Please indicate, before 23:59 UTC Saturday, your top three preferences in order: your top pick first, then your second choice, and then your third. These will be allocated 3, 2, and 1 points respectively, and the most popular article (with the most points) will be added to the scheduled for week 3 of 2015. Articles receiving 3 points or less will be archived. On behalf of the TAFI project, --NickPenguin(contribs)07:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
If lots of people think that article would make the best TAFI, then hopefully we'll get lots of people working on it when it comes up - Evad37[talk]02:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
There's no reason anyone would have to stop working on this article, if you would like to continue to collaborate on it, feel free to continue. --NickPenguin(contribs)04:27, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Choose the TAFI article for Week 4 of 2015
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.
Please indicate, before 23:59 UTC Saturday, your top three preferences in order: your top pick first, then your second choice, and then your third. These will be allocated 3, 2, and 1 points respectively, and the most popular article (with the most points) will be added to the scheduled for week 4 of 2015. Articles receiving 3 points or less will be archived. On behalf of the TAFI project, --NickPenguin(contribs)09:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Game design started with a decent but short lede, and it listed 6 types of games, with some brief descriptions of game design in their context. It also included an impressive list of sources to use as references, however it had no inline references.
Development included with a structure overhaul, including the addition and expansion of sections on History, Theory, Design elements, and the Development process, as well as various subsections. Game types were moved into a subsection, and included the addition of video games as a type, which was previously missed. In particular a large amount of development went into expanding the board games type section, with an impressive amount of content and references.
The article finished up with some maintenance tags, including expansion, clarification and reference tags, but overall improvement was excellent. Total length went from 4.6kb to 36.3kb, we added 6 new images, and 41 inline citations. Overall article quality was still assessed as Start class, as it still shows further potential for improvement.
Thank you. But I only gave you a start to the "Sports" section. Please help by expanding that section. Thankfully I gave some starter citations. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Image and caption for Prose
I had a tough time coming up for an image and caption for the blurb for Prose. If anyone has a better suggestion I am open to it. I went with the title page of the King James version of the bible, and a blurb stating it was an important example of prose. --NickPenguin(contribs)06:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not really comfortable with the current wording of the caption – "most important" is an opinion we should be attributing to someone, rather than stating in Wikipedia's voice, WP:NPOV etc. We could say "an important", but how about just using a sample of prose as the image, eg File:The accompanying prose description.jpg ? - Evad37[talk]06:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Spaghetti before the TAFI day is not very well done, with only 8 inlines and 7KB. Although it has pictures, a lot of work had to be done to make it improved.
This article was developed by adding a "Production" section which helps show how spaghetti is made, expansion on the "Serving" section, and yet more useful sections. However, some of the sections appear too short and the presentation is still not adequate for a 1980x1080 computer screen. On that screen, the Level 2 sections are too close together and still needs more work. Other than that, now there are 18 inlines and 15.3KB after the TAFI.
Although there are no maintenance tags before the TAFI, there was only one maintenance tag where I had trouble with - duplicated citations. Thank goodness EuroCarGT helped me solve that problem.
Overall, the article is still Start-class, it is expanded well but not well enough, there are now 15 images, and the flow is a lot smoother (but only in the start of the article).
Acceptable, thanks for doing the recap. I try to keep all comments positive, and I try to avoid personal glories. You will have to find your own style. --NickPenguin(contribs)06:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Choose the TAFI article for Week 5 of 2015
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.
Please indicate, before 23:59 UTC Saturday, your top three preferences in order: your top pick first, then your second choice, and then your third. These will be allocated 3, 2, and 1 points respectively, and the most popular article (with the most points) will be added to the scheduled for week 5 of 2015. Articles receiving 3 points or less will be archived. On behalf of the TAFI project, --NickPenguin(contribs)05:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I really understand your questions – perhaps you would like to clarify... but, for the first question, if you are asking how many different sources are required for B-Class, then the answer is as many or as few as required in order to cite everything that needs to be cited - no set number is required. And I'm not sure what you mean by "be paid attention to", but for any article of any length to be assessed as C-Class or B-Class, it has to pass this criterion - Evad37[talk]02:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, a stub could be passed, but there's not much point checking a short stub against the criteria as it would still be assessed as a stub – in which case the checklist can be left as "not checked". But otherwise, or if you are not sure, then complete the checklist. But #4 is pretty easy to pass, only articles written through machine translation, by young kids, or by people learning English as a second language would be likely to fail. - Evad37[talk]06:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this already addressed by the FAQs already there? Fail it only if the article is poorly written: "The ship sunk in 1918, by torpedo from a germa uboat. 20 crew went down in it but most with CAPT excvaped in lifeboats and were picked up by example." and Do I pass a two-line stub ... Don't bother completing the checklist for something that short.
The old revision is the last version of the article before {{TAFI}} was added – can be found by browsing in the article's history tab for an edit summary of "Adding Today's articles for improvement tag" or similar, and the clicking on the time-date stamp of the previous edit. This will open up the old version of the article.
|oldid= is the old version's revision ID – the number in the URL that appears after &oldid= when the old version is open
|olddate= is the date of the old version – as listed in the history tab, or if the the old version is open, the "last edited" date in the pink box at the top
|oldcass= is the quality class of the old version, assessed in accordance with WP:TAFIA (may be different to other wikiprojects) – should be in the {{Former TAFI}} banner on the article's talk page. If not, the old version needs to be assessed per WP:TAFIA, and the assessment / B-class checklist filled out in the {{Former TAFI}} template.
|prose_before= is the number of characters of prose in the old version of the article – counted using WP:Did you know/DYKcheck (or similar).
|size_before= is the size of the old version, in bytes, as listed in the history tab
The new revision is the last version of the article before {{TAFI}} was removed – can be found by browsing in the article's history tab for an edit summary of "Rm {{TAFI}} - Week is over" or similar, and the clicking on the time-date stamp of the previous edit. This will open up the new version of the article (at the end of its week of improvements)
|newid= is the new version's revision ID – the number in the URL that appears after &oldid= when the new version is open
|newdate= is the date of the new version – as listed in the history tab, or if the the new version is open, the "last edited" date in the pink box at the top
|newcass= is the quality class of the new version, assessed in accordance with WP:TAFIA (may be different to other wikiprojects) – should be in the {{Former TAFI}} banner on the article's talk page. If not, the new version needs to be assessed per WP:TAFIA, and the assessment / B-class checklist filled out in the {{Former TAFI}} template.
|prose_after= is the number of characters of prose in the new version of the article – counted using WP:Did you know/DYKcheck (or similar).
|size_after= is the size of the new version, in bytes, as listed in the history tab
|edits= is the number of edits that occurred excluding the edits that added and removed the TAFI banner. The method I use for this and the subsequent parameters is:
Make sure all TAFI edits are visible in the history tab view – click on higher numbers 100, 250, 500 at the end of the line "(newest | oldest) View (newer 50 | older 50) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)" above/below the list of edits if necessary.
Copy the relevant rows – everything in between but excluding the edits that added and removed the TAFI banner
Paste, as plain text, into a spreadsheet program such as MS Excel
Look at the total number of rows – this is the number for |edits=
Use the "Text to Columns" function to strip out everything but the editors' names/IP adresses
Use the "Remove Duplicates" function to find the number of unique editors – this is the number for |editors=
Count the number of IP adresses – this is the number for |IPs=
Count the number of bots, which have usernames typically eding in "bot" (ie AnomieBOT) – this is the number for |bots=
At the history tab, scan through for and count the number of edit summaries that explicitly identify the edit as a revert – i.e. includes the words "revert", "rvt" "undid", "restored revision", or similar. The number of these explicit reverts is the number for |reverts=
Note that the older rows were done as a simple wikitable, without the automation the above template supplies. Note also that each template should start on exactly the next line following the previous, ie
...
}}
{{Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Accomplishments/row
...
The main challenge is that existing articles have to be 5x expanded in prose with new content, i.e. excluding text copied from other articles (except unsourced BLPs, which only need 2x expansion). There are the other requirements too, but there's no point in even considering a DYK nom unless this one has been met. - Evad37[talk]16:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if we have a template that we can leave on editors' talk pages offering them to join our wikiproject. Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 02:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Please indicate, before 23:59 UTC Saturday, your top three preferences in order: your top pick first, then your second choice, and then your third. These will be allocated 3, 2, and 1 points respectively, and the most popular article (with the most points) will be added to the scheduled for week 6 of 2015. Articles receiving 3 points or less will be archived. On behalf of the TAFI project, --NickPenguin(contribs)07:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Aren't we getting a bit ahead of ourselves here? I am all for good preparation but we are discussing picks for week 6 and it's still the previous year. What about something in the rules stating when there is a tie and two articles are scheduled, the next vote is delayed for a week accordingly. Otherwise this delay is just going to get bigger. Thoughts? C67920:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I think that would make sense. I didn't realistically think there would be a tie, but it has happened twice, and a few votes including last weeks have been close. Do you think we should postpone the next weeks vote to bring things a little closer? --NickPenguin(contribs)23:57, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
I would say no vote next week, and also probably the first week of February, to get back into sync. Unless there are any objections? C67917:52, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
It would make sense to not vote. We have already chosen so many months. Of course, I'm just here to vote and recommend pages for tafi. EMachine03 (talk) 22:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to explain. In the discussion section directly above this one, we discussed skipping the vote for this week. There were no objections, therefore the vote was skipped for this week. --NickPenguin(contribs)06:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
We will still have a vote for week 7, we are just delaying it. If you read the discussion in the section on this talk page directly above this, you will see what we are talking about. --NickPenguin(contribs)03:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Qwertyxp2000: I have no idea. For the TAFI maybe use the sentence given by the article: "Food science is the applied science devoted to the study of food." For the article itself, "A scientist working in the field of food science"? Bananasoldier (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if somebody could nominate one of these articles for me because it's a bit troubling for me to nominate it myself as I'm editing from a mobile device. Thanks, Bananasoldier (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Many of us have troubles with devices. I am not at all sure we are encouraged to seek proxies to forward our decisions. Best wishes. SovalValtos (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
ClueBot III should say the same comment when he makes a change, but that "(Archiving 11 discussions to Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations/Archives/Archive 1)" is outdated. Why not make him change to say "(...Archive 2)" instead? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 01:35, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Edit summaries can't be adjusted after the edit has been made. The 11 articles were archived by the bot to /Archive 1, but then manually moved to /Archive 2, and the archive settings were adjusted to limit the archives' page sizes. The bot's next edit [3] did say "Archiving 1 discussion to Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement/Nominations/Archives/Archive 2. (BOT)" - Evad37[talk]03:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
That's already been done, hence the edit I linked to above which archived Cloud robotics to /Archive 2. In the future the bot will automatically update the settings to use the next archive number whenever the current archive reaches 100kb in size - Evad37[talk]05:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it really is quite tedious. I have previously submitted a bot proposal that included this, but at the time there were no takers. Maybe you could try again? The most recent request is here, if you put it in your own words and resubmit the request maybe someone will take up the task. --NickPenguin(contribs)13:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
One hopes that the marking of articles is being done meticulously and does not need checking, but I guess there is no harm in checking that is the case, if someone competent has the time.SovalValtos (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
While there are lots of articles that could be improved by our project, we do have a large number of articles we have already identified. For me, I haven't felt the need to research new candidates because we have so many at the current moment. As an aside, I have been considering the improvability of some of the articles currently in the holding area. In general, it seems the less content there is to start with, the more momentum the improvement drive gets, and they generally finish off great, as opposed to some of the more developed articles that have seen essentially surface improvements. --NickPenguin(contribs)03:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I have only been involved slightly for a short while but my observations suggest NickPenguin(contribs) is right in saying the less developed articles are the most fruitful candidates. Where the structure needs expansion to cover the different aspects of the subject, more scope is given for dramatic improvement. That is not to say that well developed articles could not benefit from a rather different type of editing, to polish them into higher categories. So a choice between showy or more subtle returns from effort. Different editors with different skills will choose the type of improvements they are best suited to making. I for one do not have the skills needed for every article, so abstain.
Another point is that the longer it is between being nominated and being selected, or being cleared into the outer darkness of the holding area archive, the less likely it is that the article is in need of TAFI, as substantial changes may have been made in the interim. No harm done then in having few waiting.
So finally answering NORTH AMERICA1000 's questions; leaving new nominations until they run short will probably encourage more as they are needed, and as far as editor input is concerned, so long as there is enough to get the job done, so be it. SovalValtos (talk) 09:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
How come the process flow chart has changed since I was looking at it a few hours ago, without anything in the edit history? The holding area archive is no longer shown.SovalValtos (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Prose is words, but I are you sure that it is the number of bytes for article words only (excluding the captions, reference names, etc.)? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
@Qwertyxp2000: yeah it only applies to bytes in terms of article words (excluding captions, ref names). If you go to an article, there's a button on the left side under "tools" called "DYK check" and it'll highlight all the prose and give a #. Bananasoldier (talk) 06:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Please indicate, before 23:59 UTC Saturday, your top three preferences in order: your top pick first, then your second choice, and then your third. These will be allocated 3, 2, and 1 points respectively, and the most popular article (with the most points) will be added to the scheduled for week 6 of 2015. Articles receiving 3 points or less will be archived. On behalf of the TAFI project, --NickPenguin(contribs)18:16, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Please indicate, before 23:59 UTC Saturday, your top three preferences in order: your top pick first, then your second choice, and then your third. These will be allocated 3, 2, and 1 points respectively, and the most popular article (with the most points) will be added to the scheduled for week 8 of 2015. Articles receiving 3 points or less will be archived. On behalf of the TAFI project, --NickPenguin(contribs)00:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I will be having a WikiBreak from 21st January to 29th January 2015. Luckily, I will be here for next week's votings by the time I get back. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 20:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Weeks 1–4 recap -- Skyline, Dishwashing liquid, History of Mongolia, Prose
Hi! I noticed we haven't had a recap in a while, so I've gone ahead and made one. I'm not sure how to do it properly, so I'll do my best. Please feel free to fill in your thoughts & comments. Thanks to everyone involved (a lot of people)! Bananasoldier (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't around for this one, but it looks like we mostly improved this article by adding some really nice graphic examples of skylines. The page's # of inline citations doubled (2 -> 4!). A "further reading" section was also set up. TAFI folks continued editing the article after the week ended, touching it up a bit more. Bananasoldier (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
There is just one problem - there is not enough prose to balance the amount of nice media. The presentation I do not think looks pretty. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
We raised it from a start class to a C. Ref count jumped from 5 to 47. Most notably, there was a lot of expansion! The article now has new sections on brands, types, uses, ingredients, etc. A move proposal was also brought up. Grand'mere Eugene (talk·contribs) substantially improved the Brands section after the week ended. Bananasoldier (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that this WikiProject feels a lot tidier than some of the other WikiProjects. I'm not sure what it is -- but it has a more comfortable/modern look to it. Maybe because a lot of WikiProject main pages are really long & full of clutter. Whatever it is, I'd say the design is appealing. Bananasoldier (talk) 09:01, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The current design is from Evad37, who is exceptionally talented with visual elements. I believe he also developed most (if not all) of the templates we use. --NickPenguin(contribs)01:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Choose the TAFI article for Week 9 of 2015
The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.
Please indicate, before 23:59 UTC Saturday, your top three preferences in order: your top pick first, then your second choice, and then your third. These will be allocated 3, 2, and 1 points respectively, and the most popular article (with the most points) will be added to the scheduled for week 9 of 2015. Articles receiving 3 points or less will be archived. On behalf of the TAFI project, --NickPenguin(contribs)16:28, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
How about ROW OF MOBILE HOMES NEAR MADISON, WEST VIRGINIA, WITH TRASH THROWN ALONG THE EDGE OF THE CREEK IS A TYPICAL SCENE IN... - NARA - 556419 It may be problematic coming up recent with images of people. SovalValtos (talk) 09:48, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
@Evad37: When you wrote "Net supports = number of '''Support'''s minus number of '''Opposes'''s (participants are already instructed that only those bolded words will count)", did you mean to say '''Oppose'''s? Bananasoldier (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Evad37, I once put in "{{not approved}}" in an unapproved article but the bot will not archive the "Conveyor Sushi" article. It was only when I changed it to "{{unapproved}}" did it actually work. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Latin Grammy AwardTop importance for WikiProject Latin music -- Prose (char): 5625
Please indicate, before 23:59 UTC Saturday, your top three preferences in order: your top pick first, then your second choice, and then your third. These will be allocated 3, 2, and 1 points respectively, and the most popular article (with the most points) will be added to the scheduled for week 10 of 2015. Articles receiving 3 points or less will be archived. On behalf of the TAFI project, --NickPenguin(contribs)01:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion: Do you think we could by default always add the very first and the very last article from the holding area to the voting list? The rest of the selections would be random as usual. Maybe that could make the holding area seem less stagnant, as all the articles would shift up and a freshly nominated article would also have a chance (TAFI folks may be more enthusiastic about an article they nominated/supported recently)? Bananasoldier (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
In my mind either it is random or it is arbitrary. But if we want to change the selection process, we can do whatever participants prefer. --NickPenguin(contribs)06:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding bots: Would we want a bot to automate the voting process, from random selection, gathering data on class & prose, to tallying the results? Bananasoldier (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
In short, yes – at least for the random selection and opening the vote – but nobody wants to code bots for this or other tasks. Previous requests [4][5][6] have gone unanswered. - Evad37[talk]02:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It would be really great if the process was automated, it would free up more time to improve articles. Operating the process really does absorb a great deal of energy. --NickPenguin(contribs)06:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Please indicate, before 23:59 UTC Saturday, your top three preferences in order: your top pick first, then your second choice, and then your third. These will be allocated 3, 2, and 1 points respectively, and the most popular article (with the most points) will be added to the scheduled for week 11 of 2015. Articles receiving 3 points or less will be archived.
Also, this is the last vote I will be available to schedule. My ability to help coordinate this project has been reduced, due to other life constraints. I know that there are many talented individuals here that will be able to help guide this project, and I hope they take this opportunity. Thanks everyone, --NickPenguin(contribs)07:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
How about this for a backup dancer image. Might help broaden the topic from 1930s musicals COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Balinese dansers dansen de kètjak TMnr 10004676SovalValtos (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
NickPenguin, archive last week's losing articles in the vote to Schedule? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC
Because I see that NickPenguin is not going to do vote hosting any more, maybe I could? I promise they are not biased vote choices. I promise I will use the real number simulator method. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
The The Core Contest is a thirty-day contest focusing on improving Wikipedia's most important and most viewed articles. Prizes in the form of electronic store vouchers will be awarded.
Please indicate, before 23:59 UTC Saturday, your top three preferences in order: your top pick first, then your second choice, and then your third. These will be allocated 3, 2, and 1 points respectively, and the most popular article (with the most points) will be added to the scheduled for week 12 of 2015. Articles receiving 3 points or less will be archived.
Last Ping worked, Other than that none of the other pings have worked. (Echo really is going to shit - Seems it's getting worse!) ... –Davey2010Talk19:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
@Qwertyxp2000: It didn't work because you didn't following the instructions. Read the instructions at Template:TAFI ping list if you want to make the pings work - or if you want more concrete examples, look in the page history for the three edits (not one, three!) Nick made each time to set up previous votes. - Evad37[talk]13:35, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
A antagonist is a character, group of characters, institution, or concept that stands in, or represents, opposition against which the protagonist(s) must contend.
Qwertyxp2000 likes this - Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Bananasoldier (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Done All sorted. Thank you whoever thought up of a picture. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
-- Prose (char): 6618
Level 4 vital article in science -- Prose (char): 12442
-- Prose (char): 4896
-- Prose (char): 375
.jpg)
