Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive search boxes

It appears that the archive search boxes are not functional at this time. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Unanswered questions

Moved to Wikipedia:Village Pump (proposals)#Unanswered questions - TAFI.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 16:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion regards addressing matters to move forward on TAFI being utilized on Wikipedia's Main page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Belated comments

I did not know about the RfC or this discussion until NickPenguin brought it to my attention yesterday so I know I am late, but as I was intending to say something about the project as a result of my experience working on Entertainment I will comment here anyway.

My thought is that TAFI should really be TMAFI (or for short, MAFI perhaps). That is, this MONTH's article for improvement. When I began work on Entertainment as a result of seeing it nominated, I understood that it was TODAY's article for improvement and so deleted the tag after a day, before learning that the intention was really to run it for a week. What I have since discovered is that even a week is much too short a time to make a considered improvement on the type of articles that are nominated. Entertainment, for example, needed to be rethought completely if it was to be coherent, global and well-referenced. Adding bits and pieces was not going to help. My concern is that these sorts of articles not only need rethinking, they need globalising, good references, good links and good images. The rethinking needs some experience with the field (whether that be science, art, history, sociology, music or whatever) and there may be many new editors who who have that knowledge. However, even understanding the purpose of the lead section is not easy for newbies, let alone adding references or images.

So I am worried that improving vital or difficult articles and recruiting new editors may be incompatible objectives. One way to make them compatible might be for this team to be the supportive guides for newbies who are inspired to contribute some of their knowledge to articles they see nominated on the front page (in the manner of WP: Teahouse.) Another is that the nominated articles (or some of them) have smaller scope. There is a difference between administering the project and writing the content. New content contributors would need some immediate connection to supportive editors that would encourage and guide them to an understanding the community's expectations, the encyclopaedia's standards and its technological idiosyncrasies. This would require vigilance - I can say from personal experience that discovering the talk pages and finding the discussions can take a long time. Sudden deletions and additions and a frenzy of changes might be exciting and encouraging but they might also be completely confusing and off-putting without any accompanying discussion. And, as I said, thinking it through takes time as well, especially when the effort is coming from volunteers.

Entertainment, by the way, has now been through Peer Review. When I finish thinking through and incorporating the suggestions, (still working on it) I will nominate it for Good Article. Then maybe I will have time to contribute to a new TAFI/MAFI. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

If you haven't seen the before and afters for Entertainment, you should look at it now and then. Whiteghost really did a tremendous amount of work on the article.

To the point about attracting editors, perhaps we should establish some sort of welcoming committee for this project. The idea is to get them to start and then keep editing, and the best way is to reach out, appreciate the contribution, and show the way. I think this program can be good at improving articles, but I worry it will be less effective at attracting new editors.

The bit about articles needing rethinking, I think this could be incorporated into the proposed To-do list. Maybe this should be established in the run up to the article going live into the rotation, project members establish the direction the article should go in. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 07:58, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Will there be a welcoming committee for the welcoming committee? Many of the current TAFI members joined or became active only recently, myself included. That aside, I think that we should still carry on, even considering the concerns about newbies. You have valid points. We will now have to consider the wider ramifications of expanding this project. One is that articles that are important and/or vital, both subjectively and objectively, will almost certainly be improved. Another, that once we go Main Page, we may find ourselves out of our depth for helping new editors. I think that both the welcoming committee and "establishment" ideas may work somewhat, but we should be careful not to turn into a glorified sandbox. By that, I mean that new contributors may be put off if we come on too strong with guidance or restrictions on the current article. They may come up with good ideas for improvement on their own and not want to be corralled into editing "the right way" right away. Caution, in this respect, will be vital. The RfC was only a beginning, and now we have means, we should reconsider the ends we are working towards, as Whiteghost says. - HectorAE (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

It's called the Teahouse. See #Template:TAFI. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Add Barnstar to Template Section

We have created a TAFI Barnstar is a little while back. We should add it to the Templates section of the TAFI Templates page. We might want to change it a little bit to fit the current logo, and then we can suggest adding it to the Barnstar Main page here. Any thoughts?-Horai 551 (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – Directly below (draft 1) is a copy of the barnstar from the archive page (here). The logo in it is already utilized by Wikipedia's Guild of Copy Editors. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Draft 1

		The TAFI Barnstar
		Thoughts? —Theopolisme 03:24, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a modified version with this project's current logo:

Draft 2

		The TAFI Barnstar
		{{{1}}}

• Support draft 2 – and utilizing a barnstar for this project. Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support Draft 2 for distinguishing from GOCE. - HectorAE (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
• Obviously let's go with #2: we've moved on :) —Theopolisme (talk) 00:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Added to templates page

• Y Draft 2 has been added to the project's template page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 03:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines section added to main page

See the Guidelines page, which is transcluded to the project's main page. Northamerica1000^(talk) 16:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Javascript to find random article of a certain class

I recently used some code from User talk:GregU/randomlink.js to modify my .js page to easily allow me to find articles of Stub, Start and C class. If you look at my .js page, the 3 functions below the addOnloadHook( function() make 3 links in the left sidebar, so when you click them one it randomly selects a Stub, Start or C class from any of the listed categories and opens the article in a new tab. Pretty handy, saves me from trying to come across articles to nominate by good luck and chance. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:34, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Project peer review has been added

Project peer review information has been added to the project's main page to encourage further collaboration, and a new project page has been created: Peer review. Northamerica1000^(talk) 20:24, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:TAFI

I made some changes to the template that I think will actually help increase our odds of getting viewers to edit. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I've directed newbie questions to the Teahouse. Biosthmors (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

How do you feel about adding WP:FIVE, Help:Editing, and/or WP:FAQ in there somewhere too? 70.59.14.20 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 01:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The "to do" list

So I see here there was support for a to do list. I say we just put one in a section on the talk page. If we're going to introduce new people to how Wikipedia works, let's keep it fundamental. And that's what the talk page is there for anyways. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. Biosthmors (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Village pump discussion occurring - TAFI on Wikipedia's Main page

Listing this again so it isn't missed (it's linked above under the "Unanswered questions" section above, but may be missed). Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:39, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• See: Unanswered questions - TAFI.

Edit notice or preloaded texts!

Suggesting to create an editntoice with h3 header support, oppose text or just a preloaded text. Currently the portion is at the top of the page and one needs to scroll above to copy it! --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking about the "How to Nominate an Article" collapsed box? —Theopolisme (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/Nominated articles

I think there are a ridiculous number of nominations at Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement/Nominated articles. We should limit ourselves to one, two, or three nominations apiece, in my opinion. Let's please decide on a number (then remove those in excess). Biosthmors (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with having a large list of nominations? -—Kvng 15:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

See comments below for my rationale, but I see this isn't going anywhere at the moment so whatever. Biosthmors (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

One

Support. This will get the most feedback from new potential participants, in my opinion, because they will see a shorter line and be more likely to post new ideas. Biosthmors (talk) 01:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Two

Three

Comments

• Hi Biosthmors. It is planned for TAFI nominations to be on a rotation on the Main page, with 7 to be randomly displayed, likely on a weekly basis, so this won't really be functional at this time. Check out these discussions at Village pump for more context. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Editor recruitment with TAFI – Several discussions here (scroll down)
• Unanswered questions - TAFI – New discussion

• Shouldn't there be a limit to how many articles any one person nominates at a given time? If so, how many do you think is reasonable? Biosthmors (talk) 02:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• The project is beginning to pick up steam, so imposing limits at this time may simply discourage participation. Several editors have joined today after I sent out invitations. Perhaps a time frame for archiving can be developed later depending on the amount of traffic the page receives. Northamerica1000^(talk) 02:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think that's a silly idea. We easily could set the limit at 20, 50, 100 or 1000 without discouraging anyone, in my opinion. Do you disagree? I think the real downside is if people nominate too many articles now so that new participants are discouraged from posting anything because they think that their new input has been effectively diluted to the point of not mattering (from excessive nominations by single editors). Biosthmors (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• At a minimum of seven articles per week to be shuffled randomly, again this is a minimum, there will always need to be a decent-sized pool of nominations. They're not all accepted (see the archives). I don't have a problem with the size of the page, nor any problems navigating it. Hopefully more editors will participate, particularly after TAFI goes live on the Main page. If this occurs, then sure, perhaps some limits may be in order if too many nominations exist. Right now I think it's too soon to begin setting limits. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• I think choosing 7 distinct articles on different topics at the start of each week would be a good idea. Each of those groups of 7 articles would be nominated for 7 days. That would give people the ability to choose between articles on different topics and give editors time for further developing an article. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 07:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the list of nominated articles is starting to get pretty long, but I don't think that will discourage people from suggesting articles. I just vote for the articles that I think will be good, it doesn't matter who submitted them.

While we're on the subject, it is probably time to start selecting articles for the first group of 7, and then determine the 'go live' date for the Main Page. Given the steam we've been gathering here, I propose we get the whole program ready and organized to launch of the Main Page for Feb 9th, which is the next date on the schedule. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 08:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, since the list is growing quickly, I think its going to make sense to start separating noms by category. I see an over abundance of Society articles, and very few Mathematics articles. Having it more organized would allow us to put our focus on finding noms for categories without many submissions. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 09:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. Biosthmors (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorting by category is an excellent idea; I support this. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Use the same 10 categories at WP:PRV, which are based on 1.0 assessment or whatever? Biosthmors (talk) 23:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Utilization of the Peer review categories is appearing to be quite functional for categorization. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: at the Village pump discussion here, the notion of utilizing a table format to shorten and streamline the page is being discussed; it's a notion that I support. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

For the time being I've sorted the nominations by the 10 categories pointed out by Biosthmors, feel free to move items from one category to another. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

(Tentative) proposal for archiving guidelines

Herein are some suggested guidelines for the archiving of nominations. A time period that allows enough time for editor participation and discussion while also not letting dated or clearly unsuccessful nominations linger for too long, along with the allowance of additional time for those with ongoing discussion occurring are some considerations. Developing archiving procedures will serve to better-manage the length of the nominations section. After this discussion, publishing concise instructions on this project's main page with archiving guidelines would be functional, to prevent misunderstandings from occurring. In the event of participation decreasing in the future, guidelines could be modified accordingly. Here are some initial ideas, based upon current participation the page is receiving. These are intended to be guidelines, as opposed to strict policy, to allow leeway for variation that may occur in entries.

(Tentative) proposal: Prompt, 7, 10 and 14

• Successful nominations: Clearly successful nominations can be archived promptly upon being promoted to the schedule, if ongoing discussion is not occurring.

• Unsuccessful nominations: Nominations that are clearly unsuccessful after several opposes/significant opposition in discussion sans any support (other than the nominator's), and those with minimal support relative to opposition, can be archived after 7 days, provided ongoing discussion has ceased. In entries with ongoing discussion, they may be archived after 7 days has occurred from the time of the last post.

Nominations that receive no input can be archived after 10 days. Those that receive minimal input with 2 or less !votes/comments from editors other than the nominator's can be archived after 14 days. In this latter instance, when only minimal additional participation occurs within the initial 14 days, they can be archived after after an additional 7 days has passed from the time of the last post.

Those that have ongoing discussion occurring should not be archived until discussion has ceased, and then may be archived after 7 days from the time of the last post.

Commentary

• As the proposer, I support these guidelines. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
• So a nom needs 1 vote a week to stay alive or else they get archived, and when it gets 3 or more from other editors, it goes into the schedule. Sounds good. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the first part of your comment above, not quite, but close. Nominations that receive no input would be archived after 10 days. Those that receive only 2 or less !votes/comments would be archived after 14 days have passed. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:24, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I've noticed less participation on the nominations page already, after an initial spike, so while this proposal remains in place, it seems best to likely hold off on applying it (or a modified one) until after TAFI goes live on the Main page, from which time participation could be better-assessed, and the time frames adjusted accordingly if necessary. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Redundant?

Category:Members of Today's Article for Improvement duplicates WP:Today's article for improvement/Members, and is currently empty. Seems like a G6 housekeeping delete to me, but I'm happy to entertain thoughts. —Theopolisme (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, please see newly-created section below. I went ahead and nominated the Members category for deletion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Our TAFI article of the week - Medical certificate

As amazing as it is that we're all working together to get this project on the road (I really must applaud everyone for their hard work in the getting TAFI off the ground), I just wanted to remind everyone that the TAFI article for this week is Medical certificate. We've worked on it a bit thus far, but there's a lot left to be done. I hope we don't get preoccupied with the behind-the-scenes stuff, and therefore forget to do what the whole point of it was in the firstplace. If you could give us a hand, that would be grand. :)--Coin945 (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Good point. If I remember correctly you're the only person to have edited farmer so far. Thanks for your edits! Biosthmors (talk) 21:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Can more nominations be based upon their page views?

Such as prioritizing those in the WP:5000 (top 5000)? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I definitely think we should include info like this in our noms, those sorts of things will only attach more support votes. And when we do a round of selections, care can be taken to ensure high priority items make it into the queue. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 01:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Members of Today's Article for Improvement

I went ahead and nominated this category for deletion since it is an empty duplicate of the participants category. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Today's article for improvement nominations

I went ahead and created the category Today's article for improvement nominations to contain nomination pages. This also allows chronological sorting... for instance December 2012 can be coded as category "Today's article for improvement nominations|2012 12". If helpful, this category could be further subdivided into "successful" and "unsuccessful" nominations subcategories. One problem though, if someone could assist. All of the nominations pages still appear within the parent category Today's article for improvement--could this hidden command please be removed? Otherwise, the parent category will fill up far too quickly. --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Or, if we don't want to separate successful and unsuccessful nominations, we might want to create subcategories by YEAR. This would still result in subcategories with at least 24 pages (one for each month, successful and unsuccessful), which is a large enough number. Thoughts? --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sports

Not worthy of a separate section? GiantSnowman 17:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Worthy IMO. Sports are one of the more popular categories which might interest other editors and users. Moreover, these are one of the few topics which actually can be substantially increased (unlike say "Farmer", where I personaly have no idea what to put and what not to). Since they are so specific, editing them will be a lot easier. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sports could use it's own section. I am just hesitant to create too many subcategories. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Question - Can we create more than 7 categories, and choose 7 for each week? One or more categories might get a miss for the week, but that could be a good way to get diversity in. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Right now we've got 10 categories, and I'm not certain that we will have 7 strongly supported items from 7 different categories; some categories might just have better articles than others. I think the structure should allow the 7 best candidates to go forward, and if we have too many from one category, we just give a few a pass for a week and include them in the next weeks selection. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Slight change to nomination template

I've modified the nomination template so that the nominator is not included as a support, since 1) it's already implied through the process of nominating, and 2) It appears at the village pump discussions and per the new table format that people are supportive of a nomination receiving 3 supports in order to become a TAFI (not including the nominator's support), so this change helps to streamline the process. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Here's how the template reads now:

====[[Name of article]]====

(Nomination text). ~~~~

Support
# 
Oppose
# 
Comments

Nominations as a Table

Hello,

I have boldly edited the "Arts" section of the nomination into the proposed table format. In my opinion, it now looks a lot cleaner and will be easier to deal with.

How does it look now? Please give your opinion below. If we have a general agreement over this format, we can convert the other 9 sections in the same way. If not, someone can simply restore the previous version back.

[Sorry for being so bold as to make such a drastic change. But hopefully its for the better]

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I like it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 15:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Looks good, thought the table is less conducive to discussion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It could be an idea to keep discussion on this talk page? GiantSnowman 17:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that discussion is required only for a limited controversial topics. If an article is very apt for TAFI, it will garner 3 supports faster. If not, any opposer/ anyone who wants discussion may move the nomination to the discussion area, and notify the nominator. (See Duel Masters - It has been kept as it is in the discussions area.) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the discussion should be on the nominations talk page, which currently redirects here. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This page might possibly be on the Watchlist of a few users. Lets keep the discussion here until the need to have a separate talk page for Nominations arises. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Does anyone have any suggestions for how to sort the table? The date format currently will not be chronologically sorted and I cant really think of other ways. We might as well leave the table as is, asking newer nominations to go to the bottom of the table. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• I like the clean lines the table makes, however is there support for including nomination text for articles? In some cases it may be good to explain the what and why an article should be improved. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 18:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion stands that its mostly unnecessary, and the article itself ought to be useful enough context to do the needful. But we can include an optional "Nominator's comments" section if need be. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

When the article is on the Main Page it needs to stand on it's own anyways, so the nom text is probably unnecessary. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 19:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

But there might be some advantages from an improvement POV if you have a notes section. For example, you might want to have Independence Day (film) as TAFI in the first week of July, or maybe Swami Vivekananda might have been great a month ago (Since you want to have the article in good shape when the views are about to increase). Alternately, you might want to specifically point out that Isaac Newton needs restructuring when it comes to a chronological order of his middle life achievements and pointing out such issues. However, I am not quite sure whether the requirement for a separate notes section is justified enough to warrant it. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

One thing I notice with a table is there's no way to tell when the last vote of support was added, so it's hard to tell when to archive a nom that has lost steam. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 21:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not want every vote to have the date or that would have made the table clumsy. Maybe a "last modified" column could suffice? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• I added a comments section to the table, for people to check it out with this addition. I personally think that there should be an area for people to discuss matters directly on the page, as this is conducive to collaboration, which is a significant aspect of this project. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that the nominator's statements are omitted from the new table, which I think should be included in the comments section. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Most of the nom statements were pretty redundant and made only for the formality's sake. The context of the article ought to be clear from its name and article only. The comments section ought to be used only if there is a special case to be considered TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added the nominations back in for now (prior to seeing/reading the above comment). While I understand your notion above, I feel that people should at least have an option to make a nominating comment, and for other editors to have this option, rather than limiting options. Perhaps let's wait for others to chime in. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Alright. Do note that there were several other non-nom comments too that were made (in the Supports section) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I only found one, for Pop music, after going through the diffs starting at this one to the most recent. I've added the comment to the table. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that there's no "oppose" section in the table. This could be utilized in the comments section. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is that any article with atleast one oppose (as recorded in the comments) shall be transferred to the discussion area, where nominations shall continue in a pattern similar to what we currently have. The comments section ought to be brief. For discussions (even if its not opposes), we ought to use the discussion area. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Side note: I converted the entries for the Philosophy and Religion section into the table format. Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:44, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Question - Should the nomination date be "Last modified"? This date would be the date of the addition of the nomination/last support/last comment. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Comments in table

Should editors have an option to comment in the table? Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support – Having this as an option, per my comments above. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
• Support - But with restrictions on which comments are permissible (taking in mind the length of table.) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Are the tables complicating matters?

I am not sure the tables are making things better. There seems to be a lot of information that is difficult to track and modify now. I like the concept of the nominations taking up less space on the page, but using tables is making aspects of the nomination process more complex to implement and follow. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you sugges we do? I wish to remove the comments from all but the most relevant posts, and to replace the "Nomination Date" by the "Last Modified" date.

As for Opposes, I believe the best way to go will be to simply mark a cross in the comments, which would then force an article to have a discussion. And we can always complete the discussions the traditional way. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I added in hidden comments to the tables (e.g. <!-- SUPPORT 1 GOES HERE -->) in hopes to make it easier for editors to contribute. I also added !voting instructions at the top of the Nominations section. Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Great job, everyone, on getting this on the main page + new feature for helping new users

Hey all, I missed the RfC for getting TAFI on the main page, but I just wanted to say thank you and congrats to everyone who participated! It's so exciting to see more new-user-geared community initiatives like this :)

I know y'all are still continuing the conversation on how best to add guidance and help for new users who might be trying to edit the TAFI, so I thought I'd point you to a customizable guided tours feature that some folks from the E3 team are working on. With the guided tours extension, admins on any local project can build their own custom guided tour on one or more wiki pages, with popup messages pointing to and explaining important content areas and features. The guiders can be loaded up with text, links, images, even videos from Commons. A TAFI-specific example might be building a tour of the article that points to the edit button (many brand new users don't see it) at the top of the page and in various sections, then points to the edit summary field and preview/save buttons in the editing interface and explains how to use them and best practices of editing.

There are probably other ways to use guiders, but I just wanted to let you know that the technology is currently in development, and TAFI might be a good opportunity to test it out :) User:Superm401 is working on the finishing touches and localizing it across different language wikis, but it should be up on English Wikipedia fairly soon. We're hoping to instrument it on Special:GettingStarted, the new post account creation landing page that E3 built for onboarding new users. If this is of interest to anyone here, I'll update you when guiders go live, and I'm happy to help work on building a TAFI-specific tour. Cheers, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 23:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This tool certainly sounds interesting and I think this would be a great place to try it out. I'm checking out the Guided Tours page tho, and I'm finding it a little tough to understand exactly how they function. So I go to a page that has the tour script loaded into it into the wikitext, and plays a set of popup boxes and such? Sounds awesome. How does it distinguish between new users (ip address) and experienced editors (registered)? If we implemented this on all of the TAFI pages, would everyone who visits start the tour every time? Can it be shown on edit pages while they are editing? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. We will definitely work on improving the documentation as it gets closer to launch. The tours can either be included in an extension (either GuidedTour or another one that depends on GuidedTour), or put directly into the wiki in the MediaWiki namespace. In this case, you would probably want to do the latter. They can also persist through multiple pages (as many tasks require). This certainly includes edit pages, and one of the tours already does this.

Users can be "sent" on the tour for the first time in one of two ways:

1. Adding ?tour=tourname or &tour=tourname to the URL of a link, which they then click. TAFI would probably use this option.
2. Setting a cookie. Only extensions, user scripts, and gadgets would generally be able to use this option.

If there is explicit link or button (e.g. with text "(tour)", or a distinctive Tour button), there is probably not a need to block experienced users from getting it (they just won't click).

Once the tour is over, the user will not see it again unless they start over (e.g. by clicking a tour link). They won't see it again just because they happen to visit a page that is part of the tour. I hope that helps, and we look forward to getting this out soon. Superm401 - Talk 05:07, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

An amazing amount of work was achieved here in a very short time. I have been so wrapped up with WP:WER and WP:DRN, I have been totally distracted. What a great start here! And absolutely...great work getting on the main page! I will be pointing this out to our WER project members (some of who are already members here) as an example of how to collaborate on such a project and ways to build in a similar direction.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:38, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm very pleased to see how far this has gone but it doesn't appear to me that it is on the main page yet. Did I miss something? AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 16:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Nopes. Its still not on the main page yet, and I think might make its debut on February 9th (considering thats the first date where we have 7 articles) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I understand it is not there at the moment, but consensus agreed to it and it has been approved. A far cry from when we were contemplating dropping the effort. Good work to all!--Amadscientist (talk) 07:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

TAFI Clerks

Hello,

Once I made the Holding area, I realised we cannot let anyone and everyone to approve the articles from the nominations page to the holding area, and from the holding area to the selections page. So I thought of having "TAFI Clerks" who would be managing the entire TAFI process and page. They will be functioning just to streamline all processes, and sort out the small errors. All major decisions, however, shall still be made by consensus.

The current bunch of TAFI clerks shall include our current group of 5-6 editors who are active at this project currently. Anyone can request to become a TAFI clerk by asking at this page, following which consensus shall determine the decision.

I have currently included a portion of this at the Holding Area page, where I found it necessary to have such a designation. Feel free to redact/remove/improve/replace it.

Any thoughts on this? Any tweaking of the wordings is very much appreciated. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd prefer consolidating the holding area into a section below the entries on the Schedule page that already exists, rather than having it as a separate page. This way, it is easy to add them to the schedule, which would be on the same page. Regarding the notion of assigning clerks, it seems premature to begin assigning permission levels for editors who contribute to this project. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

But at the same time, that leaves scope for an excessively long Holding Area with maybe more articles than is reqd, sharing the same page with a short but more important schedule section. We might want to keep the final decision(Schedule) away from the small intricacies of long discussion. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

We might as well require it later. So why not bring out a robust system before unveiling our project to the main page? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 12:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the notion of assigning clerks for this project: it goes against the grain of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. I oppose this notion at this time, particularly because the project is rather new. Northamerica1000^(talk) 14:04, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• A new Holding Area format has been put there. Please leave your comments on the same. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Live on the Main Page Feb 9th

Are we working on a Deadline yet? I see that we have our first bunch of 7 articles set for February 9, so should we be considering that as our deadline for hitting the Main Page?

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I think that was kind of the unspoken deadline. We have about two weeks to get all our ducks in a row. Since the deadline is fast approaching, we should establish the list of items that need to be completed before everything is prepared for the Main Page. Off the top of my head:

• Ensure the random article template works
• Do a mockup of the Main Page with how it will look and function
• Alert the relevant parties responsible for the main page with the new template and all that
• Generate to-do lists for each article, post on the article talk pages
• Generate a generic notification to post on Wikiproject talk pages about their upcoming article

Thoughts? --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:04, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Notifying the authors?

Wow. I am creating way too many sections in a short time.

Do we currently have a procedure to notify the authors, the WikiProject involved, and the talk page of any article selected/approved to be TAFI? If not, we ought to do so - Once after sending it to the holding area, and possibly a second time before scheduling it to a given date. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

First 7 selected, random template must be designed

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

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

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

Update

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

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

Progress - Random generation

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

• Template:TAFI Main page/Main page queue/1
• Template:TAFI Main page/Main page queue/2
• Template:TAFI Main page/Main page queue/3
• Template:TAFI Main page/Main page queue/4
• Template:TAFI Main page/Main page queue/5
• Template:TAFI Main page/Main page queue/6
• Template:TAFI Main page/Main page queue/7
• Template:TAFI Main page/Main page queue/8
• Template:TAFI Main page/Main page queue/9
• Template:TAFI Main page/Main page queue/10

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

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

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

A solution to the tables problem

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

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

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

Article	Category	Nominator	Supports	Oppose	Comments
Acropolis of Athens	Architecture	ELEKHHT 21:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)	1:--NickPenguin(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 2:--NickPenguin(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 3:--NickPenguin(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)	1:--NickPenguin(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 2:--NickPenguin(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 3:--NickPenguin(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)	This is some example text of how this might look. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Here's my modification

Article	Category	Nomination Date	Nominator	Supports	Comments
Acropolis of Athens	Architecture	21:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)	ELEKHHT	1:--NickPenguin(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 2:--NickPenguin(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 3:--NickPenguin(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)	This is some example text of how this might look. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Here is a modified version based on that -

Article	Nomination Date	Nominator	Supports	Comments
Acropolis of Athens	21:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)	ELEKHHT	1:--NickPenguin(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 2:--NickPenguin(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC) 3:--NickPenguin(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)	This is some example text of how this might look. --NickPenguin(contribs) 14:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

• ALT 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The standard code for every row- || <!--Article--> || <!-- Nominator and Nomination Date--> || <!--Support--> <!-- Add a <br> between any two supports --> || <!--Comments/Opposes--> <!-- To oppose, put your oppose rationale here and a <br> after your signature --> |- TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone mind fixing the nominations page?

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tables (arbitrary section break)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Holding Area

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whoops, I missed this notion, and have replaced the box there with {{TAFI Archives}}. Thanks for pointing this out! Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:44, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Function of the Holding area

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

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

Table on the Nominations page:

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

Same table copied and pasted onto the holding area page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Collaboration

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

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

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

Add a TAFI nomination (automated software)

Automatic TAFI nomination generator.

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

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

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

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

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

Biomedical content?

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

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

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

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

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

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