annual Plan (Pdf). Wikimedia Foundation. "Quote: Editor decline is an intractable problem. Declining participation is by far the most serious problem facing the Wikimedia projects: the success of the projects is entirely dependent upon a thriving, healthy editing community."
• Wikipedia Is Running Out of Editors and Admins. Gizmodo. July 2012.

 – Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, you're conflating the TAFI project's main page section with the TAFI project as a whole. The justification for the former is — and always has been — the goal of recruiting new editors. If this is infeasible, the consensus to advertise TAFI on the main page is negated. —David Levy 16:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a new proposal someday for a Main page entry would be in order, sans unrealistic recruitment expectations that are very unlikely to occur relative to current participation trends. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Current editors are targeted via project pages. The main page serves readers. A TAFI section that fails to encourage them to become editors serves no valid purpose. —David Levy 17:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Clearly the main page showing didn't result in massive number of edits by newly registered editors. However, that's not to say there wasn't an increase in new editors on these artilcles versus other Main Page articles during the same period. What if there was some way to compare those number? At the very least we should get the number of registered accounts for the whole period. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

An attempt to get this information by hand is extremely tedious and time consuming. My initial impression is that, while some people did register accounts specifically to edit TAFI (first edit or first few), none of the examples I found showed them editing much more than a few weeks before falling off. Also, although the rate of edits to articles increased dramatically while on the Main Page, when you remove the increased rate of vandalism, there is roughly the same increase in the number of edits now, when it is not on the main page. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You can't draw any conclusions from data collected relating to TAFI's appearance on the main page, because as I said before, it all comes down to how it is presented. A brilliant idea with shoddy execution fails miserably... which is what i fear may have happened here. Alternatively, a shoddy thing shoved down our throats continually (like a shit pop song) becomes popular due to sheer familiarity and earworminess. So I say we try it again. Properly this time. With a gripping advertising campaign and everything. And then we shall see if it succeeds or fails.--Coin945 (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I would want the proposed Twitter, Facebook and Google Plus updates to be in effect at the same time, so the impact can be maximised. Matthew (WMF), if we provide the description lines for each article in that period, could the updates be arranged? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

So what would be the new proposed presentation? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've been experimenting with a few social media messages over the past couple weeks. I've basically just taken the ones that seemed interesting to me, or where I could think of an interesting hook in the message. Some examples: Industry [t][fb], Gulf of Alaska [t][fb], Approximation [t][fb], Pinocchio [t][fb], Hyperbole [t][fb] (Facebook and G+ messages are identical, so I didn't include here). Hey TheOriginalSoni, we've started drafting social media messages on the Social Media portal on Meta, so please feel free to draft the posts with links to the articles right there in the Calendar. As you probably know, Twitter's limit is 140 characters (consider that links are usually 20 characters) and Facebook allows more, though we usually just do two or three sentences, keeping it punchy. We review the proposed messages each morning and then get to posting. I'd love it if you felt inclined to set up the TAFI posts as you like on Meta, as far out as you like. Thanks! Matthew (WMF) 03:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that it would be great if the automatic insertion of the {{TAFI}} template could be reactivated at least for those scheduled articles that are going to be featured on the social media channels. Most of the articles that Matthew posted earlier either had an existing maintenance template with a clear call to action, or had obvious faults (like the length of Nigerian literature), but for example the article "Ignorance" has neither, so people who click on the link may need to be reassured that yes, this article is considered to be in need of improvement. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Pinging User:Theopolisme TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Reenabled. Sorry for my belated reply, I was on vacation. Theopolisme (talk) 20:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! This week's articles don't seem to have been tagged yet though? Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Theopolisme (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• user:Matthew (wmf) and Tbayer (WMF), here is a one-line description of all the TAFI articles for this and the next 3 weeks. We could use them along with "Help wikipedia improve this article." in the social reachouts.

Sorry for the formatting, but I based it on a subpage I mantained
	26-1 = Tickle Me Elmo is a children's toy based on Elmo from Sesame Street.	26-2 = A Puppet is a toy controlled by an entertainer called a puppeteer.	26-3 = Legal disputes are settled by the Court based on the law.	26-4 = Money paid for work done by an employee is called Wage.	26-5 = African nationalism is a political movement to promote African unity.	26-6 = A sweet dish at the end of a meal is called the Dessert.	26-7 = People born between 21 March and 20 April have the sun-sign Aries.	26-8 = Many media in popular culture feature Albert Einstein.	26-9 = A competition where participants spell difficult words is called a Spelling bee.	26-10 = Early European theories suggested that California was an island.	27-1 = Animatronics is the creation of life-like machines.	27-2 = A Travel documentary is a TV or film series documenting the travel in a place.	27-3 = To appear to show what isn't is called an Illusion.	27-4 = Looking into garbage to find useful things is called Dumpster diving.	27-5 = The Library of Alexandria was one of the World's largest libraries.	27-6 = Eating food is called a Meal.	27-7 = Louis Pasteur was a French scientist who helped remove germs from milk.	27-8 = Mathematical data is often shown on a graph as a Scatter plot.	27-9 = Food science is the study of food.	27-10 = A group of islands is called an Archipelago.	28-1 = Music has a long history across cultures Worldwide.	28-2 = Film criticism is reviewing movies after watching them.	28-3 = Lupus erythematosusare a group of automimmunity diseases.	28-4 = A optical illusion for an object which cannot exist in 3D geometry is an Impossible object.	28-5 = Chinese folklore consists of puppetry, dances, poetry and songs.	28-6 = In 1920-33, alcohol was nationally banned in the US.	28-7 = On April 1, the April Fools' Day is celebrated by pranking others.	28-8 = Anubis is an Egyptian God of the afterlife.	28-9 = The List of hybrid vehicles is about vehicles with two different power sources.	28-10 = The Strait of Magellan is a famous sea-route near South America.	29-1 = Cheers is an American sitcom that ran for 11 seasons.	29-2 = A live musical performance is called a Concert.	29-3 = Cosmology is the study of stars and the universe.	29-4 = Monty Python's The Meaning of Life is a 1983 musical sketch comedy film.	29-5 = Environment of the United States covers the climate, geology and biota of the US.	29-6 = Louis IV ruled as King of France in the 10th century.	29-7 = Food items served before a main course are the Hors d'oeuvre.	29-8 = Buzz Lightyear is a space ranger toy who travelled "To Infinity, and Beyond."	29-9 = A Spy satellite does military or intelligence based espionage.	29-10 = Monument Valley is a region in Utah often covered in films.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

TAFI in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on Today's Articles For Improvement for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 02:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Protection of articles

• I just noticed that the Sport article is semi-protected when this tweet came over the transom. Seems it would be better to promote TAFIs that are more accessible to IP editors/anons? (and I should have been more attentive to that:) Matthew (WMF) 20:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure of the specifics of this article - it does not have its own TAFI tab as part of the project. Nevertheless, what you discovered directly violates the second dot point. I wonder how if managed to slip through the cracks...--Coin945 (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Current status of TAFI

Is there a proposal somewhere to discuss putting this back on the main page? It is unclear what happened to the discussion above so I want to know if anyone has started an active discussion that could possibly lead to this being back on the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 01:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Scroll up to Proposal to restore on the Main Page as a full width box. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Is that the official proposal? Why is no one supporting/opposing? Were the prior discussions to get this on the main page held on this talk page?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 15:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination participation

I know everyone is most familiar with the pop culture related items found in the Arts section, but we have a lot of excellent nominations in the other sections that rarely get supported. I would ask that we spend some focus there, so we get a more diverse selection for each week. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Nominate and support. Otherwise this project will die. :)--05:43, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to restore on the Main Page as a full width box

I would like to propose that TAFI be restored on the Main Page as a full width box, in some variation of the following box.

Today's articles for improvement Today's articles for improvement has a selection of articles that you can improve. Architect For help editing, see the cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ for additional information. You can also ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse. Editors are encouraged to create a Wikipedia account and watchlist this article.

The full width bar would go at the bottom of the featured content, above the 'Other areas of Wikipedia' section. The full width bar would fix the formatting concern, and the now automated weekly cycle has fixed the scheduling issues. I also think going back on the Main Page would improve participation and increase project visibility. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 20:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I would advise against a hasty return. I was heavily involved with the successful Main Page launch of TFL two years ago (well, it's still there). I therefore make these comments not because I am trying to rip this proposal to shreds, but because if I don't, someone else will. On the Main Page, the tiniest of things can carry a lot of traction, so you need to cover all the angles before you even get started.

This box does constitute an improvement on the previous implementation, and I'm extremely confident that the scheduling issues will not be repeated. But I'm opposed to this being the foundation of a second proposal for the following reasons:

• The articles above are fine choices for regular editors who want to improve articles in a collaborative environment. But something which will primarily interest current regulars does not make a strong enough case for prime placement on the Main Page.

  TAFI will only have a Main Page USP if it is dominated by articles that someone with even a marginal interest in the topic can quickly spot a way of making a non-minor contribution. Hence, we must concentrate on articles which either have some very basic material missing, articles which have a large number of well placed templates, or skeleton lists. Examples of the first two of those are easy to find, and skeleton templates (such as this or this can easily be knocked out once an appropriate list has been identified.

• Based on the current Main Page design and politics, there is not a hope in hell of the community allowing a full width box to run in addition to TFL and TFP.
• Based on the solid level of support for the aforementioned sections, and the way the previous TAFI trial went, there is not a hope in hell of TAFI replacing either of them.
• The Main Page folks do not like whitespace, regardless of the reasons behind it.
• Is a bolded link to Special:MyPage a good idea for IPs?
• That footnote is a little bit messy.

—WFC— _{FL wishlist} 22:41, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

•      I have to agree with WaitingForConnection here, and advise against rushing this. I know it is exciting, and all of the active members of this project want to make something of it, but (...) I believe that will result in a less than optimal end result, which will put you back in the same position that got it pulled off the main page in the first place. It is not enough to simply have a nice visual design for the main page, there needs to be a few minor fixes in the way that TAFI works behind the scenes to make this work.

     I've attempted to work on this to help develop a system that will be efficient, and I've constantly been rushed. This makes it hard for me because I have many much higher priority RL issues that I am currently dealing with. I've watched and kept an eye on the banner that TAFI had on the Teahouse Question page, and it was often empty and displaying junk because the current system simply does not work at this point. I've disabled that Teahouse banner for now because it was making this project look bad and TheOriginalSoni agreed with me that something needed to be fixed to make it work.

     I suggest making some adjustments to the whole second half of the system as the nomination and accepting stages seem to mostly work at this point, the snag seems to be getting them correctly transfered to where they can be selected at random and displayed.

     Let's get something mostly automatic in place and get the Teahouse Question page banner back up and functioning correctly for a month or two while developing something cutting edge and new looking for the main page. I also encourage this project to get in touch with SarahStierch and see if Program Evaluation and Design (discussed #wikimedia-office hour on IRC) can possibly help here (I have a feeling it can). Technical 13 (talk) 12:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your general sentiments. What specifically do we need to improve behind the scenes? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 15:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there any thought of TAFI being on the main page every day. Maybe you could go to a 5 article format that is updated on Monday, Wednesday and Friday.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:14, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• I like TonyTheTiger's concept of reducing it from 10 per week... I think that one a day would be the best option, so seven per week... It sure would make some of the other stuff a little easier. Anyways, you can see what I started creating for the main page in my sandbox with User:Technical 13/SandBox/TAFI bar/Test case and User:Technical 13/SandBox/TAFI bar. It's kind of hard for me to explain how I envision the stuff going on in the background, but since the goal is to put up these TAFI bars in various locations that will inspire participation (Program Evaluation and Design would be best to say where it might be appropriate), then each of the summaries should have its own little page so that it can be easily transcluded in the different formats that might be used on different pages. Technical 13 (talk) 16:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I, too, think only one or two articles should be chosen at a time. Perhaps the reduction in the number of option would concentrate collaboration, and attract both beginner and experienced editors. I assume this would also reduce the amount of administrative work for the TAFI project. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
    • The emphasis of my query was the to inquire about the possibility of TAFI being on the main page every day. I think the number per week in total should still be 10 or more. 5 3 times per week or 2 7 times per week are both fine.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 17:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I don't really know the answer to this either way (i think that while more articles gives users a greater range of options rather than just shoving an article in their face in a way that says "this is the only article you may edit as part of this project", it might be good to just have the one or two and then make the link to the TAFI home page - which will have the entirely of all 7/10/whatever of that week's articles listed) - much more prominent. What is your rationale behind your proposal? :)--Coin945 (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to get some clarification from the "main page" editors. Why was TAFI pulled from the main page when there was consensus to have it there from the community? I understand that an editor took it down because they felt it was not successful. Really? Can I get some demonstration on how this was determined and what consensus discussion took place to determine it should be removed from the main page? If not I think we need to have this addressed through formal arbitration at this point. I believe that is the only way that we can determine if this is being handled correctly.

• Who removed TAFI from the main page and why?

• What was the exact trigger for its removal and what is the trigger to its return?

• If there was no discussion to remove it, why should there be discussion to return it? Could this not be taken to the WMF for an office action if this was not handles correctly Before seeking arbitration?

• Why shouldn't this be taken back to the Village Pump as a proposal for a full section as stated above right now? (Actually that is rhetorical, it can go at any time).--Mark _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 06:52, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• While I don't know the specifics, I know it had something to do with the way TAFI updated its articles in the mian page template. Apparently on one fine eve it didn't change, and left an ugly mess on the main page... or something like that. The obvious solution (to automate the process and move on), was not seen as a viable option, and impretty sure that was the catalyst for its removal form the main page. That process is automated now.--Coin945 (talk) 07:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on the removal of TAFI is in this talk page's archives: Archive 5#Failure - Evad37 (talk) 07:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Denial of reinstatement was here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 07:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• The Specifics - While TAFI was on the main page, all scheduling was done manually. And during a period of time no scheduling was done, so we were either a few hours/minutes close to generating a redlink/making a link that leads to nowhere, or had already done that. The relaed subpages were already protected and User:David Levy, and admin and a TAFI member who had been with us while we were busy trying to get it to the main page, removed the TAFI section.
• Since then, TAFI has been automated so such a problem will not happen again. However, David noted that TAFI was there on a trial basis, and TAFI, atleast according to him (and me), had failed in its basic goals, in the form it was presented currently. (Which was just Three article names)
• Finally, there was also a discussion on what the exact design of the TAFI box would be, but it led to no conclusion. That is the only thing limiting TAFI from the main page, as all of the rest is already community approved. We just need a finalised version of how the box would be, and there needs to be consensus in it's favour. Also, it needs to follow a few main page (non-documented) rules which are pretty clear to the regulars with the Main Page and its formatting and make the [Hopefully minor] tweaks. That's all. Just agree on a suitable design, and that is enough, I suppose. Also, a possible full-width layout TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support restoring TAFI entries on Main Page as a full width box. The processes are all automated now thanks to the work of User:Theopolisme on User:Theo's Little Bot in unison with this project. This automation can easily update entries that would be listed on Main page; at this time entries don't require manual updating by editors. The TAFI slot was pulled from Main page previously because editors weren't available to beat a now obsolete deadline in manually updating TAFI pages. Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T27931

• My progress was being help up by the T27931 that I have posted to the right here. That bug is supposedly resolved, and I will be playing with the new ability which should allow us to add a TAFI category of some sort and offer a link to all TAFI accepted submission that will allow people to pull one at random (or sub-categorize into weeks or whatnot and save a lot of other coding that I was having a hard time getting to work...). I am burried in back school work and my instructor is debating dropping me as a student if I don't get caught up in the next two weeks, so I won't be doing much outside of an occasional comment here or there until that is resolved. In 3-4 weeks though, I'd be happy to take another poke at finishing what I had started for this project. Technical 13 (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• User:NickPenguin, User:Northamerica1000 Another possible layout, worked on by User:Technical 13. We could try picking the best of the two designs to help them meet community consensus. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Today's Articles For Improvement Week 52 8 is one of today's articles for improvement, and you can help improve it by editing it or making suggestions on its talk page! Ideas for improving the article (currently rated Wikipedia:TAFI/624/8 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. First ♦ Second ♦ Third ♦ Fourth ♦ Fifth ♦ Sixth ♦ Seventh ♦ Eighth ♦ Ninth ♦ Last

That design is better, although there is still too much subscript. But by far the biggest hurdles in my opinion remain unresolved: the type of articles that we actually select, and the visual/scheduling effect this would have with other Main Page sections.

In terms of the debate about TAFI's status, the removal makes no difference to TAFI's situation. At the end of the trial there would have been an RfC on whether the trial should be made permanent, unless consensus was so clear that no-one could bothered to start it. Based on the precedent with TFL, no clear consensus to continue would have defaulted in removal, as a trial is by nature temporary. Given that what is being suggested here is markedly different to what was previously on the Main Page, we would definitely have needed an RfC to trial the new layout anyway, even if TAFI wasn't removed. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 13:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there would definitely need to be another RFC for a proposal of this nature. I suggest that any interested parties hack away at the full width bar, and when it is acceptable, we draw up a proposal and go for another RFC. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:50, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you WaitingForConnection for that very concise and clear explanation. This thread appears to have a lot of information and work. Good job guys. --Mark 02:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not clear to me where the picture would go in the above redesign. Note the thread below where I point out that it is imperative that the TAFI picture update be in synch with the article updates. Everything on the main page has a perfectly sychronous picture. Currently TAFI has automated article updates and manual picture updates. This is unacceptable for the main page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 03:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is unacceptable for the main page

This issue only arises because there is no way/provision to create the picture box before time, rather than update it when the week starts. We could have the picture box to be redesigned to allow us to prepare for an automatic change of pictures every week, which would allow us to prepare and have the pictures of next week prepared before time. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is simply not true that "there is no way/provision to create the picture box before time". Since we know the articles several weeks in advance we should be able to decide which picture several weeks in advance. Then we should create pages using analogous code to the articles with the current year and current week parameters. The picture absolutely have to be in perfect synch with the articles just like every other section of the main page. Manual picture updates will be a deal breaker for TAFI. Please set up the pictures just like the articles so that they automatically update as the calendar turns. All other pictures on the mainpage update with every refresh of that section (except ITN, which does not update with the calendar). All sections that update with the clock/calendar have pictures that do so as well.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• Also, why is User:Technical_13/SandBox/TAFI_bar using complicated switch syntax rather than simple and elegant Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/{{CURRENTYEAR}}/{{CURRENTWEEK}}/1 structure found within Template:TAFI/Blurb/thisweek.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 04:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is simply not true - Actually the lack of that analogous code was what was holding this updation up. Let me check up on the code that Evan wrote, and see what we can do with it. Also, manual choosing is the only option, as automatic choosing will not consider clarity at 200x200 or copyright questions while choosing the picture. Manual would require a few minutes of work every week or so, but it would work better.
• Regarding the template, I have no idea why T13 designed it that way, but I agree the other way is simple and elegant. If anyone can implement that way into this template, it would be great. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:52, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

• What you want is something roughly like the sample below, where the image and the articles are perfectly synchronous.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 06:40, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Today's Articles For Improvement Week 52 {{TAFI/Picture box/sandbox/2024/52}} Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/9 is one of today's articles for improvement, and you can help improve it by editing or making suggestions on its talk page! 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. Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/1 ♦ Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/2 ♦ Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/3 ♦ Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/4 ♦ Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/5 ♦ Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/6 ♦ Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/7 ♦ Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/8 ♦ Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/9 ♦ Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/2024/52/10

Although the following example is mostly hardcoded, this is a format that I prefer:

Today's Articles For Improvement Week 52 An elephant safari through the Jaldapara National Park in West Bengal, India. The following are today's articles for improvement. Please help improve them. You can discuss improvements on their talk pages and ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse. Absolute magnitude, celestial measure of brightness 420 (cannabis culture), drug subculture buzzword Club drug, broad class of recreational drugs Assassination of Anwar Sadat, 1981 Middle East politcal event Monarchies in Africa, regional list of autonomous royalty Child, a human biological term Cookbook, a type of culinary publication Buggy (automobile), automotive classification National park, a conservation term for protected regions Mountain pass, ecological navigation term See the cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ for additional information. Editors are encouraged to create a Wikipedia account and watchlist this article.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 14:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

By the way, an image of that size would steal focus from the Featured Picture, and probably attract opposition on that basis alone (yes, people are that picky, I have been through a Main Page proposal from start to finish with TFL – this came up when back then and the Featured Picture is no less popular today). —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 23:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Given your experience, what dimension would be acceptable for TAFI. 150x150, 120x120 or all the way down to 100x100? Keep in mind that every week we will have ten article to cull for decent images. It would seem to me that we might be able to justify something like 150x150, but I am just guessing here.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:16, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

If we have to have a smaller image, see my alternate format below:

Today's Articles For Improvement Week 52 An elephant safari in India's Jaldapara National Park The following are today's articles for improvement. Please help improve them. You can discuss improvements on their talk pages and ask questions at the help desk or Teahouse. Absolute magnitude, celestial measure of brightness 420 (cannabis culture), drug subculture buzzword Club drug, broad class of recreational drugs Assassination of Anwar Sadat, 1981 Middle East politcal event Monarchies in Africa, regional list of autonomous royalty Child, a human biological term Cookbook, a type of culinary publication Buggy (automobile), automotive classification National park, a conservation term for protected regions Mountain pass, ecological navigation term See the cheatsheet, tutorial, editing help and FAQ for additional information. Editors are encouraged to create a Wikipedia account and watchlist this article.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 00:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

That one looks pretty good, in my opinion. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I like it to, but we need to get project-wide consensus on what format we are going to go with. If we are going to choose this one we will have to do some manual administration of all the queue article to attach an explanation. This is something that there should be a broad consensus on.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 05:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

We would get away with that size. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 00:53, 15 August 2013 (UTC)