Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week
This page contains discussion on the main Collaboration of the week page. Old talk has been archived.
Archives:
Ancient Rome
Hey,
I nominated Ancient Rome on the Article Improvement Drive. Since this is a former Collaboration of the week, and one of the more successful ones we've worked on, i thought i'd post a message here to ask people to support it on the AID. --ZeWrestler Talk 14:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Music Article Improvement Collaboration of the Week
I am looking at setting up a new Category called Music Article collaboration of the week.
What process needs to be followed so that this can be considered?
nomination pruning
can someone prune the nominations. there are quite a few that have been past their deadline for at least a week now. --ZeWrestler Talk 21:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
- There isn't any complicated pruning procedure; you could have done it yourself. I have updated the dates and removed failed nominations. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
update
Should this page be updates, or is it going on for more week? Newbie222 02:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean there are some articles which need to be removed since they haven't got enough votes? Talrias (t | e | c) 07:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- No, not the pruning. I'm saying that shouldn't French Intervention of been archived last Sat in history and the next COTW put up? Newbie222 19:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
Pruning - 22nd October
I've removed the articles that didn't make their targets... but was I supposed to do anything else? Are there boilers to be removed from article talk pages? Something to be done on the nomination pages individually? If someone who knows the drill could attend to anything I missed, would be most grateful. I would say tell me how and I'll do it, but I fear this is a page I'll forget to check back to. --bodnotbod 08:52, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- Have you archived them? This is done by adding them to Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Removed. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
- I hadn't. I have now. Thanks for the advice Talrias. --bodnotbod 01:02, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Nomination purging - 2/11/05
I purged some nominations that had missed their targets for quite a while, there seemed to be too many on the page and I thought it would clutter new nominations. But they've been reverted by User:Weirdperson11. I'm going to remove the ones I purged again. If there are any severe aggravations about this, please post here. - Hahnchen 22:11, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
- My nomination was deleted List of Federal Highways in Mexico, even though it had 3 votes. I am gonna revert the purge, if you don't like it, just let my nomination fail. Weirdperson11 00:28, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
- Why did you revert *all* the purges then, rather than just re-adding the List of Federal Highways one? In any case, the nomination has still failed as it needs three votes per week, which means it needed six votes by 31 October. I have rearchived all the failed nominations. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
past COTW template
I think it would be good to have a template to link to COTW from the talk pages of past collaborations. I don't understand templates very well, but I put this together - {{Past cotw}}. Could someone tell me if that will work? Astrokey44 08:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've made a couple of style changes, and added a category. It sounds like a useful idea in principle; let's see how it works out. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- good, I think its useful to see the history of an article, for instance if it would get nominated at FAC people might forget that it was a COTW. Why arent all the articles showing up in Category:Past Wikipedia collaborations of the week? Do they have to be added individually? Astrokey44 12:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Renominations
Can you really have a topic that has gone due to exceeding the time limit (Population) come back on and selected immediately using old votes? That seems rather unfair.--File Éireann 19:52, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- The votes were readded by rmrfstar (talk · contribs) (I don't know why). I've removed them again. Talrias (t | e | c) 21:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've removed the old votes for Global Internet Access for fairness.--File Éireann 22:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- readding old votes in the equivlent of giving the article an additional week. That equals unfairness.--ZeWrestler Talk 16:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've removed the old votes for Global Internet Access for fairness.--File Éireann 22:29, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- A minimal time limit should be added for this category. In the past when i've renominated stuff to the COTW or AID drive, i've at least waited for a minimal of a month before resubmitting the article. Just out of general curtosy (sorry, i can't spell today) --ZeWrestler Talk 16:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Vote on Renominations
I hereby propose that in future a rule be added to the project page stating: "Failed nominations may not be resubmitted for one calendar month." (or similar if preferred). Perhaps Talrias or Phoenix will say how long the vote should go on for.--File Éireann 19:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- I vote we don't vote, but discuss (in accordance with Wikipedia is not a democracy)! I think one month is a good guideline, so let's just add it in. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:17, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Scores table
Recently I added a scores table to COTW but had it deleted. Its accomplished by adding "x votes, stays until December y, 2005" to the heading of each subsection, to achieve an effect identical to that seen in Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive. I feel the scores table effect seen in WP:AID contents box adds to the fun of the collaboration and has led to WP:AID now being significantly more popular than COTW. Lets put it back.--File Éireann 22:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
- I removed it, and was about to write something here to say why I removed it when I was interrupted (sorry). Here's what I wrote on my talk page:
- "I agree it could be useful, however the COTW used to have them in the past and frequently they were out-of-date and incorrect, which was confusing. It also has the problem that linking directly to a nomination on the page (using an anchor) will break when the title of the section is updated. I think the potential problems outway the usefulness it would give." Talrias (t | e | c) 22:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Nomination of Humanities
I tried to nominate Humanities for COW, but when I entered the template in the standard format it failed to come up as a new nomination. I'm sure I've made some silly mistake, but can't see what, can someone fix this? Purging caches doesn't work, or is this a "stable" page where updates take a day to appear? Sorry for my probable blunder. Thanks, Walkerma 06:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- You've done half the process (adding the listing to the COTW page), but you haven't actually made the listing yet. You should follow the rest of the nominating articles guidelines by editing Wikipedia:Collaborations of the Week/Humanities (you've done the first one). Hope this helps, Talrias (t | e | c) 12:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, I was just tired (look at the time), I'm not used to such fancy templates! Walkerma 01:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Replace new articles with CotWs
How about replacing the requested articles on Special:Recentchanges with the current CotWs? Since anons can't create new articles anymore, it makes sense to do something that they can more easily participate in -- there'd be a lot of general copyediting and tweaking. Wikipedia has an article on everything notable that is not obscure, I think, and the vast majority of people have no inclination and/or resources to do the required research. CotWs tend to be general subjects that a lot of people can help out in (and that interest a lot of people). We could have the general Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week and one or two of the more specialized ones (and active ones, as a bonus, this would be an incentive for more active CotWs) on a rotating basis. Tuf-Kat 07:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Discuss at MediaWiki talk:Recentchangestext
Century articles
Please don't nominate any more century articles. They're not stubs and they're supposed to adhere to a strict layout (Wikipedia:Timeline standards#Layout for century pages). Thank you. --Brunnock 21:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- What century articles have been nominated recently? Talrias (t | e | c) 21:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Duh, that's why I couldn't find it in the archives, because it was the previous COTW *slaps self*. However, I don't see what's wrong with nominating and improving century articles. Yes, they aren't stubs, but only nominating stubs is a consideration, not a rule. And if the strict layout prevents the century article from being a useful overview of the century, then I say ignore the layout and have a good article. If you look at 18th century at the moment, it's just a list of events and famous people, pretty much like 19th century was before it became the collaboration. But now it's got a lot more useful information. I think it's a great improvement - the decade articles, history articles and now this century article have been some of the COTW's post successful collaborations in my opinion. I think we should do more. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- Could you point out to me what useful information has been added that wasn't already in the list of events? To me, the new additions are an incoherent mess. For example:
- Although the romantic influence is present throughout the Victorian Era, there is a visible decline by mid-century: many scientific discoveries in part effected by the industrial Revolution, as Darwin's evolutionism (The Origin of Species, 1859) and French philosopher Auguste Comte inaugurate a new rationalism (positivism), whose literary spinoff is naturalism.
- Before you tell me to remove that paragraph, I already tried that. My deletions have been reverted. By making this article a COTW, I think you're telling people that this article is so bad, anything is an improvement. --Brunnock 23:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- If that's the impression that you are getting from articles being nominated as COTWs, then I apologise. If an article is nominated as a COTW, it's not because it's so bad that anything is an improvement, it's just that it can be expanded. And 19th century has been. It's got an overview of the 19th century in Europe, in Americas, it's clarified the events which took place into decades (and added a few events not previously in the list), it's categorised the notable people, and introduced each category of famous people (e.g. scientists, religious figures) with a brief overview of developments in the field. You might feel it hasn't improved. I think it has. You definitely can't say the article has got worse. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- The example that I posted is incoherent garbage. Again, could you please point out what useful new text has been added that wasn't already in the list of events? --Brunnock 00:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for your complaints. Next time, consider taking part in this collaboration. Or, simply follow this useful link. — 0918BRIAN • 2005-12-19 00:24
- The example that I posted is incoherent garbage. Again, could you please point out what useful new text has been added that wasn't already in the list of events? --Brunnock 00:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I did participate. If you look at Talk:19th century, I participated more than anyone else. I'm surprised that you didn't participate considering that you made the nomination. --Brunnock 00:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think it made a great COTW and more centuries should be chosen. Having an article with text should always be preferable over a series of lists. -- Astrokey44|talk 03:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Meat packing industry
Was meat packing industry supposed to be removed? It had six votes before Dec 19th. Rampart 23:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
- You're right; I've readded them to the listing. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. Rampart 00:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
question about the collaboration of the week process
i notice there are, in italics, expiration dates for each entry. what decides how many articles are required for it not to expire? is it automatic, or changed, or what?--Urthogie 21:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
- A nomination requires 3 votes per week to remain an "active" nomination. It's updated by anyone who wants to update it. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Silent Spring
It's very difficult to follow the directions given on this page to add an article as a proposed collaboration of the week. I tried to add Silent Spring (the Rachel Carson ecology book) as a proposed collaboration of the week, and it didn't seem to work properly. Can someone fix this for me?
notastub
created a useful template, {{notastub}}:
 | The Collaboration of the Week is for stubs and non-existent pages. Consider nominating at the Article Improvement Drive instead. |
Enjoy.--Urthogie 08:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Where does one use it? If it's on the nomination page, it's very big and bright and is going to draw focus away from the nominations. Simply saying "This is not a stub and is ineligible ..." is sufficient. Talrias (t | e | c) 09:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- OK I made it less blaring, so it can be used on nomination page.--Urthogie 10:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- It still seems rather pointless, seeing as it's simple to say "Not a stub, ineligible". Perhaps if you changed it into a single line of text so it can be subst'd in? Talrias (t | e | c) 10:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)