Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement/Archive 13

Choose the TAFI article for Week 47 of 2014
Results:
 * Military technology - 20 - will be scheduled
 * Hammond Typewriter - 3 - will be archived
 * Vegetarian cuisine - 9
 * Hydropower - 4
 * Pepperoni - 7
 * Scale (music) - 5
 * Ozone layer - 13
 * Radio frequency - 2 - will be archived
 * People - 5
 * Technological evolution - 4

Result was Military technology, thanks everyone. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 06:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The experiment
In regard to that whole archiving experiment, I just wanted to point out that clearing out the backlog by removing any articles that don't get high enough point does nothing to actually improving articles. Whereas something like my suggestion (having 7 TAFI articles at any one time, then each day removing the oldest and adding the newest, so each article still lasts for 7 days but drops down as it loses its shiny newness) would do more to actually improve articles efficiently. I draw your attention to International Airport Ancient Roman architecture having a 2 week stint because of the Pizza issue, where nothing much happened to it in its second week. Removing articles without actually improving them is not a good idea, and simply sweeps an issue (relative slow improvement - 1 per week) under the ruf without attempting to find a solution. --Coin945 (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems that it was actually Ancient Roman architecture which had a two-week spell and not international airport. I would say that the articles scoring three or less points actually do not have sufficient interest to really benefit from the project's endeavour. A smaller backlog should in theory mean that the more interesting articles are sooner improved. C679 15:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops that's what I meant. I knew that article X (whichever it was), did not get improved much in that second week.--Coin945 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think users are really voting for the best articles? It seems to me the articles most suited for communal improvement may not always be chosen, as the rationale for people voting for a certain article might not be taking into account what editing it will actually be like.--Coin945 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact of the matter is that once an article loses its shininess, many people get bored and lose interest. If the majority of improvement is done in the first 2 days or so, then on the third day a new article should be TAFI, or be at the top of a list of TAFI articles. This way we get through more, faster. Multiple users spending an entire week on only one article is a waste of time.--Coin945 (talk) 16:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well what about the top two being scheduled, #1 for four days and #2 for the other three days. Would that enable us to work more efficiently at the project? C679 18:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything inherently wrong with the 'backlog', since last I checked, there were 4,621,839 articles needing improvements. The purpose of the nominating/3 supports/group of 10/3-2-1 system is to identify article that both need help and are would interest a large group of editors, and the idea behind the experiment is to cull some articles that don't seem to get a lot of support. My opinion about the experimentally culled articles is that although they might make good collaborations, there are just better choices. We can't improve everything all the time, and being overly ambitious can lead to failure, like the previous 10 article incarnation on the main page. Truthfully in the last 4 months we have had some really, really spectacular collaborations.
 * Now that said, has a very good point about duration, that second week of Ancient Roman architecture really bombed. And the 'heavy lifting' usually gets finished in the first few days. The other side of it is that the real polish takes longer, often much longer, as demonstrated by some of the our articles like Micronesia, Raven Tales, Writer, Entertainment, Java Man and Animatronics, some of which could be at the GA level or higher (pending peer reviews).
 * My actual plan for the project was to let the pending peer reviews finish, get at least one article listed as a GA or FA, and use that as leverage to take another run at getting back on the main page. We have demonstrated that the project is sustainable, we just need to get some serious peer reviewed results. I recognize the potential of having two articles a week, and actually think that might be a good idea now that we have successfully conquered one article per week. I am just reluctant to do it right when we could be on the cusp of getting major exposure on the main page again. However I could be convinced otherwise. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I know you would really like to increase number of articles we focus on per week, and I realize we may be missing out on potential editors to collaborate with, simply because that week's article doesn't interest them. Which method do you think would work best for our group? More articles, all starting on the same day (concurrent), or more articles starting on a different day of the week (staggered)? Forget the whole main page idea, that's just a pie-in-the-sky dream right now. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 20:51, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well truth be told, I don't actually tend to edit the TAFI articles much these days. (For one thing its a bit overwhelming when you have multiple fantastic editors working on one article and you're not sure what else you can contribute.) What I'm trying to say is that perhaps I'm not the best person to ask - you should speak to Whiteghost, Northamerica1000, David Condrey, and co. to ask what it's like from their perspective. My idea what to have a staggered system where each article stays TAFI for 7 days, but gets lower and lower in the chain (as it loses its shininess) until on the last day it is swapped for a new article. --Coin945 (talk) 01:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Monday: a,b,c,d,e,f,g
 * Tuesday: z,a,b,c,d,e,f
 * Wednesday: y,z,a,b,c,d,e
 * Thursday: x,y,z,a,b,c,d
 * etc.

G.A. should be our minimum standard
I'm bad at explaining so I might break into analogies or song and dance.. who knows. But I wanted to share an idea that I have which I think could potentially do major things to improve our efforts and hopefully participation as well. With so many people working on 1 article, I feel like it's not really that unreasonable to expect that every article we work on as a group should be able to achieve at least good article status by the end of the week. I mean, we've got a lot of editing power behind us.. We just need to organize and utilize those efforts better.

It would look sorta like this: ................Week1....Week2......Week3.........Week4...........Week5 Research.|-- Steak -- Airport -- Architecture--AmericaHotel Clean..... |--Steak-Airport--Architecture---America-- Polish......|---Steak-AirportArchitecture--

We've already got plenty of participation I think but ultimately, we should always strive to get more people involved as well because it only exponentially greaters the power of the group. Here are the potential issues I see which could affect that to start off with..


 * Like mentioned, people lose interest because of the timeframe.
 * On the other side of that, if articles were focused on for less than a week, some people might completely miss the opportunity to participate if they do not have time until later in the week. For example, I know myself sometimes I am around during the week, sometimes not, sometimes I don't have time until late in the week or weekend.)
 * Not sure on how to phrase this one.. but I suppose.. for the less aggressive editors, it could be easy for someone to feel like they're not useful or intimidated if they make a few edits, and they see other editors making huge numbers of edits.
 * On that point, its reasonable to assume that people working together in a group likely hope to be recognized for being a part of the group and for their contributions but it could be hard to notice the valuable contributions of one editor of their work is overshadowed simply by the mere volume of another editors contributions.

With these potential issues in mind, here's my idea for resolving them and for organizing efforts more affectively.

I've been trying to be somewhat aware of how articles progress and I was thinking it's pretty clear, at least for some, to tell what people tend to gravitate to in editing, and what people are good at, or at least seem to enjoy the most. Some people make a lot of copy edits and fixes, some always add images, myself for example I tend to spend most of my time adding new content and improving existing references as I go but my big thing is the new content.. I was thinking it could be more effective if people amongst the group identified what they enjoy doing and are good at and then build teams within the group to bang out articles in structured team format. Currently it's just kinda like all hands, go for it.. do whatever.. not a lot of direction.

Say we had 3 teams: 1 team of people who really know the Wiki guidelines and want to make sure the articles are shiny and clean. And a second team that wants to focus most of their attention on filling out any areas of the article that are lacking with new content and quality references. And we have one last third team of people who are really the core members who know Wikipedia really well who want to see the article all the way thru and get articles featured as the best articles on Wikipedia. Cleaners. Researchers. Polishers. Work with the team on that weeks goal, work on all 3 teams or 2 teams or just 1 of the teams if you want.. we have a don't ask don't tell hankypanky policy related to inter-team mingling. Finn don't look at me like that it makes me uncomfortable.. :p

Each week, each team works on 1 article per week, and the project as a whole works on 3 articles per week. The first week, is pure content. Anyone interested in the subject researchers and throws everything they can at the article to fill it out. Forget about making sure it's all error free and whatnot.. that comes later.. Just fill it out with everything you can find. At the end of the week, that team moves on to a new article and the Cleaner crew comes in and cleans up the mess, adds images, makes sure everything is in the right spot and pick out the irrelevant additions, etc.. All the info is there now so they just take the clay and mold it in to shape. The researcher team just finished their second article and the second week is over so cleaners move on to the second article, researchers to the 3rd. The 3rd team (the polishing team) steps in on the 1st article and as the most skilled members are amongst the polish team, they make sure to resolve any last issues that cleaners missed and ideally as soon as the polish team gets it, it's ready to be peer reviewed so that 3rd team gets the article reviewed, resolved and on it's way to being a GA or FA nomination.

3 teams, 3 weeks, 1 article. David Condrey (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there are some really good ideas in here, particularly about how GA is a good (and achievable) target to shoot for. The one week time frame is perhaps a bit unrealistic, for some of these reasons you point out. An editor that has a busy week might miss out on working on an article they are really interested in. Furthermore, while we are all very talented editors, we certainly have different strengths when it comes to article improvement.
 * I like the idea of teamwork, and I can see some of that being realized with the work going on at Today's articles for improvement/Further collaboration. Although, I have noticed that (currently) there is a much smaller number of editors working on articles past the 1 week mark. The difficulty of formalizing things by having teams is that it is less spontaneous and more like work. For example, editors that consider themselves to be part of team 3 might feel like team 2 didn't 'get their job done' by the time the third week comes around.
 * There is definitely an underlying issue of direction, and how we can give more on weekly collaborations. Perhaps we can use the article talk pages more frequently? I really felt like Steak turned out well, despite a shaky start, and it was the talk page discussion that really go the direction going. I myself don't really put an upcoming article on my watchlist until it is the week of the collaboration, maybe we should encourage 'early collaboration' or brainstorming in advance? -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 20:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well the day after I wrote this big proposal.. I just got into a pretty severe motorcycle accident yesterday morning on the I-10 headed out to work. Luckily walked away from it with just a broken collarbone.  But also got a nice case of roadrash that feels fabulous (does wonders for exfoliating) :)  I've only got the use of 1 arm at the moment so probably won't be seeing much of me for the next couple of weeks while I recover. David Condrey (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * There are some excellent ideas there, true TAFI gems. It's obvious that freedom and spontaneity is what makes TAFI easy to join and stay with (I informally 'joined' by doing something as simple as adding a disambiguation needed tag at National Library of China - I had no idea at what 'stage' the editing process was at that moment). That freedom needs to be maintained. But it causes some problems as well: many times I've gone after a typo only to see that someone else had already fixed something else you now we're in edit conflict. David Condrey probably remembers how some of my rather polishing touch prevented him from implementing a research edit at Raven tales - in the same article Nick Penguin and I nominated a merge at exactly the same time. We either need roles, or near real-time coordination  or a bit of both (There used to be Spotlight, in essence a TAFI with IRC. I've also used To do lists with good results. Communication is something we need to look into). It makes better articles if we don't exhaust ourselves over polishing something that is about to be revamped, moved around, (even deleted), so that it needs to be readjusted all the time. Then, there are obvious stages we need to have: A general idea of the scope and format of the article need to be established first, alongside with any big mergers or splits. Any citation needed tag should be dealt with at first sight. I hate to see our articles getting C because we didn't cite something that was already tagged in 2009. Similarly someone should see that the lead section is updated to suit the latest revision at the end of the week(s). Too soon is too soon, and too late is too late. Finally, by nominating TAFI articles after the week for DYK or GA/FA, I've seen how I return to them to really give them finishing touches. Maybe by regularly nominating articles we could give them a few weeks of extra attention. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 05:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

???
What happened to the article "Dishwashing liquid"? This article was approved for the holding area yet I do not see it in the holding area. What is going on?

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 23:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Ages ago we had a bot that did everything, but for the past year or thereabouts, successful nominations have had to be added manually to the holding area. I usually try to do it within 24 hours of archiving from the nominations page (depending on when archiving happens, and when I'm awake and on Wikipedia). - Evad37 &#91;talk] 00:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I should come up with another bot proposal, the amount of manual editing that gets done to support this project (particularly by Evad37) is mind boggling. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 05:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Choose the TAFI article for Week 48 of 2014
Results:
 * Lunch box - 3
 * Bird of prey - 13
 * Craft - 1
 * For Dummies - 1
 * Body memory - 5
 * Tourism in the Caribbean - 16 - will be scheduled
 * Concert - 5
 * Arab cuisine - 12
 * Subatomic particle - 7
 * Adventure - 9

Result was Tourism in the Caribbean, thanks everyone. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 06:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Life sciences
I just thought I should notify interested members of TAFI that some pretty drastic changes have occured over at Life sciences. Tomásdearg92 (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It's been massively reduced in content (by about 40 kb), and turned into basically a simple list at List of life sciences. Perhaps there is scope for a prose article as well, instead of the redirect, salvaging the content from an earlier revision and restructuring to be more like Social science? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:25, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I have nominated List of life sciences for TAFI improvement at Nominations – Natural sciences. NorthAmerica1000 02:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Week 41 recap - Steak
This article started with just a brief introduction of what a steak is, followed by a list of different types of beef steaks. AT the end we had an article that could easily be nominated for a GA. We created new sections on Etymology, Production, Marketing and sales, Cooking, Dining, Cultural significance, as well as sections on Beef steak, Fish steak, Lamb steak, Pork steak and Vegetarian steak. The article started at 8kb and 36kb, with almost none of the original content remaining. We also went from 4 to 24 images, and 3 citations to 53 citations.

Thanks to everyone involved, including, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Week 42 recap - Central America
Central America started with a pretty good overview of the region and the people who inhabit it. It began with sections on History, Geography, Demographics, Politics, Infrastructure and Usage. After 7 days, we had improved those sections, as well as added new ones on, Climate, Waterways, Geology, Environment, Biodiversity, Ethnic and Religious groups, Economy, Education, Culture, and Mass media. The article started at 37kb and jumped up to 60kb, starting with 27 citations going up to 50, as well as 10 new images.

Thanks to everyone involved, including, , , , , , ,. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Week 43 recap - Ice hotel
This article began with just a list of 5 countries and the ice hotels that they have. After a week, the article had developed to have subsection for each country for the individual hotels, as well as an Overview and Construction section. The article started with 3 images, finishing with 13, as well as increasing from 5 to 27 citations and going from 10kb to 29kb.

Thanks to everyone involved, including, , , , , ,. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

International airport
Why isn't International airport listed at WP:TAFIFC. It has been GA nominated. -  NickGibson3900 Talk 02:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry! We'll wait till the review gets started then list it on the page. ///Euro Car  GT  03:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, with my recent accident + a bunch of other stuff ( I just moved & am starting a new job which is a huge bump for me :) ) I can't guarantee I'll be very attentive.. at least not till I've settled into my new job. Would anyone mind taking over the nom. for me while I'm preoccupied?  Thx.  David Condrey   log talk  08:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * While I don't feel comfortable doing the nomination myself, I would certainly love to be a part of the finishing touches on this article. I also feel like we could nominate Steak for GA and Animatronics for FA or GA. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 14:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and nominated it, I feel it meets GAC, specially the wide-coverage and use of media/texts. Its also an high importance article for WP:FOOD. ///Euro Car  GT  04:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Choose the TAFI article for Week 49 of 2014
Results:


 * Jade Emperor - 2
 * Aries (astrology) - 4
 * Mexico–United States border - 15 - will be scheduled
 * Taboo - 6
 * Keyboard instrument - 8
 * Third Punic War - 2
 * Venn diagram - 2
 * Kebab - 5
 * Personal finance - 10
 * Deity - 6

Result was Mexico–United States border, thanks everyone. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 06:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Week 44 recap - National park
This week's collaboration focused on National park. Improvements were generally focused on expanding general coverage of this topic, and involved expansions of the lede and Definition section, as well as the creation of Economic ramifications sections. Images were also rearranged, with some going into a gallery at the bottom of the article. This week's collaboration also helped identify future expansion possibilities, with placeholder sections for Biodiversity, Largest national parks and Legal framework, as well as identifying potential improvements to the North American-centric history section. Overall, both total and length increased by about 40%, with the article starting at 20kb and finishing at 28.6kb, and references increasing from 19 to 35.

Many thanks to, , , , , , , , , and. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 19:18, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Archiving articles with 3 or less points
Now that the 4 week experiment of archiving articles with only 3 points or less, I wanted to start a discussion on how that worked, take a look at the articles that were identified, and see if there are any common threads that might help us guide our process in the future. For reference, the articles collected in this manner were:


 * The arts
 * Geography of Madagascar
 * Shell money
 * Yom Ha'atzmaut
 * The Return of the King
 * Barry White
 * Second language
 * National stereotypes
 * Charles Rogier
 * Hammond Typewriter
 * Radio frequency

So out of 40 articles that got nominated, 11 received less than 3 points, which is slightly over 25%. Of them, only 2 are assessed above start class (Return of the King at B and Second Language at C). None of them are much longer than 25kb, and more than half of them have some sort of cleanup tag.

Looking at the topics, I don't really find much of a common theme, so I don't really have any general conclusions to draw myself. I am really interested to see what everyone things about the whole idea, and if it is a permanent change we should implement. Keep in mind that none of these articles would be officially archived unless it is agreed among our participants that it is for the best, and archiving would also not prevent any or all of these articles from being renominated. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 22:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * For starters, I tend to withdraw from the notion of any type of "permanent change", because sometimes things need to be later modified based upon varying user input to the project that may occur in the future, fluctuation of nominations on the nomination page, fluctuation on actual article improvements, etc. However, this is not a criticism, just an opinion. NorthAmerica1000 23:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point, and I use the term "permanent" in a loose manner. Really, I meant more "accepted change". I subscribe to the Heraclitian idea of permanence. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 23:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, much appreciated. NorthAmerica1000 00:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Since there have been no objections to this change it two weeks, then we will archive these items and use the 3 points or less system going forward. Any items that received 3 points or less since the close of the trial will also be archived. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 05:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Choose the TAFI article for Week 50 of 2014
Results:
 * Game design - 22 - will be scheduled
 * Dessert - 20
 * Monument Valley - 7
 * Culture hero - 1
 * Divine law - 0
 * Imhotep - 4
 * Guacamole - 10
 * WordPress - 5
 * Monkey - 8
 * Albert Einstein in popular culture - 0

Result was Game design, thanks everyone. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 07:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

MIssing topic
This article is missing a topic area marked "Medical Science". I would like to nominate Intraoral dental sinus.

Intraoral dental sinus

 * Otherwise known as a gumboil. This article is just horrible! There is a very lack of knowledge of dental health and dermatology health . Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI: GA In progress
The GA review of International Airport has begun if anyone would like to participate. David Condrey  log talk  10:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

HELP!!!
Please update the table of "accomplishments"! It is so out-of-date. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Choose the TAFI article for Week 51 of 2014
Results:


 * Biting - 6
 * Parse tree - 1 - will be archived
 * HTTP 403 - 16
 * Monument Valley - 1 - will be archived
 * Elbe - 3 - will be archived
 * Novelty architecture - 3 - will be archived
 * Berry - 10
 * Venice International Film Festival - 5
 * Traditional medicine - 12
 * Spaghetti - 17 - will be scheduled

Result was spaghetti, thanks everyone. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 07:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Week 46 recap - Everyday life
This week chose to be a particular challenging article to improve, despite all editors having a great deal of experience with the subject matter. There was some discussion on the talk page about what direction to take the article in, and it generated some fruitful content. The article started as just 4 paragraphs, but it began to get some structure. It now has a fairly well developed lede, and 5 sections (Sociological perspectives, Media consumption, Language, Healthcare, and Active society and everyday life of the unemployed). Additionally the article doubled in length from 5kb to 10kb, went from 6 to 13 citation, as well as gaining an additional image.

Thanks to everyone involved including

-- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Week 45 recap - Pizza
Week 45's article pizza was actually delayed from its initial schedule, because of a conflict involve a university class project. That's said, there were a lot of idea and improvements that were integrated over the last month to improve total article quality.

Some of the improvements during our weekly drive included an expanded lede, an expanded preparation section, and a section on National Pizza Month, as well as 4 new images, and the creation of the Pizza template. Overall length increased from 26kb to 30kb, and went from 45 to 53 citations. Other improvements that occurred as a result of the university class involved the addition of the Etymology section from another article, selective removal of content from the Varieties section to make it more balanced, and other general improvements.

Thanks to everyone involved, including

-- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Java Man GA nom
The GA nom for Java Man is still pending, and is quite close to being failed because of some outstanding issues. There are a number of items that could be worked on, if anyone has time. Please see the GA review. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 05:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

No effort goes unnoticed
I'd like to recognize the efforts of, , , , , , , , , , , , , , and. Through the collaboration of these members, we were able to improve the quality of International Airport from what was once little more than a single section unfinished article with a handful of images; to what is now a full fledge Good Article of Wikipedia and has subsequently been nominated to become one of Wikipedia's few Featured Articles. David Condrey  log talk  08:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This article really turned out good, and everyone's contributions made a difference. I'm glad that we have some high quality articles that we can show as proof that this kind of collaboration works. Great stuff everyone! -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 05:07, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A great collaboration! Congratulations to each and every contributor! Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 13:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome job, all! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

TEST PING
GiantSnowman 18:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Did that work for anyone? if not we should raise at WP:VPT. GiantSnowman 18:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It didn't work for me. But maybe you are putting too many usernames in one "ping" ? At least previously there was an upper limit. Iselilja (talk) 18:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It didn't work for me either. The ping list worked in the past, and I had recently removed a bunch of names from it recently. This should probably go to VPT. Although it is nice knowing that we still get good voting participation even if no one receives a ping. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 18:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope still no ping here either, Stupid notification system . – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  19:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Test 2
–Added ampersands to the ping list for each user name. NorthAmerica1000 07:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Didn't work, but it was worth a try. NorthAmerica1000 07:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Below is another try using the reply to template for user names. Just adding a few names to test. NorthAmerica1000 07:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I got that one. GiantSnowman 10:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So at least we know that using reply to can work. NorthAmerica1000 11:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

According to this, the max limit was reduced from 100 to 20 in October :( - Evad37 &#91;talk] 10:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm working on a solution, but the pinging will have to be done in two edits - Evad37 &#91;talk] 11:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * New usage is now:– 1st edit:  ; 2nd edit: 2nd edit:  . The second edit must be seen by the software as an addition of new content, not just a change to the existing content.

And just to test it: - Evad37 &#91;talk] 11:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC) - Evad37 &#91;talk] 11:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I received a notification after ping list 1 was posted above! NorthAmerica1000 11:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * yep, it also worked for me. GiantSnowman 12:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep both both worked for me this time :) – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  14:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * That worked for me too. Great detective work Evad. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 17:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Pong! Kyle(talk) 17:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * "Hello. Thanking you for pinging. There's no one here to answer your ping so please leave a message after the beep".--Mark Miller (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Evad37! It worked. --Melody Lavender 19:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure of what's going on, but the Ping worked! Tomásdearg92 (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have left a message on 's talk page, as well as pinging him here as an ironic gesture. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I was pinged by Evad37. Finnusertop (talk &#124; guestbook &#124; contribs) 15:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I got pinged by Evad37 and it worked. EMachine03 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Choose the TAFI article for Week 52 of 2014
Results:


 * Induction loop - 1 - will be archived
 * Visionary art - 0 - will be archived
 * Largest cities in Asia - 2 - will be archived
 * Berry - 12
 * Body memory - 5
 * Party - 9
 * Webby Award - 0 - will be archived
 * Keyboard instrument - 7
 * Natural phenomenon - 19 - will be scheduled
 * Illuminati - 11

Result was Natural phenomenon, thanks everyone. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 20:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Steak GA nom
The GA nom for Steak is beginning, with essentially just a few minor copy edits to allow it to pass. Anyone interested in helping out, please see the outstanding issues at Talk:Steak/GA1. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 22:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The article has now passed the review, thanks to everyone involved! Big recognition goes to, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,  and , for you contributions. As stated at Wikipedia_talk:Today%27s_articles_for_improvement/Archive_13, this article started as a brief, basic article to an all new, revamped article with plenty of information, sections, references and illustrations. Regards,  ///Euro Car  GT  02:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Great job everyone! We really have done some great work in the last 6 months. I am really looking forward to seeing how the GAN for Java Man and Animatronics turn out. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 07:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Week 47 - Military technology
This article began essentially as a lede paragraph, with 4 short lists rounding out the article. Over the course of the collaboration, there was some discussion about the History section, and the scope of the article. Major improvements include an incredible History section, a Modern Technology and Future Technology sections, as well as some expansion of the lists with Fortifications and Communications.

This article is about such a broad subject, it continues to have the potential for a great deal of future improvement. Further improvements may include sharing content with History of military technology, a B class article that could be used to support this article. That article is focused mostly on technology after WW1, and Military technology has a lot of ancient and post-classical technology. A synthesis of the two articles would result in improvements to both.

Overall the article went from 0 to 12 citations, 11 of which are in the History section, the addition of 5 images, and the increase of article size from 4kb to 21kb.

Thanks to everyone involved, including. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 08:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

New numbers picked
Here are the numbers of the articles I have picked. Guess the articles I have picked for Week 2 2015.

38, 39, 84, 333, 176, 275, 111, 89, 47, 98

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you are jumping the gun with picking the numbers. If you want to participate in this manner, you will have to do it at the proper time, which is on Saturday after 00:00 UTC. Not prior to. Beginning a new vote prior to the old vote finishing creates confusion, and distracts from the organized process we have in place. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 07:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I was just too excited. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 08:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that my time system is different to Wikipedia's set system and so I may send the article picking earlier or later than expected (but today's was way too early). Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 08:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wake up! It's 10:01am (New Zealand time)! Time to start uncollapsing the title thing Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're still early... 23:59 Saturday UTC = 12:59 pm Sunday in New Zealand (UTC+13). Or if you want a UTC clock at the top-right of the page, try Special:Preferences → Go to Appearance section → Tick the box next to "Add a clock in the personal toolbar that displays the current time in UTC..." → Click Save button at the bottom of the page. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I mistyped earlier, the time the new vote starts is at the end of Saturday, like Evad says. I have the UTC clock enabled, it is really handy. You can also infer the time by looking at your watchlist, which lists times in UTC. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 02:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Choose the TAFI article for Week 1 of 2015
Results below. Thanks everyone who voted. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 07:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Tourism in the Caribbean assessment
I have marked Tourism in the Caribbean. Do you agree with my marking? You can always check. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems alright. As long as you give fair and objective assessments when completing the B-class criteria checklist, based on the criteria and FAQ, then the end result should be a reasonable assessment - Evad37 &#91;talk] 06:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Main page proposal
I have been working on a proposal to return TAFI to the Main Page. I have tried to introduce many of the ideas that we have been kicking around on this page as part of the proposal, but I would like to get some larger input. I have transcluded that page here in a separate subsection. The proposal can be viewed/edited here. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Main Page box
This is the latest version of the proposed full-width main page box (the inside is the same code currently used on the WP:TAFI page) - Evad37 &#91;talk] 04:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Comments (main page proposal)
I added some info about the Further collaboration page. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 18:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we actually want to wait until we have bots going? Because that could be years away, given the lack of interest from bot maintainers - Evad37 &#91;talk] 03:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, while useful, bots seem unlikely at this point. If the main page proposal gets some positive feedback then perhaps some interested bot operators might show up. I believe that's how Theo got interested last time, actually. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason Tuesday was chosen? To balance things out, I would have suggested Wed/Thu/Fri. -- Ypnypn (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For calendar each day, there is generally new content in every box on the main page, with ITN being updated kind of whenever, but usually daily. Changing TAFI to a full width box on the main page would likely mean that it is only featured once a week because it only updates once a week. And because WP:TFL runs on Mondays, Tuesdays seemed like the next logical choice. Still early in the weekly cycle, and it would give regular participants 24 hours to come up with some structure/improvement ideas for the article. But it's not set in stone, clearly. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 05:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I have updated and rewrote most of the proposal, it feels like it is going in the right direction. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 06:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

1. Given the current format, the project's page probably should be moved back to Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement. 2. I object to the "overly ambitious expectations" claim. To be blunt, the trial's outcome failed to meet even the lowest of reasonable expectations. (I say "reasonable" because some persons expressed satisfaction that "articles were being improved", despite the fact that almost all of the tiny number of edits were performed by this project's members.) To be clear, the above isn't commentary on why the endeavor failed (for which I don't mean to assign blame). 3. TFL expanded to twice per week (Monday and Friday) in February of this year. That has no direct impact on the above idea, but the description should be corrected. (And I'll note that Tuesday seems like a sensible choice, given that Wednesday has been mentioned as a possible third day for TFL.) 4. Most importantly, for this proposal to be viable, it must incorporate information about the project's user recruitment rate and specific efforts to guide new participants through the editing process. As I've noted previously, unless such an infrastructure exists, the project simply isn't prepared to function as intended (assuming that it's capable of attracting editors in the first place). The existence of article improvements only demonstrates organization/cooperation among existing members (i.e. a normal WikiProject, not a reader-facing collaboration). —David Levy 05:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) If the collaboration continues in this format, then we should change the project name, and page names. We have kept it plural incase we decided to expand to more than one (likely 2) articles per week, a discussion that has come up more than once. But seeing as there has been no concrete decision in that direction, it would probably be better to change the name to singular.
 * 2) I made no intentions of characterizing why the trial's outcome was failure. Truthfully I just didn't want the proposal to become a wall of text where I rehashed every event that occurred, but it may appear that I skimmed over it. I can remove that text, but the heart of truth is that there were expectations that were not met, and for many the expectations were different. At the very least, the measurement for success was not made explicit, but whatever it was, the trial certainly did not meet any reasonable measurements.
 * 3) I will adjust the wording on this.
 * 4) The question of recruitment, guidance and retention are an important one. This would be an avenue that we would need to expand our level of support on before we would be able to move a realistic proposal forward. Perhaps we should try to partner with the Teahouse and see if we can promote editors to come participate in our collaborations? Maybe we could try to tailor welcome messages to encourage editing participation with the project? -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 18:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Choose the TAFI article for Week 2 of 2015
Results:


 * Hero - 7
 * Pecan Pie - 6
 * Donkey (Shrek) - 0 - will be archived
 * Dishwashing liquid - 14 - will be scheduled
 * Folklore - 2 - will be archived
 * Deep frying - 10
 * Century - 0 - will be archived
 * Mansion - 1 - will be archived
 * Gulf of Alaska - 6
 * Mountain pass - 8

Result was Dishwashing liquid, thanks everyone. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 07:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments (2015 week 2)

 * I am registering a protest vote regarding User:Qwertyxp2000's behaviour. For the second time in as many weeks, despite friendly encouragement from other users here, the process has not been correctly followed, most explicitly in starting the process ahead of schedule. Of further concern is:
 * the selection of their in the "randomly chosen" articles
 * the fact that an unregistered account from the same locale as where this user claims to be based, is supporting the same picks - even in the nominations page     - while apparently not being here to build an encyclopaedia - see absence of edits elsewhere
 * Do this week without me. C679 15:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to say how to make sure that the picking of numbers is fair. Do you want to pick the articles for the following weeks? I feel bored of this. Anyway, try the "picking numbers" method but improve the fairness such as using a dice or something. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's all the same to Qwertyxp2000 and everyone else, I can just continue to generate the weekly votes myself. I use a random number generator and it hasn't seemed to pose any difficulties in the past. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 04:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't mean this in a horrible way but with Q2000 doing everything it just became confusing, I personally prefer it when it's either Nick or Evad doing it as it wasn't confusing and it just felt more normal, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  05:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I will help TAFI but I will stop my picking in the talk page. I will nominate some articles and vote on some though. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Have you found some good software that randomly selects numbers? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to ask, the job is being done fine again.SovalValtos (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've found a software that does this. This one. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:38, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * My numbers say 211, 212, 43, 123, 57, 344, 261, 31, 251, 207. Whatever article fits in any of the numbers from Monday 8th December 2014 Monday 15th December 2014. For example, if on Monday 8th Monday 15th December 2014, number 123 is picked with the article Ukrainian wine on that number, that article will be picked. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Weren't you going to let Nick set up the weekly votes? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 05:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh well, he do this week, my numbers for next week. Agree? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 07:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You set up the nominations page for this week. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 07:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Not agreed Qwertyxp2000 that you should be doing any picking other than for your own amusement, unless consensus changes. Perhaps you could do your own thing alongside the picker chosen by consensus, and report back your conclusions in a year or so?SovalValtos (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Why would you care which numbers end up being used? Pushing for particular numbers would only seem to reinforce the notion that you may be trying to subvert the process by making sure your favoured articles are included in the vote - Evad37 &#91;talk] 07:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello. This time I did it without bias. Did this once and once only. I promise. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your promise that you did it without bias. All the same the, consensus seems to be, that you do not do it at all, other for your own amusement, alongside the real procedure. So thank you for your further avowal of once only. Best wishes, whatever else you may choose to do in the future.SovalValtos (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I archived the other unsuccessful ones. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Week 48 recap - Tourism in the Caribbean
This article began as two main sections, a History and a Downside section, with 10 references from two main sources. As the week progressed, the Downside section was integrated in a more neutral manner, as well as the creation of new sections such as Economy, Attractions, Tourists and Cultural impacts. Total citations almost tripled, from 10 to 28, and length increased from 10.5kb to 16kb, as well as adding 7 new images, and the removal of all maintenance tags.

Many thanks to everyone involved, including. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 06:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Week 49 recap - Mexico–United States border
This article was in a developed state when it came across our project, it had solid structure, good references, and many high quality images. This weeks collaboration focused more on incremental changes, and a great deal of effort was spent improving references for style and data. Improvements to the lede, Border regions, Disagreements over need for more resources, as well as a new name for the Mexico-United States barrier section rounded out some of the more visual improvements. Rearrangement of images also improved presentation in the article, as well as 3 additional references, and a slight increase in total length from 46kb to 47kb.

Thanks to everyone involved, including. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 06:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Although I am not part of this WikiProject, I would like to thank everyone who helped improve this article. It received a lot of attention during the 2007 immigration debate, and it's good to see it brought up to speed for today's editing style and quality.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2014 (UTC)