![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
User:TheOriginalSoni/TAFI ad 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! |
![]() |
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)
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)
What are everyone's thoughts on this? It'd be a fairly simple task to code a bot to:
Thanks, — Theopolisme ( talk) 21:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
What is TAFI for? I see two things TAFI can do:
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)
|
If it's going to be 100% of the page width, there's room for more on the right-hand side
|
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)
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. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 23:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
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?
What do you think should be done? I prefer using options 1 and 2.
TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 23:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Proposal withdrawn. TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 00:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
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:
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. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 00:13, 16 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)
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)
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)
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? -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 01:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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). -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 23:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
{{To do|small=yes|collapsed=yes|target=Talk:Foobar}}
, which would generate a box like:![]() Updated 2007-09-10
|
/to do
talk subpage could just be automatically linked. -
Evad37 (
talk)
03:24, 2 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)
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)
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)
This user has also removed the tag from these articles once:
This type of unilateral removal of the template is troubling, because again, consensus was for it to be utilized. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
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. Spinning Spark 06:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
There are NO articles linked from the protect page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panpog1 ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Posting this to request discussion for images to use for the upcoming weeks 22 and 23. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
“ | 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. | ” |
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)
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)
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:
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)
*
ARTICLE
format. Is this what you wanted?
Theopolisme (
talk)
01:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
I've removed TAFI from the main page. — David Levy 14:10, 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)
We can't rely on last-minute scrambling
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
From Week 16
From Week 20
I am open to any theories as to why it was low.
In general, was there an increase of account activity when those 1888 accounts started business, compared to the previous 5 weeks?
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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
User:TheOriginalSoni/TAFI ad 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! |
![]() |
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)
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)
What are everyone's thoughts on this? It'd be a fairly simple task to code a bot to:
Thanks, — Theopolisme ( talk) 21:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
What is TAFI for? I see two things TAFI can do:
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)
|
If it's going to be 100% of the page width, there's room for more on the right-hand side
|
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)
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. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 23:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
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?
What do you think should be done? I prefer using options 1 and 2.
TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 23:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
No problem. Proposal withdrawn. TheOriginalSoni ( talk) 00:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
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:
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. -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 00:13, 16 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)
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)
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)
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? -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 01:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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). -- Nick Penguin( contribs) 23:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
{{To do|small=yes|collapsed=yes|target=Talk:Foobar}}
, which would generate a box like:![]() Updated 2007-09-10
|
/to do
talk subpage could just be automatically linked. -
Evad37 (
talk)
03:24, 2 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)
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)
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)
This user has also removed the tag from these articles once:
This type of unilateral removal of the template is troubling, because again, consensus was for it to be utilized. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
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. Spinning Spark 06:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
There are NO articles linked from the protect page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panpog1 ( talk • contribs) 01:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Posting this to request discussion for images to use for the upcoming weeks 22 and 23. Northamerica1000 (talk) 04:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
“ | 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. | ” |
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)
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)
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:
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)
*
ARTICLE
format. Is this what you wanted?
Theopolisme (
talk)
01:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
I've removed TAFI from the main page. — David Levy 14:10, 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)
We can't rely on last-minute scrambling
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
From Week 16
From Week 20
I am open to any theories as to why it was low.
In general, was there an increase of account activity when those 1888 accounts started business, compared to the previous 5 weeks?
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)