Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adding this week's article for improvement to the Main page

Background

Workshopping for this RFC occurred at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/This week's article for improvement, and initial discussions can be seen here, here and here.

Articles for Improvement was previously trialled as a section on the main page in 2013. For example, see the Main Page on 10 May 2013 when the section listed Fashion accessory – List of cheeses – Life science. The trial was considered a failure and the section then pulled. An extensive status report on the project was published in the Signpost following the trial.

Survey (TWAFI)

• A - I highly recommend reading the initial statement by Bremps in the workshopping page for much more detail on the goals of this proposal. The current sections on the main page can feel 'closed off' to potential editors, so having a section dedicated to newcomers would be welcome. While not enforceable, experienced editors should be encouraged to be extra kind and patient to people editing the page, and to explain any reverts in detail without jargon.
  I prefer M.3, M.2, M.1 in that order. The most focus should be on the improvements to be made. For placement, I prefer P.1, P.2, then P.3. P.1 would make the box more easily visible on mobile, while P.2 would do so on desktop. As the majority of people worldwide use phones to use the internet optimizing for that makes sense. This should be high up on the page in order to attract new users, who are less likely to scroll down. InfernoHues (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• P3, P2, and P1, and M2, M1, M3. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 05:26, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• M2 should, however, have the links bolded. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 17:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• A, P3, P2, P1, M3, M2, M1. This seems like a great idea to attract new editors. In solidarity, FantasticWikiUser_{(Ts and Cs)} 05:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support/A. M3>M2>M1 for emphasis on improvement; Aaron Liu/sapphaline proposal (above all)>P1≈P2>P3>>P4 or similar. 7amiþ solidarity · 💬 · 📊 · 🇺🇸 05:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• A, M2>3>1, P2>3>1 – I think this proposal has an excellent chance of helping create new editors by making readers aware that they specifically can edit here while also providing them with immediate guidance and a place to do so.
  For mockups I prefer 2 to start because it's direct, short and very clear. The tone is a departure from our usual dry style, but I believe using a more direct and human approach will lead to greater engagement. The article info given is just enough for new editors to know if it's something they'd like to engage with, without adding too much information or distracting links and muddying the messaging. It also provides an obvious way to begin (click here!). For position I prefer higher, more eyes means more chances someone makes their first edit.
  I'd also like to preempt some potential objections based on workshop feedback. There will be some unconstructive editing, but it will be confined to a single page, easy to handle, and well worth handling if it means new editors join the project. For concerns about potential strife between experienced and new editors, WP:BITE provides a strong backing to ensure behavior is collegial and friendly, guidance will be given to experienced editors as well about what conduct is expected, and I have faith that our editorship will be able to act constructively and aid newcomers. For editors preferring a different approach entirely, I too think we should try other approaches, but in addition to TWAFI and not instead of. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• B in a similar vein to a portion of WP:ITNCRIT, i.e. articles appearing on the main page are evaluated based on the quality of the article and its updated content (this is invoked too harshly at times, but that is an aside). There is a time and place to draw attention to articles that need improvement; the main page is not the forum to do so unless we subject articles to a standards check and tidy them up first (which partially defeats the purpose and just creates another hassle to deal with). Moreover, the main page is primarily for readers, which is also why we exist. Catering to editors or attempting to draw in new contributors should be done carefully; this is not the way. Additionally, I imagine the extreme visibility would make the selected article a magnet for vandalism and unconstructive editing becoming another burden for patrollers. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I will vote though: P4 (i.e. User:Godsy/main page mockup) & M1. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 11:18, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  ITN quality standards don't clearly apply since TWAFI isn't intended as a way to inform readers about a topic, and the messaging of "this page needs improvement" will make that clear to readers as well. As for there is a time and place to draw attention to articles that need improvement, the first sentence of the RfC clarifies that this process will focus primarily on helping create new editors. Improving articles, while good, is a secondary goal to creating new editors who can then improve many articles. Your point about the main page being primarily for readers is unclear to me, all editors start as readers, so active efforts to seek new editors by necessity must target reader venues.

  Unconstructive editing will be confined to a single page that is highly monitored, will be easy to handle, and will be well worth handling if it means more new editors. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  If ITNCRIT applies here, then I am a pigeon and each article on Wikipedia is actually a watermelon. This argument makes absolutely no sense. Also, why is it okay to bombard users every now and then (especially on mobile clients) with a page-long ad asking for donations from the reader, but NOT okay to have a small section of the main page dedicated to getting readers to become editors? Ilov3gam3z (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  The users who would be against AFI are much more likely to be against the banners too. That's a much longer debate. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• A, M3>M2, P2>P3 – I prefer the wording of M3 the most, as it's the most inviting to potential new editors by encouraging them to contribute. For the same reason, I find the M1 is the most ambiguous and uninviting. In solidarity, nil ^nz 06:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• A, I think this is really excellent. M3>M2>M1, per Nil NZ I think M3 is the most inviting to newcomers, though use cases and limitations is odd wording. P1>P2>P3 per InfernoHues, there's symbolic value in making TFA and TAFI the two most prominent, and P1 does this for mobile viewers while P2 is for desktop. Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 07:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  That wording is awkward, but it's trying to convey that the suggestions can be tailored to whatever article is selected. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Could’ve put [insert text here], but no worries Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 08:26, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• A, predicated on P1 failing. M2 is my favorite, followed by a huge drop off and then M3 and M1. On placement, P2 then P3 and oppose it all if P1. I have serious doubts that this will accomplish anything, certainly not article improvement and I am very doubtful about gaining editors, but I don't think anybody cares about OTD and, well, ITN is ITN, so its fine in the right column if it doesn't bother with TFA and DYK balancing-wise. I have also made my feelings known about the fact that I don't think any of the mockups are that great (why are we linking be bold or the Teahouse on the main page??), but M2 is best for only including minimal distractions. 1brianm7 (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  To quote my very first comments on this proposal, 53 days ago, If there is consensus for this, it should probably not be weekly, but daily. Most of the content which does reach the main page in ITN and DYK (presumably OTND as well, but I know nothing about that) is improvable, but almost all of the improvements happen quickly I stand by that and would support daily over weekly. I think any hopes of article improvement are a pipe dream unless we abandoned editor recruitment, and if we abandon that count me against any position above TFP or TFL. In my eyes, we are shoving an edit button in the face of the uninitiated in the hopes that they randomly get bit by the itch. I think I now prefer P3 to P2, by a smidge, and am equally as supportive of proposals that would not interfere with the operation of DYK or TFA, such as but not exclusively P4. 1brianm7 (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  Random idea: replace TFL with AfI on days TFL don't appear (that being Tuesday, Thurs, Sat and Sun)? Hason-LEK-SIN ● Let’s chat! ● My contribs 13:16, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'll support daily (TAFI) so a wider variety of interests can be caught, but only if we implement a random or semi-random selection process (too much work otherwise). 7amiþ solidarity · 💬 · 📊 · 🇺🇸 17:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• A, M2>M1>M3, P3>P1>P2 per my comment on the discussion. M2 is more new editor friendly. P3 is the best because harly anyone really cares about OTD. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• A: Recruiting new editors is essential for the success of Wikipedia and this proposal sounds like a good way to achieve this. M3: The important feature here are the prominent examples of what can be improved. I have no preference about placement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe vom Titan (talk • contribs) 09:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• A, M.2 > M.3 > M.1, P.2 > P.1 > P.3. FaviFake (talk) 09:54, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• A, M3>M2>M1, P2>P3>P1 I begrudgingly accept this is a good idea despite not personally liking what it does to the current main page, as I'm not the target audience here. M3 over M2 over M1 as M3 gives good info and M1 is unwieldy. As for the placement: I see what people are saying about putting it next to TFA, and I do like that, but P1 is off the table for me because of the decision to prioritize ITN and OTD over DYK there. I'd support putting TAFI where DYK is if DYK was placed where ITN is and ITN was placed where OTD is. People supporting P1 have not given a rationale for this, and I can't think of a satisfactory one. Also isn't there some way we can make TAFI 2nd on mobile and go where ITN currently is on desktop? –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 10:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• A: Support. The better Wikipedia gets, the harder it will become to edit. Take, for example, Mobile, Alabama. This article has grown naturally and has been brought up to date and up to snuff through both informal and formal review processes over decades. It has: over 30 photographs taken by Wikipedia editors, a dozen or so public domain images, over 300 citations (including to out-of-print university press books), and dozens of formatting templates like {{Infobox settlement}}. You can contrast this against the earliest version of the article. On 11 January 2002, RjLesch wrote: "City in Alabama, United States of America. Four members of the Baseball Hall of Fame were born in Mobile: Hank Aaron, Willie McCovey, Satchel Paige and Ozzie Smith." That's it. The strategies used to bring in editors circa 2002 won't be applicable today. We need ways to onboard new editors rather than encouraging them to boldly make good faith edits and then immediately reverting. One line of opposition to this proposal came from concerns around having so many people work on the same article; I actually think this is a strength because it gives folks who want welcome new editors a designated article to watch. Additionally, as an admin, I'll volunteer to watchlist WP:ERRORS for the duration of the trial run. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Rjjiii any preference for which mockup to start with and positioning? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• A, M2 > M3 > M1, P1 = P2 > P3. Thank you all for workshopping this into an RfC. I really think this is an important way to engage new editors, and for that reason the placement on the MP should be front and center. Agnostic on P1/P2 since they're more prominent on mobile/desktop respectively. From the mockups, M2 is the most snappy and funnels potential editors most directly with the prominent call to action. YuniToumei (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• Support. A, M3 > M2 > M1. P2 > P3 > P1. Thank you to the other editors in the previous village pump discussion to working this into an RfC! I sincerely hope this passes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilov3gam3z (talk • contribs) 11:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• B The idea has potential and the main page could use some fresh ideas. But there are numerous problems with this proposal as it stands including
  1. The proposed process works on a weekly cycle but main page sections have a daily cycle. An article such as List of Syrian cheeses does not merit a full week of exposure on the main page when our featured articles only get a day.
  2. The improvement process lacks structure and specifics. For example, the mockup suggests Articulated bus. This is a very mature article which was created over 20 years ago and has had over 800 editors since. It only has one cleanup template and that was added in 2017. The first thing I would do to improve that article is remove that template as it is obviously stale and confusing.
  3. The article selection process is not random as has been misleadingly suggested. Instead, there is a nomination process which is adversarial with Support/Oppose votes. In my experience of ITN, this is toxic as it generates conflict and chat rather than actual improvement. ITN limits the possibilities to those topics which are in the news but this is so open that I expect the nominations would soon overflow.
  4. An article which is on the main page for a week is in the spotlight. This is the worst possible place for new editors who will want to make their mistakes in a quieter and less conspicuous setting. The spotlight will tend to attract a different sort of editor.
  5. This idea has been tried before and failed. I don't get the impression that this is any different.
• Andrew🐉(talk) 11:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  1. There is no rule stating that everything on the main page has to be daily. ITN disregards this, too.

  2. Articulated bus was the AFI (Article for Improvement) that day, so that is why. Blame AFI, not TWAFI. (Side note: I am sure that this will boost attention to AFI and their picks will get better)

  3. We really do not have consensus on how to vote them in, if they should be automatic or hand done.

  4. Well then some editors will simply not use TWAFI and will edit in more remote corners of the site. I see no problem with this. As long as we bring in even one new and good editor, this is a success in my book.

  5. We are in a much worse predicament then we were the last time we tried this. Editor retention and gain of editors is down immensely and we are being drowned with AI vandalism. We need new editors at any cost. Also, this proposal seeks to have a lot less moving parts (the human element) in hopes of not doing what bogged down the last proposal like this one. We have done a lot of work to differentiate the two. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 11:45, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  At the worst case, we do a trial run and at the end it fails and we remove TWAFI from the main page. At least give it a try. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  That's kind of what I'm thinking. If this is a complete flop then WP:CCC. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 12:03, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I itch to rebut the badgering but this is not the place for threaded adversarial discussion, which tends to be toxic. Instead, I've been looking at the List of Syrian cheeses which is so problematic that it demonstrates how clueless this process is. Its issues include:

  1. It turns out to be a list of Levantine cheeses and so the current page title is misleading.
  2. The Levant is a highly controversial place as it includes places like Armenia, Israel, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and other hot spots.
  3. The controversies in this region are not just geographical and religious but also extend to the foods such as the famously lame case of Hummus and friends.
  4. Looking at the history of the page, it started as Syrian cheese and its entire content was [stub] really good mida de tern cheese. kind of like feta but moreod ld ir So, this is not a serious topic IMO; it's more of a joke.
  5. These issues make this a really bad starting point for a new editor. Highlighting it on the main page for a week would make Wikipedia a laughing stock.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 12:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  We would obviously be more careful about our selections if the proposal were to gain consensus. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 13:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  No, you obviously wouldn't be more careful because no care was taken in this high-profile case. "You never get a second chance to make a first impression" and this is especially important with new editors. The AFI crew clearly can't be trusted. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  "The AFI crew clearly can't be trusted."

  Do you have to put down your fellow editors to make your point? If there are so many problems with this article, then the AFI crew is doing it's job and doing it well. When we implement TWAFI, AFI will obviously have a slightly different purpose and more people will join the group of AFI editors with the purpose of working on TWAFI specifically. As such, the AFI's will become more new-editor friendly. We can, at the very least, give this idea a trial run and if it fails remove it. No harm done whatsoever. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  The idea already had a trial run and it failed. Looking at the list of AFI accomplishments, they seem to peter out in 2016. The project switched from a daily schedule to a weekly schedule around then and so its glory days are long past.

  There are other fresher ideas and initiatives so perhaps they should be given some exposure on the main page instead. For example, when I browse the Wikipedia app lately, I'm invited to add a picture to an article by its Suggested edits. I've tried this a few times and it works well. It's a reasonably well-designed process because it's based on existing usage in another language and the tool walks the editor through the process in an straightforward way. Adding a picture to an article that hasn't got one makes a big difference and so it's quite satisfying.

  Other ongoing activity on my radar includes the Guild of Copy Editors drive for July and meetups in Chicago, London, San Diego and elsewhere. New editors would get a lot more out of such activities than AFI work in my experience. But it doesn't have to be either/or. A new section on the main page should list all such outreach and improvement activity, not just one single article.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 14:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  "This other idea (which in your case is the Guild of Copy Editors and suggested edits on the user’s Homepage) will work/is working in attracting newcomers, so this is not needed."

  Wonderful! Let us implement both. —@Bremps in the original VPP discussion/workshopping.

  The main goal of TWAFI on the main page is to increase visibility of articles that need attention so new editors will gave a good place to start. This can complement with the other two initiatives we mentioned.

  "But (attracting newcomers) isn't the main goal of TWAFI" well, we can change that.

  And also, why are you just pinpointing on specific articles (Syrian cheese, articulated buses, politics appearing on AFI) instead of looking at TWAFI as a whole? Hason-LEK-SIN ● Let’s chat! ● My contribs 23:27, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Agree wholeheartedly with this. TWAFI is (and was very well stated in the previous discussion) a two-pronged proposal. 1: Improve the content of the articles in question. And 2: Acquire new editors to combat declining editor retention rates and the phenomena of old editors leaving Wikipedia. Also, no offense, but Andrew, your mention of specific articles rather then the whole proposal reads to me as a whataboutism. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 23:42, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  To turn the "We" into a "You" is a choice of words that sticks out. What was intended to be conveyed by doing that? –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 04:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  It's just ordinary English grammar. I'm not sure who "we" is supposed to be though as there are only 8 active editors listed at WP:AFIP and you guys aren't amongst them. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  The EnWiki community.. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 12:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I've been through the history of this proposal now. It started in 2024 with a post by Bremps at Talk:Main Page. That is so long ago now that I'd forgotten that I commented at the time. There was no consensus for this as there were 6 formal opposes and plenty of other comment pointing to problems with the proposal. Problems which are coming up again now because they haven't been addressed.

  Bremps has kept pushing the idea regardless but has failed to engage with the project which still operates this feature, just dismissing it as nearly dormant. So, it's not the current AFI crew that is responsible for the obvious defects in this proposal; they have been pursuing their existing agenda of prioritising the improvement of important topics like Chess. The main responsibility rests on Bremps who has been building a castle in the air in the ivory tower of the idea lab.

  Andrew🐉(talk) 14:45, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Looking at the graph of editors who have made at least ten edits in a month plotted against date of first edit, I don't perceive much significant change in editor retention comparing 2012 to, say, the past four years (medium-term retention seems to have gotten a bit better, if anything). The active editor counts over the last 5 years seems roughly stable (perhaps a slight upwards trend this year). The new registered users counts are decreasing, but if the editor retention stats are indeed roughly stable, then the drop hasn't affected how many editors stay around and edit. isaacl (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  ITN often wades into politics. AFI has guidelines to never wade too closely into politics. I do not think this will be nearly as toxic as ITN, and for that argument to be a demerit, AFI would have to be more toxic than ITN, which is impossible. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Politics was actually nominated successfully at AFI. The actual prohibition seems to be "controversial" articles, meaning those with "heated discussion, edit warring, or questioned notability" and so they might be any kind of topic. The nomination discussions often seem to raise the issue of "importance" which is just like ITN's "significance". AFI is currently a backwater but if its articles get a week on the main page, we should expect some escalation. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:54, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Well in the past, AFI was aimed at people who were already editors. Should this proposal gain consensus, the criteria would accordingly shift (if not officially, de facto) because of the new crop of editors who would be interested in the process. Importance shouldn't be a factor for the proposed purpose. The goal would be to find articles that need improvement, but not so much that they can't be on the main page. InfernoHues (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  If you read the fine print of this proposal (the discussion before the RfC) you would know that we will try to steer clear of contentious topics. AFI was aimed at things to be fixed by experienced editors, now we will simply aim it towards problems to be fixed by new editors. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 20:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't understand your disconnect here. Your argument reads (at least to me) "I know we will avoid contentious topics but that might happen anyway (mechanisn?) and cause arguments and edit warring in the contentious article (which, as detailed in this discussion wont happen)." ??? Ilov3gam3z (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  calm In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I do admit the irony, but I consider Politics the article as not too close into politics because it has very little heat. Importance might be an issue, but there's always enough articles whose topics completely avoid that debate because everybody agrees they're important enough, such as Articulated bus. Unlike ITN, there's no pressure for the items to feel current (and nominations take a very long time to become stale), so we'd still have a healthy AFI queue. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Bendy buses used to be quite a hot topic in London and getting rid of them was one of Boris's big achievements as London mayor. There's a current AFI nomination for the Reform candidate in Makerfield and that's about as political as it gets. It hasn't had much attention and no-one seems bothered that it is so political. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  That's still not hot enough that it becomes contentious in editing.

  I would oppose Robert Kenyon as an AFI candidate; besides the other reasons, it is a BLP. No one seems bothered about the political part because the AfD nom is an even bigger and obvious reason to oppose it. Note that receiving no supports results in an automatic fail. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• B (No) or place it below the four main sections (TFA, ITN, DYK, OTD). Which would readers rather see on the main page: a box telling them to improve a random article (that they most likely have no interest in editing), or a box that lists current world events? I know I'd choose the latter, because a large, static section on the main page whose content changes once, weekly is, imo, boring. Plus, the primary purpose of the proposed TWAFI template is to apparently "create" new editors, but I'm having a difficult time believing that it'll accomplish that. If few existing editors are editing List of Syrian cheeses (this current week's article for improvement), why would a brand new editor be interested in improving that article? From their POV, the article looks to be in already decent shape, especially if it's after Day 2 of being featured. Besides, "improving" the article means the new editor must take time to do research on Syrian cheese and add a reliable source to the article. If they get reverted because they added unsourced content, original research, or an unreliable source? That'll discourage them from further editing. And as another editor said above, the article selected for TWAFI will be a magnet for vandalism and LTAs, especially if it's placed so prominently on the main page and with a call to action to edit it. That being said, I don't mind it being on the main page, but I don't see any benefits to having it placed above the four main MP sections. Some1 (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Prior TWAFI articles, such as List of Syrian cheeses, were not chosen with a primary focus of engaging new editors. The revert argument is non-specific to TWAFI, any new editor could be reverted at any article, the difference here is that a TWAFI page will be monitored by editors acutely aware of WP:BITE and who will be actively seeking to assist newcomers. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  If I had to choose, I would place the TWAFI box below Today's featured picture. For the main page, dynamic, quality content should be the primary focus, with attempts to recruit new editors second. Some1 (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Some1: I suggested P4 (User:Godsy/main page mockup) above, which I believe is similar to what you are suggesting. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 23:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for creating the mockup... Seems like having 2 boxes in the left column and 3 boxes in the right column will make the MP look uneven on desktop view (there's a large empty space in the DYK box). Looking at the proposed placement options above in the OP, all of them will also have that same issue on desktop mode. I prefer what's in User:ONUnicorn/sandbox, but with the TWAFI template in a shade of yellow or another color. An alternative would be to place the TFP box in the first column below DYK and the TWAFI box in the second column below OTD; that way there's 3 boxes in each column. Some1 (talk) 23:48, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Forgot there's a "Today's featured list", so striking. Some1 (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  You could also show more of TFA to fill up the space. More DYKs are an option as well, but it might not be possible to promote that many hooks. InfernoHues (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I concur that the imbalance is a problem. The bottom does seem to be the best course of action for that reason and to keep the traditional, longstanding stuff in the expected locations. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 01:53, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• A x20. This is a very good idea because thats exactly what Wikipedia should do to encourage more newcomers to start editing tasks, one of the best features about Wikipedia. M.1>M.3>M.2 and P.2>P.3>P.1
  (talk with this worm) 12:39, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• B Per Some1's recent comments. If it must be done, send it as far down the page as possible.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• I very much vote A!
  My the mockup version I prefer is M.2 and the position I prefer is P.1.
  --I sometimes eat bananas, and you can talk to me here: (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• A and M3 > M2 > M1. As for placement, I actually don't prefer any of the placements except for P3, but like Wehwalt and Some1, this should probably be placed below the existing content (e.g. where TFL is located). However, if we had to choose, then P3 > P2 > P1. I really prefer that TWAFI not be placed above DYK and would want that to be the absolute last resort, as DYK has already been closely vetted, and that would very negatively affect DYK pageviews. I am less opposed to putting it above ITN (which is less closely vetted than DYK) and OTD (which is even less closely vetted than either ITN or DYK). – Epicgenius (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I echo this concern about hiding DYK. It's a place editors can showcase articles they worked on without requiring it to get all the way to FA level, and is, in my experience, very popular among editors for that reason. It's a great incentive to get editors putting some effort into articles, and a more valuable part of the main page than ITN and OTD are. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 14:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would agree that it should not go above DYK. I feel that this would work well as a landscape bar at the bottom like TFL. MallardTV ^{Talk to me!} 16:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• A and M3 > M2 > M1 and P1 > P3 > P2, with the caveat that in P1, I'd rather have it below DYK instead of above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:50, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Having TWAFI below DYK would be suitable for me, too. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:58, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• A, support P2 > P3 > P1 and M2 > M3 > M1 per my comments in the previous discussion. Agree with Epicgenius that having it above less closely vetted sections like ITN and OTD is preferable to having it above DYK. I don't like the idea of setting it up for failure by making it as invisible as possible to conclude that people aren't interested. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 15:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• A (support), for largely the same reasons that have been discussed to date. Regarding the language, my order of preference is M3 > M1 = M2. Regarding placement, my order of the three proposed placements is P1 > P3 > P2, but a hypothetical P4 that places TWAFI below DYK would be on par or even better than P1 imo. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• No opinion on whether we should, but do not disrupt the top four boxes.--Launchballer 15:10, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• A, M3, P1 Ktkvtsh (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• A, M.3> M.2> M.1, P.None of the above, mainly per Epicgenius. This is a great idea that deserves visibility, but I reluctantly think it seems more suited to a place further down the page (i.e. above "Other areas of Wikipedia") to avoid obscuring any featured/vetted content. If we must choose now, P.3 > P.2 > P.1 seems the most reasonable. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 15:55, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• B (oppose) per Andrew and Some1. It does not appear that there is enough vetting at AFI, and also don't feel that this is something that would help new editors. In addition, the "weekly" cycle thing is a concern, as that makes the MP stale. ITN also has a problem with this, but that is a separate issue. Natg 19 (talk) 17:29, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  If this is approved, I prefer M2 or M3, as M1 has a generic title bar and does not have an "appeal" to edit. In addition, I do like the idea of "ways to contribute" or "how to contribute", which presumably has specific suggestions and is not just boilerplate language. No preferences on positions. Natg 19 (talk) 17:33, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  For what it's worth, there was some discussion on making it daily, but weekly was chosen to start with since we don't know for sure how effective this will be yet (will all basic improvements be made in a day, or will the full week be needed). InfernoHues (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• A, M3, P3 In the News should come first, then an article for improvement. M3 has explicit suggestions for how to imporve the article. --Enos733 (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• A as I find oppose arguments unconvincing (per replies above) and prefer M.3: Potential improvers should know most how they can actually change up the article. M2 does have these suggestions but without the bulleting, it's so hidden that the last !voter did not see it. It's much less important to summarize what the article is about, because this is about improving the article, not telling you what the article's about right now. Which is also why I think M.3's first paragraph should be trimmed to just one sentence (M3A?).
  I have mixed feelings about placement as all of the available options unbalance the columns. I do agree that it should be ideally visible without scrolling, though, as that's what most of the people we want to attract do. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• B (opposed). There should be various prominent links that invite editing, but having direct links to an article to edit on the Main Page with little explanation what needs to be done is not going to do much good. I expect a lot of the edits will be simple ENGVAR violations "fixing" the spelling or grammar. —Kusma (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• A, worth trying. M2 > M1 > M3, simplest call to action and least WP:INSTRUCTIONCREEP. P2 > P3 > P1, make it visible, don't touch the left column of the main page. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• B (Oppose). The main page is for quality content that benefits readers, not primarily for recruitment of new editors. I also agree with concerns expressed above that having an article in need of improvement up on the main page for a week while most of the quality content appears for only a day is out of step with our priority of serving up quality, fresh, relevant and timely articles. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• A, with the following template ranking: M.2>M.3>M.1. For positioning: Aaron Liu's proposal>P.2>P.1>P.3. We can and should be doing more to recruit new editors. The template and positioning rankings I put in order of what I think would be most attention-arresting. Bremps... 21:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
• B (Oppose). The Main Page is already cluttered, and drawing readers into editing is already one of the purposes of DYK. (That's one of the reasons I opposed having GAs added to new and recently expanded articles in DYK, and I would regard undoing that change and reinstating the statement in the DYK section that these are among Wikipedia's most recent articles and "you can edit them" as a better way to encourage people to try editing.) I also share the concern that featuring the same article for improvement for a week while content selected for its quality is only featured for one day is something of an insult to those who worked hard to polish the quality content. Even ITN and Recent Deaths turn over faster than weekly. The underlying problem is that TWAFI is a suggestion among a multitude of maintenance and improvement tasks, including a large number of articles that are equally or more in need of improvement; it's an artificial focus, while what we need to ensure readers are aware of is that editing in general is welcome, no matter what they want to fix or add. (Yes, they can even edit TFA.) Showcasing one article as in need of improvement actually undercuts the message that this is an encyclopaedia, but it's also an open wiki. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Unfortunately TFA is now automatically semi-protected for two days; see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Protect featured articles. That is part of why I enthusiastically supported this from the workshop stage. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe we should contact the TFA editors to change this? Ilov3gam3z (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  You are not overcoming this overwhelming consensus without some extraordinary new information. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• A (Support) I know the WMF is somewhat controversial right now, but support in the spirit of meta:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2026-2027 (even if it's mostly corperate nonsense). This furthers those goals much better than the image carosal that met so much backlash a few weeks ago. Would prefer M1 as it provides article specific contribution advice, and this is purely cosmetic and not practical, but I'd put it below most of the content, probably above POTD, because I like how the mockups look in wider format. We may need to implement more thorough vetting at AFI if they do get onto the main page. ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ ^{(They/Them/Their)} 23:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  But if I had to choose, probably P2 ⇖ /.°°.\ ⇗ ^{(They/Them/Their)} 23:24, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• A (Support); however, I would propose it be Today's article for improvement rather than This week's article for improvement as a week is a long time to placing an article on the frontpage that is in need of improvement, especially with the amount of real-estate that will be committed. As far as preferences go, P3 -> P2 -> P1 & M3 -> M2 -> M1 in those orders. TarnishedPath^talk 01:09, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• A No preferences for the mocks. Any would do, in my opinion. I strongly recommend P1 or a variation that puts this in the left column. ITN could use more space at times as sometimes it is either the the content in the left column being too short, or the DYK OTD section being too long that leads to entries in ITN being bumped off (temporarily). With WP:ITNBALANCE as it is, we may have to sacrifice more space than before. – robertsky (talk) 02:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  To be frank, I don't think ITN (or OTD) uses the space it currently has particularly well. Why give it more? 1brianm7 (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  ITNBALANCE reduces the space that ITN has. With this proposed section, ITN... would like be virtually gone? Unless ITNBALANCE excludes the TAFI section from consideration for balance between the two columns. – robertsky (talk) 03:33, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, I've said before in the workshop that I don't think the concerns about balancing and size have been adequately accounted for, and have supported concision to make the TWAFI box as small as possible. I would hope that OTD also shrinks itself if this is successful, especially since it's my understanding that OTD has the least community buy-in. And I expect more people to realize that these mockups are really too big without doing much of anything with the space once they are implemented. With this proposed section, ITN... would like be virtually gone? that's one of the strongest arguments I've heard for this proposal /hj 1brianm7 (talk) 03:58, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't see why TFA couldn't be made longer if needed to fill in the space, just show more of the article. You could also increase DYK, but that's harder. InfernoHues (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  We could also make the two sides take 50% instead of the current 60-40 balance we have now. That, plus making TFA longer would likely solve the balance problem. ScienceD90 (she/her) (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  The current balance is 55-45, not 60-40. And still, I'd oppose rebalancing, because I think ITN and OTD (and possible soon TWAFI) are really quite bad at using the space they have. 1brianm7 (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think we might want to create a new section about the balancing issue instead of just having it in the middle of the survey section, so we can get more ideas on fixing it. ScienceD90 (she/her) (talk) 04:38, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• A (Support) I think this would be an improvement as it helps new editors find a page that could use improvement. I vote M.3>M.2>M.1. I think M.3 is th best choice because it lists out what needs to be done on the article. M.2 has the advantage of being smaller but the list is not as visually clear, instead being embedded in the paragraph. M.1 is the worst option as it just copies the lead. For the placement, I vote P.2>P.3>P.1. I think this section should be at the top so the most editors see it. I have ranked the placements based in how high the new section would be. ScienceD90 (she/her) (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• A, we can easily remove it if it doesn't live up to expectations. That being said, it has to be executed in a way that's mindful of TFA. It's ridiculous to have our best editors toil away to write a featured article for the hopes of getting 1/7 of the exposure some randomly selected article will. With that in mind, M3>M2>M1 (though the exact wording will need some improvement), and P3>P2>P1, though I wouldn't be opposed to putting it under TFP as some have suggested. JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:35, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• A, as when last discussed I'm generally supportive of this idea. However, on placement, I've come around to a long horizontal placement like the mockups in the past discussion. This makes it more visible, but also makes it easier to remove if there is an issue/no appropriate article for that week without disrupting the rest of the main page (think of how TFL appears and disappears without causing issues). CMD (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  @CMD do you have any preference for which mockup should be used as the starting template? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 10:15, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks, missed that part of the multi-question. M3>M2, oppose M1. CMD (talk) 10:57, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• A, no preference for placement. Agree with TarnishedPath that Today's article for improvement would be better than keeping one article on the front page for a week. Whonting (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• A - Support, just like I did in the previous discussion. For the mockup preferences, without any other suggestions/own mockups: M3 > M2 > M1. For the placement, no preference (lean P.2) since I usually look at the whole Main page, however, my concern is that this would bury the other parts of the main page (especially ITN)
  Side note for M3, as Ilov3gam3z mentioned, they are okay with removing the indentation

Hason-LEK-SIN ● Let’s chat! ● My contribs 14:26, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• A, M2>M3>M1, P1 or P2 I wouldn't link WP:bold and I would leave off the sentence about the teahouse. Rolluik (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• A, no preference on mockups, Oppose P.1, but would prefer a P.4 as some have mentioned that puts it in a solid line across both columns above/below TFP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
• A. M2 is the most to-the-point layout, and I prefer P1, then P2, for logical placement. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:13, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

• B (oppose) per others above. In addition to the opposing comments already made, I just feel this initiative will fail to solve the problem it's trying to solve. The process to identify the articles to improve (Wikipedia:Articles for improvement) seems to stand on weak footing - there were a lot of comments above on List of Syrian cheeses, which at least is an article can could use some love, but next scheduled on is Chess, a very complete article that will flabbergast new editors - what are they expected to improve there? I also feel that this is completely the wrong approach to get new editors. Wikipedia should rather build a social media presence, have a daily "article to improve" post on Instagram, for instance, and attract new and younger editors where they actually are spending their time. Even if this TWAFI proposal here goes through, my expectation is that it will change nothing. In terms of position (in case this goes through) I echo others: don't mess with the parts on the main page that work for this hail-mary expirement. Khuft (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  Good point about Chess. That was not nominated because it would be suitable for newbies but because it was a former featured article and was level-4 vital. That nomination was in 2023 and the AFI pipeline is full of such high-stakes articles. Pivoting the project to be a training ground hasn't been thought through and simply won't work as there's no way that the chess project's fanatics will let newbies mess with their most important article. The article has had over 3,800 editors to date and is already semi-protected due to vandalism. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:11, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I personally think the chess article is at least GA level, and I dread it going through a flurry of edits. Edits to it from new or anonymous editors are usually not very good. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:55, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  This was a bad idea. It's not a matter of WP:OWN, rather wiping years of intelligent article evolution by inexperienced editor(s). Who thunk this up?? --IHTS (talk) 06:08, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  The edit history of Chess, now AFI for two days, says otherwise. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 21:40, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  My take is that an inexperienced editor, Chuddite, has rushed in to do some bold restructuring of the Chess article without prior discussion. More experienced editors are now talking about reverting this: we should revert to the earlier and superior organization ... Agreed. Revert. ... I hope we don't get too many more "improvements". And that's without any completely new editors attracted by a post on the main page. They wouldn't be able to edit the article because it is still protected. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:34, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  My take is that it's still a net positive. The first comment you're quoting starts with Some of the recent reorganization is bad., my emphasis on Some. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

  When making the RfC, we didn't consider what articles would be chosen. Bremps, the proposer, said the articles would have to be randomly chosen. I think TWAfI needs to be C-class or less, too.
  To quote Bremps: "This other idea will work/is working in attracting newcomers, so this is not needed." Wonderful! Let us implement both. 7amiþ solidarity · 💬 · 📊 · 🇺🇸 19:14, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  The worry I have is that there are several people who have said that as part of the process X will happen, but no one saying (not even Bremps) that they will personally work on making X happen. I think a lot of details can be worked out through local discussion, but I'd feel a lot more reassured if there were actual volunteers stepping up and saying they will be working on the details and participating in the day-to-day work. isaacl (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'll definitely be around when this is getting off the ground to weigh in and help, but I definitely imagine this to be non-adversarial and relatively light when the novelty wears off. Bremps... 22:01, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'll definitely be there to help as well. InfernoHues (talk) 22:59, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'll be there to help, too. 7amiþ solidarity · 💬 · 📊 · 🇺🇸 00:35, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  I will personally work on making X happen. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 04:01, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  I suggest getting the process going now, producing weekly versions of what would be posted to the main page, to better understand the day-to-day work required, and what automation may be desirable. I think establishing a track record of having content prepped, enqueued, and ready, as well as finding volunteers to implement any required automation, would help reassure the community that the initiative can regularly update the main page. isaacl (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Bremps signed up as a participant of TWAFI in August 2025. They are not now listed as an active member of that project because the only thing they seemed to do was post a link to the Idea Lab which seems to be the actual place this idea was cooked up. So far as I can tell, Bremps has never nominated an article for TWAFI nor even discussed someone else's nomination. They seem to have zero experience of the project and yet they propose to take it over, transform it and put it on the main page. But note that they are not an admin and admin rights are essential for main page activity. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:14, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is not a proposal for Bremps to take over or head TWAFI, it's a proposal for a new community process, of which there are many community members offering their support.

  Concerning needing admin permissions, 7 admins have supported this proposal so far. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  This is not a new process; it's the existing process of Articles for Improvement which has existed since 2012. This RfC is only to determine whether the current article for improvement should be posted in a section on the main page. And this idea isn't new either as this was already tried in 2013. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:58, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• A. I think this is an excellent proposal and will help recruit new editors to Wikipedia and bring more attention to articles that really need it. I prefer M2, M3, M1, especially M2 because it suggests to newcomers what kind of improvements can be made to the article and gives an easy link to start editing. However I oppose all of the proposed placement options. I agree with concerns that there needs to be a clear distinction between featured content and an invite to participate in editing. Therefore, I think TWAFI should be in another color such as yellow or orange and placed below the featured content, like this:

I think this could be a good way to implement the proposal while keeping all existing main page content visible. Just a thought. MidnightMayhem (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The problem with this is that then most people won't see it, which defeats the purpose. --I sometimes eat bananas, and you can talk to me here: (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I like the colour difference, but the burying at the very bottom though… 🫩 Hason-LEK-SIN ● Let’s chat! ● My contribs 06:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The idea of placing TWAFI down there with the featured picture did come up in the previous discussion. It was generally rejected because not many people would see it. In fact, several people admitted they did not even know there was a featured picture section on the Main Page. ScienceD90 (she/her) (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• A. Great idea. Opposers who suggest there are many other maintenance tasks to get into are missing that many people don't know they can edit Wikipedia at all. DYK doesn't motivate them to edit; they don't know they can write DYKs and have no idea how articles are chosen for it. I am not terribly particular about position or mockup, but I don't like how P1 puts it above DYK. The FA and DYKs ought to have high billing on the page and this shouldn't displace them. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• B (Oppose) per Andrew. Also, I believe new editors are likely to edit within their own niches, rather than edit related to Syrian cheese just because the Main Page suggested it. Nice4What (talk · contribs) ♥ 03:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• B. I'd rather see this on the Community Portal, not MainPage. There is no way to predict whether a wikiarticle will improve enough after a week of collaborative editing to be featured on MainPage. Prefer featuring FAs on MainPage. And then, there is DYK to feature recently upgraded wikiarticles. After TWAFI, improved wikiarticles can go through GA review and qualify for DYK to get on MainPage. --PFHLai (talk) 08:48, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  The point of TWAfI really isn't to improve articles but to help editor retention. As @asilvering pointed out, many people don't know that DYKs are for them to write. I also doubt that most people know a Community Portal even exists (as a moderately new editor, I sure didn't). 7amiþ solidarity · 💬 · 📊 · 🇺🇸 14:30, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  7amithorn is only 2 months old and so still has much to learn. Articles for Improvement is 14 years old and its formal goals do not include editor retention:

  The project's four main tasks are to:

  • Coordinate and collaborate to improve articles.
  • Identify candidate articles.
  • Select the order they appear on the community portal in the Articles for improvement section.
  • Assess and track our accomplishments.

Andrew🐉(talk) 15:31, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Or it could be that 7amiþ is talking about the refocused version of TWAFI proposed here, the topic of discussion, which in the first sentence states This is a proposal to adapt this week's article for improvement (TWAFI) to focus primarily on helping create new editors. From my 3 year 9 month old account, fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

That's preamble which seems to be a false premise. The specific and only RfC question is Should TWAFI be shown on the main page?

Note that there's already an existing project devoted specifically to editor retention. It's WikiProject Editor Retention. Trying to repurpose AFI to do the same thing is silly and further demonstrates that this proposal has not been thought through.

Andrew🐉(talk) 16:04, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. As I noted above, I feel the whole initiative is starry-eyed passion project without a clear strategy to achieve its goals. Is it aimed at finding new editors or at editor retention (two completely different goals)? If the first, why do we think a random "article to improve" like List of Syrian cheeses, or Chess, would attract new editors? Do potential new editors even go to the main page, or do they access the info they need via links to specific pages via Google (or an LLM)? Wouldn't it make more sense, as I mentioned above, to reach out to younger, potential editors via e.g. social media? If the aim is editor retention, how is throwing a random article at people that have disconnected from editing (probably because they have jobs and a family nowadays) going to rekindle the fire of editing? Will they really go and look out for Syrian cheeses in order to improve that article? Will they scan the Chess article to see where they can potentially improve the grammar? Sorry for the snarky tone, but I feel a lot of effort is going into a white elephant initiative. Khuft (talk) 16:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

The selection isn't Special:Random, there's criteria given in the second sentence of the RfC, one of which is that pages cannot be "non-ideal for new editors". One way an article for improvement could help attract new editors is by making them personally aware that they can edit (not everyone is aware of this) and that we actively want them to edit (ditto), and then providing them with an immediate place to try editing (with suggestions and help).

We can and should try multiple ways to bolster editorship. I don't see why trying social media outreach (not really something we can handle on our own, though the WMF does do some, did you know there's a Wikipedia roblox game?) would mean we can't also try TWAFI.

As for retention vs onboarding, I believe that an accessible, positive, and structured first edit experience, as this proposal aims to provide, would lead to more new editors who also stick around longer. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I say new editors. With all the articles selected, there's eventually bound to be one whom someone's interested enough to take a look at and see how they could improve. The main page has extremely more page views than we have editors, (is generally not scraped by LLMs due to its lack of information,) and an appearance on the main page tends to attract improvement even by new editors.

Wouldn't it make more sense, as I mentioned above, to reach out to younger, potential editors via e.g. social media?

Is this proposal preventing that? In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I wrote most of that preamble. I don't appreciate having my efforts characterized as being a false premise (AGF?), regardless, the preamble is what opens and defines the RFC, This is a proposal to ..., and is binding. If you're curious why it's worded how it is see this thread. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

It is not compliant with WP:RFCBRIEF or WP:RFCNEUTRAL. The final question is simple and clear but the preamble isn't and so shouldn't be there. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:23, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Both those link to the same place. If you believe the RFC is procedurally unsound (though you appear to be alone in this assessment thus far), then feel free to move for a procedural close. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I've re-read the opening statement and I entirely fail to see what you could mean in saying that it isn't brief and neutral. The preamble briefly states the goal of the proposal, without making any claim as to whether or not it will be achieved, and other than that only contains information about what an affirmative consensus would actually entail.

I check every RfCs opened, in part to check if their opening statements are compliant and suggest fixes they aren't, and this one is better than the vast majority of them. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 21:11, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this RFC is fine too. And I'm saying that as somebody who isn't on board with the entire idea, either. (Just saying, I found being pointed to stuff like TWAFI rather demoralizing when I was getting into editing: I didn't know where to start, the topics often weren't of any interest to me, and I didn't know where to start with finding sources. Being told "this is a good place to start" and then failing just made me feel inadequate. But I'm not the only editor, and others seem to see something in this, so I wish them nothing but luck.) GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 21:23, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, it's fair to say this won't work for everyone. I personally found the similar WP:Task Center very useful when I started, and used it often. My biggest issue was that I would get no feedback if what I was doing was "correct." That's why I supported this proposal, as kind of an extension of that. InfernoHues (talk) 21:28, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, i definitely feel that lack of feedback thing. I know was really lucky to run into the Women in Red project several years ago; a bunch of enthusiastic editors willing to help out but also let me make mistakes, is something I wish I could give to all editors. That and their monthly editing drives/newsletters I was subscribed to still keep me going. GreenLipstickLesbian💌🧸 05:40, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

@Andrew Davidson, please don't be condescending. In my opinion, it's precisely the opinions of newer editors that matter more when we're talking about efforts to create new editors. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 20:29, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I have them a level one warning. See it on their talk page. Please tell me if this is appropriate. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 23:13, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

As for my reasoning, among other things, the '2 months old comment' seems to me to be a direct violation of WP:NPA. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• A, M2>M3>M1 and P2>P3>P1. I'd also be fine with the alternate suggestions of placing it below DYK or in a box above TFP, but I don't like the idea of placing it above DYK. I agree with TarnishedPath and with some of the opposers that the weekly cycle is not ideal, so I think moving to a "Today's article for improvement" is worth considering as a next step once things are running smoothly if this is implemented. MCE89 (talk) 18:37, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• A, but oppose all of P.1, P.2, P.3 I think this is a good idea in order to draw in new editors. However, more important to me is that the four mainstays of the Main Page (TFA, ITN, DYK, OTD) should stay in place. If I had to pick one of those for TWAFI to displace, it'd be DYK (in other words P.1 is the least bad of the three options), but honestly I still prefer DYK for that space over TWAFI. I like Godsy's P.4 and MidnightMayhem's P.5. No preference among the mockups M.1, M.2, M.3. Davey2116 (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
• A. Per it being a good idea. jp×g🗯️ 07:49, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  @JPxG do you have any mockup and positioning preferences? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• A: I've read through every oppose argument and did not find any to be compelling. I'm not sure why people are making a big deal about whether this is aimed at editor recruitment or editor retention; regardless of what effect it has on those this will make AFI a more useful place. (At the minute it seems to be largely ineffective.) Also support keeping the article for improvement on the main page for a full week as one day is not enough for significant change. No opinion on placement. Stockhausenfan (talk) 11:09, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
• B (Oppose) as impractical; realistically what I foresee will happen is that the suggested article would become a magnet for vandalism and consequently be semi-protected, defeating the purpose of this project. And anecdotally very few "new" editors make talk-page edit requests. I would be fine with a trial lasting, say, two-three months to gauge the editing patterns induced by this project though. JavaHurricane 14:57, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  There should probably be a stipulation in this proposal once implemented that articles chosen must not be protected and can't be for the week of. Ilov3gam3z (talk) 15:04, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  That's even more impractical. JavaHurricane 07:11, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  That's what they said about an encyclopedia anyone can edit. "It'll just be vandalism." Turned out not to be true. Levivich (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  I wonder why we protect the TFA preemptively nowadays, then. Or why DYKs regularly and quickly make their way to RFPP. JavaHurricane 07:08, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  Because men have forgotten God. jp×g🗯️ 20:00, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  What? FaviFake (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  ??? Ilov3gam3z (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  Pretty sure they mean that highly productive editors (men) have forgotten god (the necessity of privileging newbies for the project's sustainability) Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 22:20, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think this is a joke—an incredibly funny one which we should enjoy at that, in fact.

  (If we're opting for serious interpretations of something biblical, I can equally-validly interpret it as "people (anonymous and new editors) have forgotten how to have good things (biblically, God)". I envision some prosperous years of religious sect-building and excommunications over this.) In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2026 (UTC)

• A, M1, P2 - M1 seems to best match the rest of the main page, and I like the placement of P2: the juxtaposition between TFA and an article needing improvement encapsulates the idea of Wikipedia quite nicely: what articles start as, and what they can become. I'd support A with any of the other M's or P's as well. If we want a human written encyclopedia, we're gonna need humans to write it, and this seems like a good idea to try to increase recruitment. Let's see if it makes a difference. Levivich (talk) 15:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
• A I was summoned so I'll offer my opinion. I do still think that AFI and Vital articles could be merged, and unfortunately have not gotten enough momentum between the projects to actually get anything definitive. If we're making changes, would want to toss that discussion in to see if anyone else is interested in such a merge. GeogSage ^{(⚔Chat?⚔)} 20:39, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
• A – P2 – This is an excellent idea that really shows what Wikipedia is about. I am fully in favor of showing the website as an ever-improving and ever-evolving reference work. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:56, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
• A. M2 > M1 > M3 but all mockups are acceptable to me. Location wise, I like both P3 or full-width box somewhere below the two columns bit but I would accept any location. I suggest trying it out to see how it goes, and then see if a week is too long for one article.

I found the Article for Improvement extremely compelling when I was a new editor first learning the ropes, and I think we should make it as easy as possible for people to find these kinds of high-quality on-ramps to editing. I expect having it on the main page would also bring me back to looking in on the articles, especially to make sure all was going well with the newcomers. I think experienced editors are perfectly capable of curating appropriate article choices for the main page, i.e., articles with low-stakes and approachable flaws. ~ le 🌸 valyn (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

• A, M3 > M2 > M1. Though, I would prefer if this were to be daily and for multiple articles to be improved. I have no opinion on the positioning. Beta Beta Beta - talk 01:25, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• A, M3 > M2 > M1, M3 > M1 > M2 if the "How to contribute" box in M1 isn't collapsed by default. And I think TWAFI should come before all other boxes, i.e. be in the following position:
  TWAFI

  TFA DYK

  ITN OTD

  sapphaline (talk) 09:17, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  What do you think of my mockup? In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with all your points, but I think placing it below DYK and OTD would be better since we still want to highlight the featured articles and all the other content above. Atakes Ris (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

• A M1, M2, M3 this seems like a really good idea, i think TWAFI should go at the bottom of the right hand side or below the news. Jabba550  | ✉ in solidarity 12:32, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
• B. If done anyway, oppose all of P1, P2, and P3, and suggest a P4 instead that pushes this feature down beneath OTD. First of all let me say that I love calls to action, and I think that encouraging people to consider becoming editors is important. In fact, this kind of collaboration is great. However, this is too wide a collaboration. A successful collaboration is like... 10 people in a classroom or a Discord channel. Opening up a collaboration to a zillion contributors is a formula for heartbreak if the goal is any improvement more than skin-deep. We want a welcoming newbie experience, yes, but a newbie experience that involves being reverted or heavily rewritten by random other people aren't it. And heck, even in the case of just ~10 contributors, there's always the risk that two editors take time to work on the article and seriously research it, but go different directions. And then a drive-by collaborator just stops in long enough to make unneeded style edits to annoy them. This problem is much worse with a Wikipedia-wide invitation. So yes to today's article for improvement for WikiProjects or subreddits or Discord channels, no to the main page. SnowFire (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
• A. I don't care exactly how it's done, but this is something we should do. Attracting new editors is crucial, and I'll take any plausible idea for it. Toadspike [Talk] 22:09, 11 July 2026 (UTC)
• A, M3>2>1, P2>3>1. I also agree that the contrast between the FA and TWAFI is clearer when they are placed side-by-side, and the second and third mockups are more encouraging to new editors. I also suspect there are a reasonable nember of semi-experienced editors who don't know about AfI, and introducing them to the process could counter the unconstructive edits by newcomers. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity 16:25, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• A, M2>3>1, strongly prefer P2 - This seems like a no-brainer way to improve the Main Page. I do feel like the concerns about too many editors on one article are valid, but I think that it is more important that we encourage editing and I think AFI needs the support. Regarding the placement, if we do end up doing this it'd be best to have it at the top to contrast with TFA. Eman7blue42 (talk page | recent edits) 22:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)
• B The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that this will quickly become "This Week's Vandalized Article", especially if the proposals to prohibit protecting the page go through. It would be the only page prominently linked to from that main page that isn't protected, and will require constant and vigilant oversight from RC patrollers and admins. The only way I could see this working is if we didn't actually link to the page, but instead had a message similar to M2 without the link to the page and that, instead of "Click here to start editing", had a link to Click here to view this and other articles in need of improvement! that links to Wikipedia:Articles for improvement/Articles. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 17:26, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  Ahecht, am I missing something? Currently, only the featured article is protected out of the boldlinks on the main page. InfernoHues (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not referring to boldlinks, I'm referring to items that have an entire box devoted to them, namely the Featured Article and Featured Picture. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 20:29, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  The featured picture isn't protected. InfernoHues (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

• B & none of the placement options. If this does pass it should be below the other content, in the same slot as TFL, and limited to one day per week. This idea does not showcase quality encyclopaedia content, quite the opposite - it's specifically picking a bad article that needs work. The Main Page is supposed to present material that demonstrates the value of Wikipedia and is useful to readers, not content for editors or designed to recruit new ones. Bold links from the Main Page are held to minimum standards of quality, by all existing sections, which this wouldn't meet. I have no objection to TWAFI existing, or being advertised to existing editors, but I don't think it should be on the Main Page or otherwise advertised to readers. Modest Genius ^talk 19:04, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

  The main idea of having this is by having an article that demonstrates the point about the free encyclopaedia that anyone can edit (see the initial workshopping/RFCBEFORE). I don't think the main page was ever intended to always show articles with quality content, otherwise having DYK for new articles and "other areas of Wikipedia" would not have existed. Even if it is, remember, consensus can change, and most people in this discussion say this is probably the best way to bring in editors.

  Although, I do agree that this feature could be "advertised" to current editors, probably through Special:Homepage, though that might mean a lower success rate. Hason-LEK-SIN ● Let’s chat! ● My contribs 23:01, 16 July 2026 (UTC)

I don't know if DYK is necessarily "high quality content", but they do have minimum quality standards and a "presentability" standard, which TWAFI is the opposite of. Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

To add to Hanson's comment, looking at the Main Page, there's tons of free, encyclopedic content, but editing only gets three mentions: the tagline and two boldlinks way down at the bottom. To use a metaphor, if I had a book that was half about cheese and half about bread, I would want to place both on the cover. The Main Page feels like a cover of pure bread. 7amiþ reform · 💬 · 📊 00:52, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Why don't we just add a huge EDIT NOW! button or something to the "Welcome to Wikipedia" banner on the MP? (Or redesign that banner in general?) It'll probably attract more editors than the TWAFI template. Some1 (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Sure, that'd work nicely. (TBH I sww TWAfI as a huge EDIT NOW box, but also trying to answer the follow-up: "Edit... what?") 7amiþ reform · 💬 · 📊 01:17, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

But you wouldn't want a book about cheese to have a cover that's half cheese, and half how to write & print a book. The behind the scenes stuff should remain there. The vast majority of our readers already know that they can edit articles - it's already stated right at the top of the Main Page - they just choose not to. Modest Genius ^talk 10:19, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Surveys indicate that, while most readers know that they can they edit, few of them do so and there are three main reasons for this:

1. Lack of expertise
2. Satisfaction with the existing content
3. Fear of rejection

The first two are fine as we don't want change for change's sake by clueless newbies. But we could do more to make everyone feel welcome and suggest some low-hanging fruit for them to pick in a safe way.

The best example I've seen lately is the Suggested edits feature which has been offered to me in the app. These are carefully tailored to be specific and suitable for newbies. They will scale well for our millions of readers and so will build confidence without clashes. We should try to put such a personalised feature on the main page near the "anyone can edit" intro. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

( peanut gallery comment) Fear of rejection basically summarizes half of my work here: edit/comment, then wait around for someone to tell me how wrong I am. No matter what ends up getting approved, I believe it MUST help editor confidence. 7amiþ reform · 💬 · 📊 01:42, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• B There are already tens of articles across a wide range of interests linked on the main page every day that could be edited and improved by anyone who cares to, rather than choosing one by committee that will likely interest a tiny fraction. Stephen 00:41, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  From Bremps, the proposer (here): First, the selection will be done by RNG, as it is currently. This sounds jarring to anyone who participates in ITN or DYK, but I believe this is the best method. No one gets to play favorites or horse-trade support votes. I believe that otherwise, this will be a major issue as everyone tries to get their pet article in the line for improvement. 7amiþ reform · 💬 · 📊 00:55, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  That comment sorta confused me when I first read it. Almost all ITN posts comes in RDs, which doesn't have any horse-trading or favorites, and ITN noms are a whole process that also almost never has anyone playing favorite or horse-trading (the only possible favorites that occur is with the US and UK, which are pretty wide scopes). DYKs and RDs can be almost anything, if RD the person just has to have died and not be a stub and the DYK just has to be recently improved and not a stub (interestingness is a very low bar). I think OTD, TFA, and TFP all have much better arguments as occurring via horse trading and favorites, but I still wouldn't really say so. 1brianm7 (talk) 02:48, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  The RfC text does not say that articles will be chosen randomly, though that was in the original proposal. InfernoHues (talk) 02:50, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  sorry. What I meant to say was more like "it would be preferable for TWAfI to be randomly generated, here's Bremps's reason [insert here]" 7amiþ reform · 💬 · 📊 02:53, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  The Article for Improvement is already an ongoing practice. The RfC is about if it should be put on the main page or not. --I sometimes eat bananas, and you can talk to me here: (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• B As an idea to attract and engage new editors, I think this is a well-intentioned but flawed idea. You're asking them to go from front page to problematic article to somehow discerning what is currently wrong with it editing it to producing an end result that is better and conforms to all Wikipedia policies and practices. I think that's a recipe for disaster, both in terms of the damage done to articles that already need improvement and the discouragement of new editors who feel slapped down as soon as they try to answer a call for help. Note that some of those "articles for improvement" are already B-class. The improvements they need are likely to be beyond the scope of an untrained beginner. I think it would be more useful to have a section explicitly calling for new editors and showing them the first steps they should take in order to become editors here, The Wikipedia Adventure for example, and from there to editing a subject that interests them and which they know about, rather than whatever random article "needs improvement" today Chuntuk (talk) 14:37, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  M1 and M3 both have a list of things that need to be improved in the article, and if any editor needs more specific instructions, they could ask the volunteers who promised to be there (see replies). Also, I personally support making TwAfI C-class or lower. 7amiþ reform · 💬 · 📊 15:27, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  If I'm a new editor, how do I know where to get help? If you're one of the volunteers, how do you know I need it? Chuntuk (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  how do I know where to get help? – You will notice that all three mockups state that questions can be asked either at the teahouse or the talk page, with links. Additionally the RFC states Guidance and suggestions will also be given when editing via an edit notice, how to get help falls under guidance.

  how do you know I need it? – Volunteers will be monitoring and evaluating edits to the article and its talk page. The Teahouse is already monitored by volunteers assisting newcomers. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

  The issue about B-class articles has been addressed in the discussion section with the proposal to limit AfI to C-class or below. Stockhausenfan (talk) 13:21, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

• B; I admire the intention behind this idea in regards to attracting new editors but I just don’t see it being that effective. People without edting experience aren’t going to decide to randomly edit a topic they may have no interest in; since they don’t have Wikipedia-editor-brain yet they will be less likely to notice things they want to change in the article. Even if they do, there’s no guarantee that the edits they’ll make won’t simply be reverted due to their lack of experience, potentially putting them off editing for good. Mir Novov (contribs | talk) 15:57, 28 July 2026 (UTC)
• A There are many bad articles that could use cleanup. This would be a great way to get them fixed. NewAccount7295 (talk) 19:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  @NewAccount7295, any !vote on the placement and preferred templates? 7amiþ reform · 💬 · 📊 04:44, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  P3>P1>P2 (I especially dislike P2); and M3/M2>M1 since it is important to tell the reader how they can improve the article, not just that they can. M3 is probably the best of those since it is the most descriptive of how. I personally think that none of the placements look amazing since they leave a gap but it is worth getting bad articles improved. NewAccount7295 (talk) 15:44, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  Another option would be to place it horizontally above or under Today's Featured Picture. (Even some of those opposing this have suggested that could still work) The only issue with that is that not as many people might scroll down, and it could have less impact as a result. However, we should not let the debate about how to place this get in the way of the fact that this needs to be added to the Main Page as the benefits to adding it, described by other people in this discussion, outweigh any negatives in my opinion. NewAccount7295 (talk) 16:29, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  sapphaline and Aaron Liu proposed placing TWAfI above TFA and ITN, which could solve both the gap problem and the visibility problem 7amiþ reform · 💬 · 📊 01:07, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  I know, but I don't like that placement. If it were to be placed horizontally I would suggest it be done above Today's Featured Picture. NewAccount7295 (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

• A, placed below DYK: I believe that it is important to make potenial editors see not only what has been done, but also what there still is to do. That said, Wikipedia has a purpose of being an online encyclopedia first, and providing such information is what people come to see. I'd prefer to avoid allowing improving the encyclopedia to get in the way of being one, and pushing encyclopedia content further down the page could get in the way. Mitchsavl (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2026 (UTC)
• A, with top preferences being M3 & P3, followed by M2 & P1, followed by M1 & P2. I still support adding AfI to the main page no matter what combination of M and P we end up going with. I've noticed over the years that AfI has been struggling, with a lot of articles for improvement ultimately getting few or even zero edits by the time their week is over. This is a great idea that addresses this problem by giving AfI some much-needed love, and better yet, encourages readers to become editors.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:44, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Discussion (TWAFI)

• Pining from previous discussions: @Bremps:, @BlueEleephant:, @Wikipedian12512:, @Idacticus:, @Aaron Liu:, @Chaotic Enby:, @David10244:, @7amithorn:, @Donald Albury:, @Kowal2701:, @Reconrabbit:, @Fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four:, @Clovermoss:, @Stonybrook:, @1brianm7:, @Naturedata:, @Thebiguglyalien:, @Gnomingstuff:, @Femke:, @Meadowlark:, @Jpxg:, @Ilov3gam3z:, @Hason-LEK-SIN:, @Chipmunkdavis:, @Isaacl:, @Joe vom Titan:, @Quince&Medlar:, @Zxcvbnm:, @Wreaderick:, @Edittttor:, @ISometimesEatBananas:, @Madotea:, @Felinaex:, @Walteronthehill:, @Youprayteas:, @Loytra:, @Toneshmellow1776:, @ScrubbedFalcon:, @NorthernWinds:, @Dylansan:, @Robertsky:, @FantasticWikiUser:, @EatingCarBatteries:, @Kepler-1229b:, @Enos733:, @FaviFake:, @WhatamIdoing:, @Rjjiii:, @JuxtaposedJacob:, @Toadspike: InfernoHues (talk) 05:21, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  More pings: @Miminity:, @Eddie891:, @Andrew Davidson:, @YuniToumei:, @SarekOfVulcan:, @Choucas:, @Some1:, @Wehwalt:, @ScienceD90:, @Cremastra:, @OwlParty:, @PerfectSoundWhatever:, @Rosguill:, @Danubeball:, @Sahaib:, @Ca:, @Schwede66:, @Art LaPella:, @Stephen:, @JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333:, @Remsense:, @Ad Orientem:, @SWinxy:, @UndercoverClassicist:, @Kusma:, @Modest Genius:, @Joe Roe:, @Just Step Sideways:, @Lallint:, @Yngvadottir:, @Khajidha:, @Andrybak:, @Kvng:, @Ktkvtsh:, @Selfstudier:, @CFA:, @PFHLai:, @Ahecht:, @AirshipJungleman29:, @JMCHutchinson:, @Aoba47:, @Gonzofan 2007:, @ChocolateCharcuterieBoard: InfernoHues (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Fixing incorrect pings: @JPxG:, @StonyBrook:, @Bo-3903:, @Gonzo fan2007:, @Jmchutchinson:, @Beeblebrox:, @JohnLaurens333: InfernoHues (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Notified T:MP and T:CENT InfernoHues (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Notified Wikipedia talk:Articles for improvement. 7amiþ solidarity · 💬 · 📊 · 🇺🇸 05:53, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  hwat is this all about then? OwlParty (talk) 08:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  There was a discussion on the topic of implementing this week's article for improvement on the front page. I participated in the initial thread but not in the RFCBEFORE, nice to see it got to this point. I'll have something to contribute in a while. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 11:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Reconrabbit, it might interest you to know that WP:RFCBEFORE gets its name from the idea that there are some things you could try 'before' starting an RFC in the hope that there would never be a need for that RFC. In the case of adding something to the Main Page or making a WP:PROPOSAL for a new policy or guideline, of course, there's no way to avoid an RFC, so RFCBEFORE's advice (e.g., "Asking over at the Teahouse") is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't involve myself too much in these processes so that's interesting to know. The section was quite literally "RFCBEFORE on adding a "This week's article for improvement" section to the Main Page"... but I get the feeling I am telling you things you already know now. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  FWIW, I've found that a good rule of thumb is that if you're explicitly naming sections "RFCBEFORE", you're likely doing something wrong. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 20:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Why was I tagged here? Idacticus (talk) 16:22, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  You participated in at least one of the discussions that led to the creation of this RfC. InfernoHues (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Which one? What is this about? Idacticus (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  See the topic's name ("Req"...). You were the first to support this idea besides Bremp, the initial proposer. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• Rationale for P1 prioritizing ITN and OTD over DYK? Why not put TAFI where DYK currently is, DYK where ITN currently is and OTD where ITN currently is? That has to be justified just as much as any other part of the change. Also, is there a way to make mobile users see TAFI under TFA while letting desktop users see TAFI to the right of TFA? If so, why should we not do that? –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 10:07, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not sure about the mobile stuff, but TWAFI is better on the left-hand side where the green colours stand out, instead of on the right hand side with the more subdued colours.

  --I sometimes eat bananas, and you can talk to me here: (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Then change the colour scheme? –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparleyinvestigateᛅ} 14:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Whoa there! In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 23:06, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Possibly. -I sometimes eat bananas, and you can talk to me here: (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2026 (UTC)

• Should we leave notifications about this thread on WT:DYK, WT:ITN, and WT:OTD respectively? We are talking about making a change that could potentially negatively impact these sections' viewership. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I have notified WT:DYK, WT:ITN, and WT:OTD about this discussion. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:40, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

• P: I guess nobody supports the idea to place AFI above both columns? In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I am well aware that this is a ridiculous idea with which I'm only barging in now instead of during the workshop. Regardless, a mockup is available at User:Aaron Liu/sandbox. The lack of color in the AFI space is intentional; it's simultaneously frontpaged and less attentionate than TFA. I'll shut up about this now. Toodle-doo. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I was considering proposing this in the workshop, but didn't think it would gain any consensus. InfernoHues (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Maybe under the featured picture? Like this []. But I would put color in the box. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 18:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  That's exactly the kind of thing I am supporting, thanks for the mock up. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 18:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I don't like that (though trialing anything would be better than nothing) because the kind of people we want to attract would have to scroll very far to see it. In solidarity, Aaron Liu (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would support that (placing TWAFI under TFP), and agree that the TWAFI box should have a color. Since TFA and DYK are green; ITN and OTD are blue; TFL is red; TFP is purple; maybe TWAFI can be a shade of yellow. Some1 (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Suggestion got buried in earlier discussions Hason-LEK-SIN ● Let’s chat! ● My contribs 06:57, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

• Regarding the addition by Andrew Davidson to the Background section, after reading the links I'm not I agree that the project was "considered a failure." I agree with the users in those discussions (and the signpost article interviews) that said the main problems were a) bad template design and b) three articles were listed at once, both which are hopefully fixed in this proposal. Even with those issues, there were still improvements made to some articles featured. InfernoHues (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC)
• Pinging regulars at TWAFI, I can't see that they've been notified, @BabbaQ, SVcode, 2600 etc, Earth605, Utopes, and GeogSage: please see the above Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 12:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Bremps: @BlueEleephant: @7amithorn: @InfernoHues:(feel free to ping more if needed), So I noticed that Chess is currently the Guild of Copy Editors article "of the week", that got me thinking, are they "more successful" than TWAFI? And, since I'm relatively new, how does the Guild work? I'm honestly quite confused.

As a side note, why was the Chicago Bulls nominated for TWAFI? It had a B grade, which isn't usual for TWAFI. While "researching" for this comment, I found the nomination of the Bulls, which mentioned that it isn't really deserving the B due to the multiple missing citations. And truth to be told, they were right: using the VE editing suggestions feature, the Bulls article had 31 editing suggestions, compared to 8 from the Lakers, 20 from the Celtics, 21 from the Spurs, and 29 from the *deep breaths* Knicks. What!? Huh!? The Knicks have almost the same number of uncited statements as the Bulls!?

Oh, and these numbers are after I have gone ahead and removed duplicated wikilinks the system suggested, by myself, leaving only "Add a citation" suggestions. Okay yeah, I see why that article was nominated for TWAFI.

Please save my brain, I've been watching too much NBA content than what is considered healthy... Hason-LEK-SIN ● Let’s chat! ● My contribs 14:28, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

In my experience working in the GOCE, they are less concerned with improving articles in the sense of "adding missing information and expanding", more "making articles more clear and clarifying issues with the existing text". -- Reconrabbit (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

Noted, checks out. Hason-LEK-SIN ● Let’s chat! ● My contribs 22:54, 19 July 2026 (UTC)

• Perhaps we could choose two seperate AfIs, and the one on the main page is C-class or lower? Perhaps we could even require all AfIs to be below B-class. This way, most good-faith, competent edits won't reduce the value of its content, and it's easier for newcomers to add information to an article with major gaps. Somepinkdude (talk | contribs), in solidarity — Preceding undated comment added 18:04, 26 July 2026 (UTC)

I strongly support making TWAfI below B-class (C, Start, or Stub). SPD nicely summarized my rationale. 7amiþ reform · 💬 · 📊 05:11, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Yes the argument for this is strong. Stockhausenfan (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2026 (UTC)