Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement/Archive 19

Another suggestion for MusikBot
I think MusikBot should remove the articles that have already been selected in the schedule. If an article has been scheduled multiple times, the bot could look at all the dates later than the second-to-latest time of an article's scheduling. Feel free to give some more ideas and response. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 07:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A few minutes later, I was also thinking about that moving the successfully nominated articles to the Articles for Improvement. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 07:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If we remove those articles that has appeared at TAFI, then all articles at the list that has ever appeared at TAFI should be removed and move to wherever you decide. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * pinging Schedule entries are presently archived here. The process appears to be manually performed at this time. North America1000 23:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, that can be added to the weekly task, no problem. I am going to clean up that page to make it more easily parsable by the bot. I'm not really sure what you mean with your first point. Moving successfully nominated articles to WP:AFI will be covered by the daily task, which I am still working on but should be ready soon &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  16:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm... If an article is scheduled then remove any articles that are already in the Articles for Improvement. e.g. the Potato article is scheduled. Then the Potato article gets removed from the Articles for Improvement. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 19:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep! The bot should do this moving forward, as with . I see you removed Princess Leia, which predates the bot task so I guess no one had manually removed it. Once the so-called TAFIDaily bot task is up and running, you should not need to update the list of articles for improvement at all. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  19:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

(I wish to remind everyone that MusikAnimal is a human being who has volunteered their time to help us, and not a bot-monkey, so please remember to make suggestions not demands. I'm not saying that's what happened in this particular thread, but I can see it potentially happening moving forward and I think it would be a great disservice to Musik. :) )--Coin945 (talk) 02:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind words :) It is quite alright, for some reason I actually enjoy programming. This project is particularly rewarding because there's so much painstaking manual effort put into it that I get to automate for everyone. That allows us to focus on the articles themselves, and not worry about all the housekeeping. Once all the bot work is done I'll be out helping with the articles too, and I very much look forward to it! &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  03:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for sounding so demanding, Coin945. Maybe I needed to reword myself first before sending anything that I send. :3 Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Qwerty, you were completely fine in this conversation. While reading this thread, I just had an uncomfortable flashforward to a dystopian future. Haha I'm probably overthinking things, but if I volunteered and over time started to see my role become like a servant rather than a contributor, I'd be annoyed, offended, and probably leave. So I decided to preemptively strike just in case. Glad we're all on the same page. :D--Coin945 (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 53 of 2015
The selection for week 53 (starting 28 December 2015) is Person of the Year.

Discussion (week 53)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

The TAFI article for Week 1 of 2016
The selection for week 1 (starting 04 January 2016) is Monarchies in Africa.

Discussion (week 1)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

TAFIDaily bot task
I think I have the daily task complete. Here's what it entails:
 * Checking the nominations page for approved/unapproved entries. Despite the task's name, this will happen twice a day, or whatever we decide on.
 * Add approved entries to Articles for improvement/List. A subpage is more favourable here to make things easier for the bot and also you can transclude the list anywhere you want.
 * Archive the discussion of approved/unapproved entries to Today's articles for improvement/Nominations/Archives/YEAR/MONTH (where YEAR and MONTH are the current year/month). Archiving under the normal system archiving bots use isn't very straightforward to implement, and I think organizing the archives chronologically will make it easier for referencing.
 * Rotate the list of nominations once a day. This includes rotating the level 2 headings, and the level 3 headings within them.

Additionally, archiving only happens N number of hours after the last comment was made, as specified by User:MusikBot/TAFIDaily/config.js. This is how normal archiving works, as it gives people time to observe the result of the discussion before it is archived. To clarify, approved entries are still added to the AFI list as soon as the bot parses the page, they just aren't necessarily archived yet.

How does this sound? Am I missing anything? If we're all OK with this I'll file a BRFA &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  06:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I Support that. Sounds good.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * any insight? &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  17:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I need some rough consensus here before I can file a BRFA. The code is ready :) &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  19:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Sounds great, and truly appreciated. North America1000 01:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support – Great work, and thanks for all your help! Ry's the Guy  (talk&#124;contribs) 07:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Especially the month-based nomination archive. P.S. I have added the bolding. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 07:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

. Thank you all. Going to add in a few more ideas:
 * Automatically comment that a nomination is a duplicate if is already listed at Articles for improvement
 * Automatically add the article class assessment if it was not added by the nominator
 * Once the new Pageview API is deployed, the bot could check and add page views if they are not added by the nominator

All but the last one I can implement now. If you have anymore ideas feel free to let me know. Best &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  17:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Wait, the "already there" bit should be "unapproved There is already an article in the Articles for Improvement.". Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 22:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've amended the bullet above! :) A simple comment will be better &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  22:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "It looks like there is already an article in the Articles for Improvement. Please have a check." or something better. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - oh, you said all Level 2 and Level 3's. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 21:07, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Commencement
Alrighty, the TAFIDaily bot task is ✅ running, under a trial period for up to two or three weeks, however long it takes to show it won't mess up. It is set to run at 04:35 (UTC) and 16:35 (UTC) daily. I've tested it thoroughly on testwiki, but as always it's impossible to predict what will happen in production, so let me know if you see anything funky! If the bot messed up you are safe to revert it – it won't attempt again until the next job 12 hours later. Errors are logged at User:MusikBot/TAFIDaily/Error log but probably won't say anything useful to a non-developer. Best &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  21:57, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * (and everyone else), two additions I've noticed we need, correct me if I'm wrong:
 * Add empty section to any empty sections on the nomination board. The bot has been removing them as it is hard programmed to structure sections in a certain way, which is necessary to maintain consistency and ensure they are parsable
 * Archive any nominations as unapproved that have had no discussion in over 21 days
 * Anything else? &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  02:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Support both. It will be nice to not have to manually add empty section templates as I and others have performed, and automatic archiving for unapproved entries would be a great bonus. Unless I'm missing something, all other entries are presently archived by ClueBot III, so it makes sense for dated entries that are neither approved or unapproved after 21 days to also be auto-archived. North America1000 22:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, ClueBot is no more! It would potentially conflict with MusikBot's processing so I implemented my own archiving. It appears be working as intended, although I want to improve that edit summary to indicate how many were approved/denied and where it is archiving to. I've also updated the bot to add empty section , so should be good there.Finally, your input is encouraged at the TAFIWeekly BRFA. It was a rough 4 weeks, but this past Sunday went almost perfectly. Many of you may not have even noticed the errors of past weeks, as they were quickly fixed. &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  23:16, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also if you don't mind, please allow the bot to add to the nominations list. I saw you did that here. The bot will do this automatically and will also make sure the article classification is included &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  01:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You got it. Wow, this is really coming along. Do users still need to add the Approved / Unapproved templates to entries at the nominations page? (I'm guessing yes). Also, if you could update the project automation page about use/non use of the templates, it would help out (I wasn't sure about how your crazy bot works). North America1000 05:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the Rotate nomination page sections and add Empty section template functions to the automation page. North America1000 05:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The bot does not add approved or unapproved to nomination discussions. It can, going by the instructions outlined on the nominations page, but I feel like that sort of thing needs human review. For instance, if we got trolled and some sock was opposing every nomination. Those !votes we would want to discount, and the bot wouldn't know to do so. However it's probably safe to close as unapproved if a nomination discussion is left untouched 21 days, so the bot can do that much. I will update the automation page shortly. Also again, don't misconstrue this as canvassing, but feedback is needed from TAFI members at the TAFIWeekly BRFA to evaluate the bot's performance. Note in particular the step-by-step outline at the bottom, that was what happened this past Monday. Many thanks for your time! &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  16:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, human review is necessary. Agreed with that human review idea because of what you said about the trolling and socks. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 23:21, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well another thing we have to add probably may need to add is the one-off addition of all of the previous weeks' WP:TAFIACCOMP stuff. If I were to finish this all up, it would take months and months for me, which is why I was never bothered further updating as it was way too tedious. I had also called someone, with much hassle, and he only did two weeks of TAFI from that call. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 01:57, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I might could write a script to fill in the data from 2015/23 to 2015/28, but I'll be honest, it's not very high priority. Something I'd like to spend more time on is porting a WP:DYKCHECK script over to a backend service. The bot would use this for our purposes, but it'd just be nice to have an API service for this sort of thing rather than making users manually run the script. I could even automate checking for the DYK project... another potential bot task much further down the road &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  02:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, that was the bit I was talking about. Sorry if I do the incorrect wording. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And also wanting to update all of the weeks missing. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 3 of 2016
The selection for week 3 (starting 18 January 2016) is Chowder.

Discussion (week 3)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

Guidelines needed some cleanup and TLC
I put some TLC in to the Today's articles for improvement/Guidelines template page. I wikilinked the directory by section heading names; harmonized the directory names with the other indexes (some needed expansion); harmonized the casing of the names so they wikilink properly to their respective sections (they needed some downcasing to remove Title Casing to match the section casing); alphabetized the links (they were close to being alphabetized, but not quite); tested the wikilinks.

Now the top of the Today's articles for improvement/Nominations page has clickable section links right at the top of the page so you don't have to scroll down to the nearly redundantly redundant upper Compact ToC. Cheers! PS: I worked on the horizontal ToC too so it does not scroll off in to the netherworld of the right margin. 12:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Language and literature was MIA
, I noticed The Language and literature section disappeared from the nomination board so I put it back. FYI. Ping me back. Cheers! 11:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It took me forever to track it down, but looks like ClueBot removed this back in October! Maybe the "dummy section" wasn't set up properly, not sure. Anyway I don't think MusikBot will do something like this, as we don't need to use dummy sections or the like anymore. I've already added in some safeguards, such as when there are malformed requests . If the bot is unable to parse a section, it just skips it entirely. &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  16:17, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 2 of 2016
The selection for week 2 (starting 11 January 2016) is Deity.

Discussion (week 2)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''


 * Thinking this image beside. It is the main image in that article. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 21:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 4 of 2016
The selection for week 4 (starting 25 January 2016) is Izakaya.

Discussion (week 4)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

Take the lead!

 * Who wants to improve GarageBand? Just a suggested article to improve. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 00:16, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 5 of 2016
The selection for week 5 (starting 01 February 2016) is Animal killing.

Discussion (week 5)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

The TAFI article for Week 6 of 2016
The selection for week 6 (starting 08 February 2016) is Delivery (commerce).

Discussion (week 6)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

DYK discovery
I have discovered that DYK tool that I was all confused about before. That prose checker that I was wanting for a long while. Finally I can start finishing that WP:TAFIACCOMP. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 08:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have attempted one article with this DYK thing on Hors d'oeuvre. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 08:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that! I have good news... I believe I found a way to automate this! Implementation was actually surprisingly easy... I will get back to you soon. Just thought I'd let you know so you don't spend a ton of time doing it manually :) &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  21:40, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Where do I find this tool? I'd like to test it out :). Ana r chyte  12:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * See that circled part in the picture? That's just where it is. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 21:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's what I see: https://gyazo.com/7267281b0f064b65f34af3b12efc1c30 . There's no DYK Tool. I've checked the gadget preferences and it's not there, do I need to install something? Ana r chyte  00:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I just look for a revision and click that "DYK tool" button and it will just show the number of prose bytes. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

, You have to install the User:Shubinator/DYKcheck User JavaScript which is really easy into your Special:MyPage/common.js file (or the skin.js file of your choice) but that is all moot if MusikAnimal is going to set us up. Cheers! 12:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The bot is now reporting prose changes, but I did not attempt to update the older accomplishments. Looks like weeks 34 through 47 of the year 2015 are missing entirely. I can try to write a script to do this, but no promises. As for the DYK checks itself, if it helps at all, the API MusikBot uses is formulated like:https://tools.wmflabs.org/musikanimal/api/article_analysis?page=Google&revision=698746210where revision is optional. The tool is going especially slow today, not sure why. Cheers &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  16:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hors d'oeuvre

 * Nice work, TAFI participants. North America1000 15:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


 * , Too bad the only way to get a "copy" of the main page for those 12-hours the DYK is up is with a screenshot. Diffs or even permalinks don't cut it. I did capture a permalink to the DYK launching queue and that does show the DYK frame for the home page. Cheers!  12:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a screen shot. I screen shot all my DYKs. I'll upload it.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

--Mark Miller (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Did you know nomination
Template:Did you know nominations/Monarchies in Africa

Welcome to TAFI, User:Class455fan1!
Our newest TAFI member,, is a train, plane, and bus enthusiast. We're glad to have you on board! Please let us know if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.  Bananasoldier  (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much . One question, how do I nominate an article for improvement. I am glad to be part of the project and hope I can help improve articles!


 * Hi : to nominate an article, use the template below. You can also add a find sources parameter using:  :– . North America1000 22:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

(Article title)

 * (Nomination text) ~

The TAFI article for Week 7 of 2016
The selection for week 7 (starting 15 February 2016) is Cold.

Discussion (week 7)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

Discussion at Talk:Izakaya
Hi! There's discussion at the talk page of our current article for improvement. You're encouraged to jump in!  Bananasoldier  (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging ppl: .  Bananasoldier  (talk) 01:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Siberian Sinkhole sinkhole
It looks like the article Siberian sinkholes has been deleted by someone. It seems the creator is a sock of another user, for some reason. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 02:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Idea for Google Doodle TAFI task force
Ahoy there, TAFI! I just wanted to put an idea out there. Looking at Wilbur Scoville, I noticed that whenever Google presents a Google Doodle on a certain person or event, traffic spikes for its respective Wikipedia article. It would be nice to have an organized group of "first responders" who can polish, verify, and expand the article for the general public's viewing as well as fight the wave of vandalism that comes with traffic. I see this as a task force of TAFI rather than as a standalone Wikiproject because it fits well into our project, we already have a strong/active editor base, and "a task force minimizes bureaucratic overhead: It relies on the parent project to provide much of the procedural and technical infrastructure."

Since Google Doodles vary, a task force like this would fit nicely into our generalist coverage of articles. Because the Google Doodles usually last a day, they can be regarded as "mini TAFIs of the day." The high traffic of these articles results in "dense/fast-paced collaboration" (something we here at TAFI do all the time) by editors from around Wikipedia. As a bonus, we can recruit these editors as they show up in the history of the page. Right now, the main way we gain exposure for TAFI is through the community portal. This gives us another outlet for exposure.

Would there be any concerns with calling it "Google Doodle task force" (corporate affiliation)? We wouldn't necessarily have to call it that.

Let me know what you think! Thanks, -- Bananasoldier  (talk) 18:55, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments
Would it be okay to ping a few active TAFI members for their opinions? Best, --  Bananasoldier  (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * A possible template (derived from Template:TAFI, see page history for attribution):

– Esquivalience  t 19:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Editors interested

 * 1)  Bananasoldier  (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) '''Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) Esquivalience  t 19:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 8 of 2016
The selection for week 8 (starting 22 February 2016) is Molecule.

Discussion (week 8)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

Motion to focus only on start class and lower
I have been reviewing our collaborations, and I can see no cases where there was an incredibly successful collaboration that started as a C class article. All the best collaborations start with only a little content and then see huge gains. They gather momentum. They tend to attract more of the "me too" edits, and they are the ones that we put in our hall of fame.

I see the project as a generator of content, rather than a polishing station. We take empty articles and make them full. We do that very well. There are other groups and individuals more suited for the polishing station, these are subject matter experts, rather than our group of generalists.

I am proposing that we remove all, or most, articles in the holding area that are C class or higher. I also think we should remove all articles that are of "substantial" length that are listed as start class or lower. I feel we should focus solely on articles that have little or no content. In doing so, I think we will see more concrete results, and there will be less weeks where there are few edits. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 00:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree with article removal in this manner, because they went through the process of nomination and approval. This type of blanket removal would essentially dishonor the process and !votes that got the articles there. Also, I think the level of input to articles has more to do with a topic's overall appeal and likelihood to interest a variety of editors. For example, a highly technical topic, or an article about one song may have less appeal compared to something such as Chowder, which is a broad topic and has realized significant improvement this week. This type of rule would also unnecessarily limit the project with additional bureaucracy, "you can't nominate that, because it's c-class!" North America1000 06:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For sure I do not want to undermine the process that has been established, but rather to encourage articles that will realistically be improved. I have observed that developed articles generally don't receive many edits, and mostly empty articles turn into wild successes. I think we should turn the focus more to the second, more successful classes of articles. More generally, we have done at least one major cull of articles waiting to be improved.-- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree with lowering the bar. I nominated the B-Class article Linda Ronstadt which is huge but we could have brought her to GA-Class with a weeks worth of slashing-and-burning. Of course, we would have done some polishing too and she would have been a beauty. Unfortunately the 21-day clock ran out just when an editor was poised to throw the 3rd net !Vote. My suggestion is to let the clock run for 30-days, and not limit the article class arbitrarily. Many of the noms are getting down voted for being C-Class or above. The upside is we already have about four years worth of noms in the holding queue. Cheers!  12:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * While the article you note could use some improvements, I would disagree that it would get the attention it deserves from this project. There is just too much content there already. The sorts of people who do great work for this project tend to be information gatherers, rather than incremental improvers. It is a worthwhile collaboration, but I think one better suited for a group of subject matter experts. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support (the notion that larger articles should be avoided - not the part about blanket rules) I have been saying this exact thing since the very beginning - since the first TAFI article which I vehemently disagreed with at the time (Culture). We really don't do very well as a, as NickPenguin put it, "polishing station". The unofficla rule at the moment is C-class or lower, so why not make it Start-class or lower? We have had large articles in the past and it simply doesn't work. People get turned off by the prospect of adding to C-class or higher because suddenly it's not just a case of adding, but they need to make their content fit with what's already there, and any removals (and replacements) of inferior content will likely cause edit wars. A stub or start is sooo much better for group improvement drives. You add and add and add. And that is it.--Coin945 (talk) 16:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of c-class articles out there that are incorrectly rated, that are actually at start. Same goes for b-class that are actually at c-class or even lower. This sort of thing would be all right to me as a suggestion, but as a strict rule, it would likely be detrimental to the project. More bureaucracy and rules = less input and collaboration, per limiting the potential and scope of what the project can cover. Once the element of "you cannot" enters a project, watch how it flounders. At best, start-class or lower should only be a suggestion, rather than a law of the project. North America1000 16:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ohhh yeah of course I don't agree in a blanket rule against C-class articles, due to the incorrect ratings as you said. But I think many people are supporting articles without thinking about the realities of actually editing those larger articles. I hate bureaucracy, but atm I think the people who have the power (to decide which articles are chosen) aren't necessarily the same ones who do the work, and therefore many may not actually see the outcomes of their decisions...--Coin945 (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * For example, see Curing salt, which was previously rated as c-class (diff) but is realistically at start-class. I just reassessed it to start-class (diff). North America1000 16:36, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Bureaucracy is not helpful. However, realistic guidelines are useful. In the example you show, and more generally about inaccurate assessments, for sure there are lots of examples of this. For example, Cocktail is rated as a B class, and I would say it is really closer to the lower end of C class. It is well written and has sources, but the coverage is severely lacking. So even though this one is classes as B, I myself would thinking it might actually benefit from this project. Monkey, a start class article, probably would not. It is not extremely well written, but it seems to cover the subject fairly well. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support only to ones with more than 60,000 bytes - as only C-class articles with fewer than 60,000 bytes can be possibly expanded with good enough detail. Splitting or merging is not easy in a single week. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 20:19, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - Perhaps rather than a wholesale removal or certain classes, I think we should give some real consideration to what "improvement" means for our group, and what characteristics an article should have (or not have) when we consider it. For certainly there have been a number of articles that we thought would be good collaborations, that did not in fact turn out to be good collaborations. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 03:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Part of the situation is that people nominate and !vote for an article, but when it is finally a weekly collaboration, those people don't come back to improve the article. I've noticed this many, many times. Also, some people !vote on the nominations page, but don't contribute to the weekly collaborations. North America1000 06:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh god, !votes. Consensus is weighted votes, so is truthfulness. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 09:21, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * In general on the wiki voting is more popular than action. The underlying assumption being that ones it has been voted on, someone else will appear and actually accomplish the doing. I am curious, since you are by far the largest contributor to the collaborations, what do you consider to be the biggest factor when you decide if you will or will not contribute that week? Maybe we can get some insights from others as well about why they they choose not to. -- Nick  Penguin ( contribs ) 01:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Examples of developed articles
To illustrate my point, I started going through the list of articles, looking for ones that I felt were already quite developed. Looking at the first 30 articles, I felt nearly half were past the point where they would benefit from the project. Interestingly, they were not all C class or higher.


 * 1)  Hammer
 * 2)  Church (building)
 * 3)  Cartoonist
 * 4)  Fine art
 * 5)  Island
 * 6)  Ancient music
 * 7)  Henri Nestlé
 * 8)  Ozone layer
 * 9)  Culture of Asia
 * 10)  Equator
 * 11)  Hero
 * 12)  Portal (doorway)

For sure they can all use improving, but I question that they would make good collaborations for this group. The original idea behind this project was to attract new editors, by giving them something simple to work on. I still think that principle exists in the project. However these articles do not really lend themselves to new or casual editors, they are projects for experienced editors. These are in a state that need a subject matter expert to take to the next level. Thus I am proposing that articles like these be removed from the list. -- Nick Penguin ( contribs ) 02:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per NickPenguin. Personally, I cannot see myself making major contributions to these articles if they were to become TAFIs.  Bananasoldier  (talk) 03:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose- I don't see any reason for removal of already approved articles. Even if we agree on a limit, it should not apply retroactively. What is approved, is approved. Regarding future articles I oppose any move to impose more restrictions and limitations that would discourage participation.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note: Our oldest TAFI noms are about 3 years old, and it is entirely possible that the article that wasnominated is not the same (improved) article that exists today. So I can see how the argument is stronger with those older articles.--Coin945 (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose all but Ozone layer, Hero, and Equator - as the others can still be improved. Also per Coin945 and Vinegarymass911's notes. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Google Doodle task force
Since Google Doodles is followed by a spike of interest in the subject that they feature, there is now a Google Doodle task force focusing on current and previous Google Doodles. All interested editors may join. Esquivalience  t 01:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that the project page is ready, I request a mass message to all editors on the notifications list with . Esquivalience  t 02:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * . North America1000 02:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅. Notifications sent to project members on the Today's articles for improvement/Members/Notifications page. North America1000 02:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I erred and didn't substitute the template, so in the salutation it states " Hello, ". Sorry about this, and hopefully it won't adversely affect the message. North America1000 03:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * After purging the page, the salutation is actually posting correctly, listing the user's username. North America1000 03:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That's because of this, which you probably don't want to keep, but if you change it back the template will again be rendered incorrectly on the talk pages &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  03:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the Template:Former Google Doodle template? Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 9 of 2016
The selection for week 9 (starting 29 February 2016) is Music of Africa.

Discussion (week 9)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

Killing of animals
Is this eligible for DYK? It surely has been expanded fivefold, but the rules exclude content copied from other articles. Also sorry the bot messed up... it didn't follow the redirect. I am fixing this &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  02:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Chowder

 * Thanks to the TAFI editors who improved the article. North America1000 22:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Resolving redirects
Nearly all of our templates, etc, rely on checking Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/YYYY/WW/1 to show or get the article name. If the page gets redirected, templates like Today's articles for improvement/Accomplishments/row do not work. I believe you are the Lua master for the project. Is it possible to follow redirects in Lua? We could just change the /YYYY/WW/1 subpage to be the new target page, but if the redirect goes unnoticed the affected templates will be broken until someone finally figures out the page was redirected. I guess there really isn't a solid solution &mdash; MusikAnimal  talk  03:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If there is a decent maximum recursion depth in Wikipedia's, then some abuse of parser functions and Module:String (specifically match) may suffice, roughly like this:

{{#ifexpr:{{#invoke:string|len|{{{1|}}}}} < 100 and {{#ifexist:{{{1|}}}|1|0}}|{{#ifeq:/*some regex here to find the redirect article*/|/*some error message*/|Error: redirects to nowhere|{{TAFIFindArticle|/*more regex here*/}}|}}}}} In Lua, it may be possible to write an iterative version of this. - Esquivalience  {{sup| t }} 03:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, if I understand correctly this just checks if the target page is a redirect, and if so throws an error? That would suffice I think, as it'd be quite noticeable. Side note... I didn't get your ping. Our crappy echo system requires a timestamp to work. So with you could just override your signature with ~ and that'd do the trick. Cheers &mdash;  MusikAnimal  talk  03:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is some rough Scheme-like pseudocode of how such a program may look like; all that is needed is for someone to translate it into Lua (good luck):

- Esquivalience  {{sup| t }} 03:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

{{ec}} Ummm.. why would the Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/YYYY/WW/1 pages get redirected? Can you give an example of why it would be a good idea to keep the redirect, rather than turning them back into proper pages? If its happening often, maybe the pages can be move-protected? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 03:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * or do you mean that the page specified in {{code|Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/YYYY/WW/1}} becomes a redirect because an article got moved? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 04:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the latter. This is what happened with Animal killing (I've since updated Today's articles for improvement/2016/5/1) &mdash; MusikAnimal  {{sup| talk }}  04:19, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll look at coding something up later. We don't have to start from scratch since Module:Redirect exists. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 05:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Got a sandbox version that seems to be working so far: Module:Sandbox/Evad37/TAFI article. Use it like this:  for a specific year and week, or like this:   for the current year and week. Some examples:
 * → {{#invoke:Sandbox/Evad37/TAFI article|main}}
 * → {{#invoke:Sandbox/Evad37/TAFI article|main|YYYY=2015|WW=22}}
 * → main|YYYY=2016|WW=3}}
 * → main|YYYY=2016|WW=03}} (i.e. doesn't matter if week is zero-padded, module will strip it)
 * Next step will be testing if it does actually expand redirects (I'll create some test pages for the year 9999, which can be deleted when its done) - Evad37 &#91;talk] 08:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * → {{Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/9999/1/1}}
 * → main|YYYY=9999|WW=1}}
 * → {{Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/9999/2/1}}
 * → main|YYYY=9999|WW=2}}
 * Seems to work - Evad37 &#91;talk] 08:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I have created a recursive version if there is a double redirect. <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  {{sup| t }} 22:53, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

{{od}} Aren't there bots that go around fixing double redirects? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 23:17, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:2R: "Double redirects are easily and automatically fixed by bots" - Evad37 &#91;talk] 23:46, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

{{ping|MusikAnimal}} Module:TAFI article is ready to use - Evad37 &#91;talk] 01:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

DYK nomination for chowder
Template:Did you know nominations/Chowder

The TAFI article for Week 10 of 2016
The selection for week 10 (starting 07 March 2016) is People.

Discussion (week 10)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

The TAFI article for Week 11 of 2016
The selection for week 11 (starting 14 March 2016) is Lunch.

Discussion (week 11)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

The TAFI article for Week 12 of 2016
The selection for week 12 (starting 21 March 2016) is Critic.

Discussion (week 12)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

The TAFI article for Week 13 of 2016
The selection for week 13 (starting 28 March 2016) is Gates of hell.

Discussion (week 13)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

The TAFI article for Week 14 of 2016
The selection for week 14 (starting 04 April 2016) is Pecan pie.

Discussion (week 14)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

The TAFI article for Week 15 of 2016
The selection for week 15 (starting 11 April 2016) is Delicatessen.

Discussion (week 15)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

Wikimania poster
In 2014, we had a leaflet at Wikimania 2014. Wikimania 2016 is offering a similar opportunity, but with posters. Should we just use the same descriptions as from 2014, or does anyone want to write up something new? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 04:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The 2014 poster seems to be good enough, although its design is tacky. <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  t 01:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with it looks alright, To be fair the designs on all of the posters look rather .... well shit ...., But that's another discussion for another day!, Yeah use the 2014 one. – Davey 2010 Talk 03:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The suggestions come out once a week, and we work on it for a week. What does "Today" have to do with it? Still gets me every time. I guess TWAFI does not have the same zing? Cheers!  04:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The name is basically an anachronism, due to the original intention of having a Main Page section similar to Today's Featured Article etc. The original name was "Wikipedia:Today's article for improvement", this was then changed to the plural "Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement", which involved several page moves, but nothing too major. Since then our processes became more complicated, involving many subpages and intricate templates relying on the subpage structure – see renaming discussions here and (part of) here. The wording in some templates was at some stage changed to read "This week's..." while leaving the project itself at "Today's..." - Evad37 &#91;talk] 05:09, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Problem with Nominations editnotice
Hi.

The editnotice on the Nominations page is jiggered. I cannot see the editnotice subpage itself so I cannot suggest an X → Y fix.

Here is what X looks like when doing an edit:

Ping me back. Cheers! 04:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The way &lt;nowiki&gt; tags are processed has changed, see Village_pump_(technical) for details. I think I have fixed the edit notice with this edit - Evad37 &#91;talk] 04:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pinging Checkingfax per request above - Evad37 &#91;talk] 04:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi . Thank you. How come that editnotice is in a subpage of Nominated articles instead of Nominations? How did you find it over there? Ping me back. Cheers!  05:15, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
 * As a template editor I see links to edit notices at the top of every page (when editing). By following that link from the nominations page, I get to the actual edit notice which is located at Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations – but all this page does is transclude the contents of Today's articles for improvement/Nominated articles/editnotice. The reason that page is a subpage of "/Nominated articles" is that the nominations page used to be there until this page move. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 05:28, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 16 of 2016
The selection for week 16 (starting 18 April 2016) is Debt.

Discussion (week 16)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

Pecan pie overdose?
Pecan pie is, I understand, this week's article for improvement (week 14, 2016). Looking at its talk page - Talk:Pecan pie, I see that is was selected as "Today's article for improvement on 27 May 2013 for a period of one week". We have greater than 5M articles. Colour me surprised and dismayed that TAFI has chosen a single article twice in 3 years. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The most likely explanation is that following the late-2013 switch to 1 article per week, down from 10 articles per week, the articles from the 10-per-week period (most of which saw little improvement) were put back into the holding area (later renamed Articles for improvement) – see archived discussions (1), (2), (3). But see as there's WP:no deadline, does it really matter if a short article that's still in need of improvement occasionally gets a second TAFI run? - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 17 of 2016
The selection for week 17 (starting 25 April 2016) is Fame (Irene Cara song).

Discussion (week 17)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''


 * Doesn't seem likely to have many people contributing to a niche. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The TAFI article for Week 18 of 2016
The selection for week 18 (starting 02 May 2016) is À la carte.

Discussion (week 18)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

The TAFI article for Week 19 of 2016
The selection for week 19 (starting 09 May 2016) is Gustaf Skarsgård.

Discussion (week 19)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''

The TAFI article for Week 20 of 2016
The selection for week 20 (starting 16 May 2016) is Ozone layer.

Discussion (week 20)
''Please any comments or concerns about the selection here. If three net members elect to reselect the article, then the article will be reselected and the former one removed from the list of articles.''