Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week/Archive 7

This Week

For this week starting June 19, the collaborations are the top nominees from WP:COTW, and that project is temporarily suspended? Phoenix2 17:44, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The highest, and then the next highest which is of a different "topic" is how I imagine things should go. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:45, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yea that sounds good. I guess closer to the end of the week we would have to have another vote deciding if people liked the new configuration, and to eventually remove the single COTW page. Phoenix2 17:47, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Personally I think doing it for two weeks would give a clearer picture of how things will turn out - we shouldn't be too hasty over a big change like this. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why did we start a new page, when we could just temporarily host two at COTW? — Sverdrup 19:28, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mainly due to the fact there is a change in the way articles are nominated, and this would be confusing if both were on the same page. This way involves no (substantial) change to the original page, so in the event that we choose not to go ahead with having 2 CotW's, it is simple to change back to the single format. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:35, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Templates

I will go ahead and created modified templates for multiple collaborations. Phoenix2 17:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cheers, I've already created two templates, {{cotw1}} and {{cotw2}} in which the names (only) of the two article titles should be written. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason for exclusion of the date in the section header. You should modify the template to include the end date in the section header. ℬastique▼^talk 17:13, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New nominations

I somehow remember that the new nominations used to be placed at the very bottom of the page, but now people post them right on top above everything. Is it a mistake on the part of the newcomers or some new rule? Also, we should probably tell people that they have to put dividers between the nominations. KNewman 12:32, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

It's a new procedure - read the nomination articles guidelines on the project page. w.r.t. dividers, I don't see why they are needed as headings are being used. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This procedure makes very little sense. Was this an individual decision? These kind of changes should not be made without some sort of consultation with those other people who are involved with this page. I think the templates are great, and you've done a good job. You may not have considered that there are reasons for the old way of doing things when you decided on your changes. ℬastique▼^talk 17:15, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would you add the dividers to the new templates? They really do make a difference in navigation of the page. ℬastique▼^talk 17:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You could have been bold and make that change yourself, but I've done it now :) With regards to the date in the template, I originally removed that so I could update the template one adds to the article to say it has been nominated as a collaboration to have a direct link to the nomination, but this does not work if the date is added to the heading. Possibly an alternative would be to have the date it needs to receive X amounts of votes by as a next-level heading, which would solve both (albeit at having the contents listing twice as long).

No, no... I am loathe to step on other people's toes or templates. Ah yes. Now I understand about the date. This is a conundrum. ℬastique▼^talk 17:32, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you think that having the newest nominations listed at the bottom is better, please go ahead and modify the instructions. I was just curious as to why you were doing it, seeing as it said otherwise. I've no objection to this change - my original reason for making it was so that it's less far to scroll down to see any new nominees, rather than having to scroll all the way to the bottom, past nominations you would have already read (I was trying to make it more convenient for people). Talrias (t | e | c) 17:29, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've simplified the template a bit, and also changed the "next Sunday" bit back to "in seven days" when modifying the instructions.--Pharos 20:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've already tried that when testing, it doesn't work (re: the ~~~~ in the template). The signature gets expanded, but it is still wrapped in the nowiki tags. Did you try testing it? Talrias (t | e | c) 23:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ack. The new nomination system is needlessly complicated and stinks of instruction creep. DAVODD 01:58, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I tend to agree. I don't think the new system has really made anything easier, and just tends to multiply things.--Pharos 02:13, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

May I ask how it is more complicated than the previous nomination system? Talrias (t | e | c) 11:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What used to be a one-step editing process for nominating has grown to a multi-step process that requires the creation of subpages. We've succeeded in solving a problem that didn't exist with a labrynthine process that discourages new contributions by folks who are not expert at understanding the WP file structure. That is what I mean by more complicated - and by instruction creep.  ;-) DAVODD 19:25, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Next week

Do we need to have another vote deciding if people like the new format? We need to determine if we are returning to one collaboration or sticking with two. Phoenix2 17:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I thought this was going to be a 2 week trial period. --ZeWrestler 18:42, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's clear how long the trial period will be. I guess we'll figure it out on Sunday. Phoenix2 17:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Purge the cache to refresh this page

It just links to Categories for deletion. Falphin 21:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Well now you know where I copied it from :) ... OK, it's fixed now.--Pharos 21:34, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OLD collaborations

I posted a similar statement on the COTWs template talk page but I figured I should post it here to. I came accross several other COTWs that havn't been that active but never declared inactive. So I decided to post the on the COTWs template since they have never been there. If they don't get any attention then we should put the inactive template on the COTWs but I thought we would give them some time. Falphin 18:55, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Both history?

Wasn't the point of having two collaborations so that two completely different realms can get improved? Isn't that defeating the purpose by having two history articles, even though they're for two separate places? Mike H (Talking is hot) 00:15, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

• I thought so, I think that Southeast Asia should be on there.(I just got back). Falphin 02:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes the problem with having two collaborations is this, and that an article may not be selected because of its similarity to other nominations, not because of its lack of votes. File:PhoenixSuns 100.pngPhoenix2File:Teamflag1.png 03:22, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I raised this question earlier (see the original discussion of a trial run at Wikipedia_talk:Collaboration_of_the_week#Vote_for_Second_COTW_per_week), but I guess we'll see whether similarity really does hurt the project. NatusRoma 03:49, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So how does this work now? Both history? instead of 2 different cats? --ZeWrestler 03:58, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should ensure that if we ever do skip over a winner, it will not be removed in the coming week do to lack of votes. That would defeat the purpose too. Otherwise I'm all for whatever works best. --Dmcdevit 04:16, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that having two COTWs from similar areas is, at best, contradicting the point of haveing two and at worst being counterproductive, in that it halve the potential 'workforce' of historians. Surely, the objective is to ensure that there is more chance that any one person will be able to contribute something. However, I admit that how this might be averted, I don't know. How about splitting COTW potentials into two streams, depending on their subject area, and selecting one from each? For example, 1) the Arts, Humanities, Popular Culture, and 2) the Sciences, the Physical World. --Mark Lewis 29 June 2005 14:24 (UTC)

• I don't know if it needs to be that divided because we might end up with a COTW that doesn't have 10votes and otherwise wouldn't be selected. Personally I believe that articles should be categorically seperate.(ex:Culture,History,Arts, Sciences, etc.) 29 June 2005 14:45 (UTC)

Archiving

Unless someone objects or has a better idea I was going to archive them in the one we have always used just making two tables Falphin 29 June 2005 12:45 (UTC)

• rather than making 2 tables, you could add 2 new rows to the old table. one per COTW. --ZeWrestler 29 June 2005 15:53 (UTC)
  • Thats actually what I meant. Sorry for the confusion. Since no one objects yet I will go ahead and archive. They can always be removed if someone does. Falphin 29 June 2005 16:03 (UTC)

Extended time

Should we have extended time for the articles that are to be removed since we lost two days during the upgrade.Falphin 29 June 2005 15:20 (UTC)

• I don't think we should; then would we have to permanently move the whole thing to Tuesday instead of Sunday to compensate for the week after etc.?--Pharos 29 June 2005 18:51 (UTC)
  • Thats true. That would make it worse. Falphin 29 June 2005 18:52 (UTC)
• If we were to move their deadlines for removal up two days, there's no reson why that means we have to change the start date. It's just as if they were nominated two days later. --Dmcdevit 29 June 2005 20:04 (UTC)
• I agree, the deadline for removal should be extended for two days.--Fenice 29 June 2005 20:36 (UTC)
  • I meant the start date for the next collaboration would have to be delayed, and the next etc. Otherwise, we would have four collaborations running concurrently...--Pharos 29 June 2005 20:53 (UTC)
    • No, I would not extend time for the elected collaborations. But it looks like Ancient Egypt will have to be dropped only because of the downtime, and it has over twenty support-votes.--Fenice 29 June 2005 21:13 (UTC)
      • After looking at the article though, it really is better for AID if anything. The article has done quite well. Falphin 29 June 2005 21:42 (UTC)
  • Well, I've been very conservative, and, seeing noone else was pruning, gave some of those on the cusp a 2-day "extension". Now I see Talrias has pruned a few whose time had come, but not under the proposed "grace period". I can't help but aggre, and I think any "extension" now is just an awkward and unworkable idea; can't we just agree that sometimes things just happen, and it's best to leave well enough alone?--Pharos 2 July 2005 03:50 (UTC)

Confusement over "needs X votes by Y"

I'm confused about when the number of votes and date the number of votes need to be achieved by should be changed. At the moment it seems that it is updated as soon as the no. of votes reaches the threshold level. This seems wrong to me as then it is "rushed" through the CotW process, meaning it is less likely to be chosen if it is a popular choice to begin with. Surely the number of votes required should be added by 5 every week instead? Talrias (t | e | c) 2 July 2005 03:29 (UTC)

I would agree; I haven't really been paying attention to the pruning/updating process, and figured that's how it works. --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)

What do you mean, exactly? How is it "rushed"? I don't understand your meaning; everything is pruned in the same time frame either way.--Pharos 2 July 2005 04:41 (UTC)

All I think is that all noms should have the full seven days before being extended (or pruned). Even if it gets the five votes before then. Otherwise, some have an advantage over others. Let's make a hypothetical: Article A gets 15 votes in the first 14 days, then doesn't get to 20 by the 21st day and is removed. Article B gets 15 votes in the first 21 days, just in time, then doesn't get to 20 by day 28 and is removed. In this case, two articles nominated on the same day get different amounts of time, A gets 21 days, B gets 28 days. But, we don't know if A could have gotten to the next level by day 28. So it should gat the same chance as B. So deadlines should be extended only based on the time and not the vote count. Thoughts? --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 05:14 (UTC)

Your example is flawed, Dmcdevit. Article A does not need 20 votes by the 21st day, it only needs 15. Even if it does not get a single vote after it achieved 15 votes by day 14, it will stay on until the 28th day.--Fenice 2 July 2005 05:45 (UTC)

I really should do one thing at a time, and think about what I just wrote before clicking that save button. When the we add the next seven day extension, it is added on top of the current deadline. Don't know what I was thinking. So never mind. But I think that Talrias didn't really think it out either (and it makes me feel a little better to point out, um... confusion). Don't mind me. :) --Dmcdevit 2 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)

I don't understand what Talrias is saying at all. I can't comment on that. Can you explain, Talrias?--Fenice 2 July 2005 07:40 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I didn't explain it too well. At the moment, as soon as an article gets, for example, 5 nomination votes, it gets edited and changed to 10 nomination votes needed, and the time it must get them by is a week later than the current date.

This means that there is a discrepancy between articles on how long they have to achieve a certain number of votes. An article which is very popular will achieve a large number of votes very quickly, so will have less total time as a nominee as it will eventually "peak out" and be removed, while a less popular article will gain votes more slowly, so will stay as a nominee for longer. This penalises very popular articles.

Say article A got 5 votes in 4 days. It now needs 10 votes in a total of 11 days since it was nominated, and reaches that in another 3 (a total of 7 days). It now needs 15 votes in a total 12 days. Say it reaches that in another 4 days, now it must have 20 votes over a total of 18 days. This falls in the middle of the week, so even though it might be the most popular article on CotW it would not get chosen as the collaboration, as it fails to meet the number of votes so is removed.

On the other hand, article B got 5 votes in 7 days, so needs 10 votes in a total of 14 days. It just makes that, so needs 15 votes over 21 days (which it just makes).

When the time comes to choose the CotW for the 3rd week, article A, while having about 5 more votes than article B, has already been removed, so article B is chosen as CotW even though it is less popular and over time has received less votes per day.

This system obviously needs changing, the count should only be updated on a Sunday, after the 2 CotW's have been chosen. This means that all articles get a fair amount of time in nomination, proportional to their popularity, not some weird normal distribution curve where both unpopular and very popular are penalised. I hope this explains it! Talrias (t | e | c) 2 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)

First, I think you misinterpret the rules. It says:

The nomination will be moved to /Removed if it has not received 5 votes after 7 days on the list, 10 votes after 14 days, 15 votes after 21 days, and so on. Essentially, an article needs to get 5 nominations a week until the Sunday on which it has the most votes..

(These instructions are from the old page Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week and seem to have gotten lost when moving the page to two collaborations.) In your example, article A is not updated correctly: it should be updated to needs 10 votes by day 14, not 11. For all I can tell, Falphin usually handles it that way. The needs x votes line is changed early because if it weren't, people who didn't read the instructions would think: it does not need any votes, so I won't add my name.

But secondly, I think you are right, the voting system discriminates some popular articles. Some articles, like Babylonia fall out of the system with as much as 19 votes. Then others win with fewer votes, because they have not been on for so long. The thing is, that about 20 or so votes is a limit that hardly any article will exceed. So after four weeks the risk of dropping out rises for popular articles, compared to those articles that have been on the list for a shorter period of time. The effect is propably strongest when many popular articles are on the list and one wins by a close margin. --Fenice 2 July 2005 12:39 (UTC)

I am not the one misinterpreting the rules, I in fact explained them correctly above! Some people when updating the date are not doing it correctly, as the time it should be removed is falling in the middle of the week, which means, even if it is the most popular article at the time, it will be removed. Pharos changed it to "date in 7 days", as it was on the original CotW, before I changed it to "date next Sunday" when I put together the nomination procedure for the 2 CotWs.

I suggest, therefore, that it is changed back to "date next Sunday". The only problem with this is articles are progressively less likely to be nominated as it gets closer to Sunday; but this resolves the problem of this odd removal system we have at the moment. Perhaps a better solution would be to have the article's first target date by the Sunday next week (i.e. not the following Sunday, but the Sunday after that), so that each article will be on CotW as a nominee for at least a week. Talrias (t | e | c) 2 July 2005 13:29 (UTC)

Well, I really don't know...There is a whole lot of confusal with me now.--Fenice 2 July 2005 13:42 (UTC) I don't think the system should be changed, anyway.--Fenice 2 July 2005 13:51 (UTC)

The problem is that there are better days to nominate an article, which could result in a less popular article being picked. Let's says we have two articles A and B. Article A has 19 votes and needs 20 by Saturday. Article B has 15 votes and needs 20 by Monday. On Saturday article A would be dropped, because it didn't get the 20 votes, which makes the winner article B with 15 votes. I think that the system should close article A for further voting on Saturday, but keep it until Sunday. If the article is the most popular it would be picked or else it would be dropped. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maitch (talk • contribs) 17:38, 2 July 2005

Interesting idea, it however sounds a bit complicated and rather a lot of extra work for people who manage the CotW. You are exactly right in highlighting the problem. It seems to be a bit of a dilemma! Talrias (t | e | c) 2 July 2005 16:53 (UTC)

Well, you can use it if you want to. Another option could be to collect nominations during the week and publish them on Sunday. As for the current confusion I think a lot of the problems come from the line:

Nominated 13 June 2005; Needs 15 votes by 4 July 2005

By saying it needs 15 votes it seems like if you get 15 votes then you will have the article of the week. Then people get confused when it's suddenly 20 votes. My suggestion for a less confusing line:

Nominated 13 June 2005; Deadline 4 July 2005; Extension of deadline at 20 votes

I must remember to sign my post this time. --Maitch 2 July 2005 19:39 (UTC)

Large content holes

Who feels this project should be steered into the direction of addressing massive content gaps? Three groups of articles are potential candidates.

1. Ancient Civilizations Babylon
2. Large regions Latin America
3. Entire academic departments Urban studies

Those are some examples of articles falling under those categories that are in poor shape. An encyclopedia is first measured by how well it covers those most basic and general overviews of info.

That was from Lotsofissues.

Maurreen 2 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)

The first two are not stubs. You might try WP:AID. Maurreen 2 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree. I would also add country capitals (even some European ones). And major overview subarticles, like "History of X," "Culture of X," and "Military history of X" (the three most important, in that order, in my view). Most countries don't even have the last two. And major historical and geological time periods that would be looked up are also neglected. Probably others, too. But, um, isn't that what we're doing here? --Dmcdevit 3 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)

Sometimes we actually try to have fun with topics instead of force push ourselves into creating dry overviews from the encyclopedic core. lots of issues | leave me a message 3 July 2005 05:21 (UTC)

"Fun." I've heard that word before... That's that thing people are always talking about when they're asking me why I hang out at an encyclopedia. I've been meaning to try it some time... --Dmcdevit 3 July 2005 05:43 (UTC)

Fun is actually just a redirect to recreation, which is kind of stubby. Let's list fun as a candidate for cotw.--Fenice 3 July 2005 06:21 (UTC)

I'll have to do some research. Maybe even field work... --Dmcdevit 3 July 2005 20:06 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. I thought that was what the project was already doing. Falphin 5 July 2005 03:00 (UTC)

-->Two of the articles mentioned by lotsofissues are currently up as candidates on WP:IDRIVE and can still be voted for: South America and Babylonia--Fenice 5 July 2005 08:52 (UTC)

• I see. However South America could still probably be put on this page and Babylonia is best for ID. IMHO, I don't think a new project or one big project(combination of TWID/COTWs) would be best because it divides interest too much. Falphin 9 July 2005 15:32 (UTC)

Goodbye to single collaboration page

I think this dual collaboration idea is going well, and we can remove the old page and the notices of this being a trail period (pending any objections)? Phoenix2 Canada Day Weekend! 3 July 2005 19:04 (UTC)

• The old one should probably be put under historical so that it would be easy to go back to when we need to. I agree that they are going pretty good. Falphin 4 July 2005 14:38 (UTC)

• Let's not put it away yet. Although the last few weeks have produced very good collaborations, the current support for the page seems to be flagging a bit. Users simply aren't nominating as many articles, compounding the diminution resulting from the removal of one more successful nomination each week. If the results are still as good in time, then let's keep it at two articles per week. If not, we should go back to one. NatusRoma 00:29, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I believe the issue is that the editors are on vacation or affected by the hurricane(MikeH). Going back so soon isn't a good idea either because by August from I've been told the collaboration will pick up again. Falphin 00:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• I think that there should be only one collaboration, when there are two they are simply not getting enough attention. For instance, head doesnt have much information even though it was the last COTW.--Zxcvbnm 15:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

COTW candidate notice

May I ask why does the candidate notice has to be put on the talk page instead of the article page??? Deryck C. 2005-07-05 08:41:44 (UTC)

Well, the normal distinction is that that kind of notice is for editors, and not readers. --Dmcdevit July 5, 2005 09:16 (UTC)

Aren't editors and readers mutually indistinguishable on an ideal Wikipedia? I think we should change it so it goes on the article page. Juppiter 7 July 2005 18:17 (UTC)

I know a lot of people who are not editors, who read only the main page, and not the talk page. therefore, i think it should stay where it is. --ZeWrestler 7 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)

I don't get it. Don't we WANT them to see the notice so they'll edit and make the articles more complete? Juppiter 7 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)

I could see it either way, it would bring more attention to here. Would the other Collabs also be given the same right to have their nominations on the main page of the article? Falphin 7 July 2005 19:01 (UTC)

So can we move the COTW notice to the article page? Let's give it a try. Deryck C. 8 July 2005 03:34 (UTC)

This issue has been much discussed and it is fairly firm policy that messages meant only for editors belong on the talk pages. (See in particular Wikipedia talk:Template messages#Moving templates to talk pages). Editors are a fairly small subset of the people who read our pages and we don't want to force non-editors to read through metadata when they are looking for encyclopedia articles. There are also literally hundreds of metadata templates, dozens of cleanup, expansion, and dispute templates, many Wikiprojects have their own, as does Peer Review, and Featured Articles. There is no reason COTW deserves special treatment. - SimonP July 9, 2005 13:23 (UTC)

The discussion you are linking to is inconclusive and ends in March and in praxi people put all similar templates (cleanup, expand etc.) on the main page. It is really strange that the COTWs didn't do that up to now. I think it is important that the reader knows we have realized that the article is not up to standard and that we are working on improving it. --Fenice 9 July 2005 17:36 (UTC)

Expand has been moved to the talk page those who place it in articles do so in error, certain cleanup messages are also useful for readers and thus belong on the actual page, but the others have been moved. Wikipedia:Tempaltes is quite clear that "Templates that provide information only of service to editors belong on an article's talk page." I have moved the COTW template back to the talk page. - SimonP 00:09, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus there however, so I see no reason to that. A new discussion could be opened but I have to agree with Fenice's point that the reader needs and should know about why the article is good or bad. Thats why the NPOV tag is on the articles page. I believe it is useful ot the reader. Falphin 00:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

If a COTW article has problems it should be labeled with a stub, cleanup, or NPOV warning, that is what these templates are for. COTW is simply that, articles that are for a collaboration and this gives no useful information to the reader. Moreover this is the wrong place to have this discussion, as most people here are active with COTW and feel that their project should be the one to get an exception to the template rules. If you want to change the global template rules please raise the issue on the Village pump. - SimonP 00:24, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response however I disagree. A COTW tells the reader that the article is in need of improvement which does not fit under any of the other templates as it is more general. It also tells the reader than a effort is going on to improve it. I suggest having no templates on the page or having all the templates that will be beneficial to the reader. I am not changing any rules set forth that were agreed upon by consensus. I suggest a vote here, or at the village pump. Falphin 00:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Sure, bring this issue up at the Village pump if you like. - SimonP 00:56, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I started the topic here Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Falphin 01:02, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

SimonP has been unilaterally moving the Expansion template from article pages to talk pages despite there being no consensus. ~~~~ 12:45, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

While I'm sympathetic to Falphin, Ril, et al, (and I am somewhat torn by the fact that this is a temporary notice, as stub notices are intended to be), in the end I have to agree with SimonP on this one -- the candidate notice should go onto the Talk Page. The fact that the article is going through a voting process somewhere behind the scenes, one which may not lead to quick improvement (if it doesn't become one of the CsOTW), doesn't tell the reader anything. I think it's of fairly small likelihood to draw someone who's not already an editor into the COTW process (if you have evidence otherwise, please say so), and there's not enough benefit to outweigh the drawbacks of Yet Another Template Box in the article space. If it's that egregious an article, put one of the other accepted stub/improvement templates on it, otherwise, just leave the candidate notice on the talk page and let the process do its work. (Better yet, make an edit to improve the article, large or small -- just bringing it up on Recent Changes with an inviting edit summary may be enough to get more improvements.) — Catherine\^talk 18:01, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

There is currently a vote going on if anyone is interested [1]Falphin 18:11, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

My opinion for supporting putting the COTWC notice onto the article page is that I myself never views the talk page before editing because seeing the talk page wastes my time. Without the existence of a notice, such as NPOV or SectFact on the article page, I'll never view the talk. (and I'm sure that many of my friends do the same). Therefore, to ensure that the vast majority of the editors of the page know that this is a COTWC, the notice should be put onto the article page. Deryck C. 09:21, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

topics on other COTWs

This doesn't apply to the Main COTW but to the subCOTWs I think it would be nice to make it a rule to have related topics on other COTWs in a section like it is done on the Cinema, Canada or Biography collabs. Thoughts. Falphin 8 July 2005 21:39 (UTC)

I've been doing this for a while already, I think it is a great idea. Hopefully it also increases traffic on smaller collaborations.--Fenice 9 July 2005 17:29 (UTC)

Stray Templates

I found these(nearly identical) templates. Template:Cotw-todo Template:Non-featured CotW article. I wanted ot let evryone know because I believe they would be useful templates. I was going to suggest creating a template that described it as a former COTW. Also, what about the COTWvoter template, should we update it. Falphin 9 July 2005 15:43 (UTC)

About the updating, you mean the two COTW? Maurreen 19:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Sí. Falphin 19:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Maurreen 21:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

What the &$@*)!

Why did the nomination process suddenly gain steps? What happened to just adding it to the page? -Litefantastic 22:58, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Its been like this for two weeks I think. I don't mind the new template but there was a big discussion about it above. Falphin 23:00, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

There's always been steps in nominating articles for collaborations, maybe they weren't as clear as they are now. This way is beneficial for a number of reasons - a template makes it easier for submissions to be added. While I'm familiar with it now, I used to find the wiki syntax quite confusing, but templates quite straightforward. Anything which makes it easier for people to nominate articles is likely to be a good thing. Another reason is that now only when new nominations are made this page gets edited, so it gets 'bumped' in my watchlist less often. I like to see when a new article is nominated, so I can decide whether to support or not - if all the nominations are done on this page, I would see every new support vote or comment to any nomination, which isn't what I'm interested in. This way is much simpler and I personally find it far easier to use than the old system, which I found awkward. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:53, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

No, the template made it harder. -Litefantastic 15:58, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

You've said it makes it harder, but you haven't said how. What is harder about it? I think it's easier as you just change a couple of words or phrases, and the template automatically formats it for you. You don't have to bother with all the colons and asterisks and getting the formatting right. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Litefantastic, it makes it harder. You have to keep at least two windows open to do the copy and paste. This may well be the reason why there are fewer nomiations, but I am quite sure it will catch on.--Fenice 16:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The old CotW system didn't even give you a guideline on how to make the nomination fit in with others - those unfamiliar with the syntax would have spent a great deal of time previewing and looking at the other nominations to ensure it's formatted in a similar manner. You and I might know how to indent, bold, use headings, sure, but others don't and making the process simpler is a noble goal, and it will help more people nominate articles. We should definitely keep this system. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

THis is no more complex than the processes at WP:COTW or WP:VFD, to name but a few of those who use sub-pages. The main interest is the possibility of rapidly linking to a specific nomination, in adition to reducing the need for reloading the entire page. It also allows one to watch a specific nomination if he so wishes. Circeus 16:04, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Redirected Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week here

I've redirected Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week here. The talk pages contain some useful stuff, they are at Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:32, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

New entries at top or bottom?

Do you think new entries should be added at the top, or at the bottom? The current system is to add them at the bottom, but perhaps it might be a better idea to reverse the list and add new ones to the top. People are more likely to read entries near the top of the page than the bottom of the page. Thoughts? Talrias (t | e | c) 14:08, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

But the top entries are usually due to be removed, either as winner or loser. Therefore I support bottom. Deryck C. 03:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

African COTW

Please contribute. Revolución 03:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The African Collaboration of the Month has been discontinued . Every month a different Africa-related topic, stub or non-existent article was chosen. The aim of the collaboration was to improve articles to featured article status. Want to restart this collaboration? See the project page and collaborations page

Problem with display on Community Portal

The COTW preview area on the the Community Portal is showing last week's articles. I don't know how to fix them or I would. Or is this the design? --Mddake 08:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Has been fixed. Phoenix2 07:09, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• And for future reference, any can fix this if they see it has not been updated: just take the lead (or a small portion) from each article, put a ---- between, wfy the title. If one artice is non-existant, put a larger bit from the other. If both are non-existant, put a portion of the lead from the larger article of the previous week. The whole COTW section should not leave a big white space in the adjacent section, so adjust accordingly. Phoenix2 03:14, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Going back to one COTW per week

• The two per week system doesn't seem to be working very well. Over the last month none of eight COTWs (Winter, Horn of Africa, Port-au-Prince, History of South America, Head, Physical science, Learning, Lhasa) have come close creating a featured article, and several are almost unchanged from their pre-COTW state. The main cause of this is that the number of edits to each article has collapsed. Wikipedia:Collaboration_of_the_week/History shows that it used to be standard for the COTW to get over a hundred edits during the week, now the numbers are down to 20 or 30. - SimonP 16:07, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is also summer, and many users are on vacation. Would that be playing a part. I personally haven't contributed as much, because what i know about the topics i have voted for was already put into the articles by the time i got around to it. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:18, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Last summer COTW saw no drop off. In fact, some of the most successful collaborations were held during that period, such as Iranian Revolution, Medieval warfare, and Renaissance. Also, from what I have seen, the sub-COTWs have not seen a similar reduction. For instance the bio-COTW raised Henry Fonda to FA status, while the Indian one has done great work with Economy of India and Indian independence movement. - SimonP 16:27, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
      • Some collaborations may have remainded normal, but others have gone under completly. At least 3 last month have been discontinued. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:46, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
        • The only successful ones were the leftovers from the one per week period. We haven't had a single successful COTW since they have been cleared out. Moreover the one's that have failed have failed badly. In the entire history of COTW we never had one as unsuccessful as History of South America, even when we were just getting started. - SimonP 16:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• It has to be considered. Look at Horn of Africa, and today is Friday. We can't have a general collaboration recieving so little support. Phoenix2 16:43, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
• I suppose that I should contribute more before I participate in criticism, but I think that returning to a single COTW is a wise idea given the low numbers of edits. NatusRoma 01:46, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Are there any objections to going back to one per week? Do we need a second poll to counter act the last one? - SimonP 17:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think that would be a bad idea, as to not suprise anyone. Phoenix2 18:19, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
• Yeah, a poll would be a good idea. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 14:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• The Seventies and history of greece showed good growth after the switch.ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, but the voting for these pages, which is what matters, occured before the switch. - SimonP 15:58, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Here's my thoughts on this:

• I think the main reason for the lack of people contributing to the main COTW(S) is not that there are two, but that the number of COTWs has dramatically increased with a number of revival of old themed COTWs, and the addition of new ones. In the last few months the number of different collaborations has increased. Seeing as specific topical COTWs have been set up, people have moved to ones they are interested in, and may not be paying as much interest to this general COTW. As SimonP notes above, the other COTWs have not suffered a drop in activity. I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing.
• I don't think a poll is the right step here. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and polls are naturally self-selecting. People who do not see a problem here aren't as likely to view this page, so the poll outcome might not be reflective. I think discussion is more important at the moment. I have removed the poll for the meantime.
• I also don't think changing it back to just one COTW will have the desired effect. As the COTWs chosen are different topics, I do not believe that the contributions of the vast majority of people is being split into two (between the articles).

Here's some ideas for this page in the future:

• With the continued interest in local and topic specific COTWs, these are getting more popular. If this continues, if this COTW carries on declining, it might be an idea to make this an "overview" page of the current collaborations, providing a summary of each one and listing the article the collaboration is working on.
• Alternatively, the COTWs need to be publicised more. I have created a mockup of how I would add them to the Main Page (see User:Talrias/Main Page); but this needs work as it is rather imbalanced on the page.

Comments welcome! Talrias (t | e | c) 15:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• At this point the main COTW is essentially dead. It is Tuesday and last week's COTWs have yet to be replaced. Despite this extra time the two current ones have seen basically no improvement. We could just shutter it, and make this a guide to the sub-COTWs, but personally I feel that would be a shame. Just two months ago it was one of the most valuable tools for creating articles, and I'm certain it can be again. More publicity would be good, such as a listing on the main page, but this has been discussed in the past and rejected.

• I think it is also important to understand that the determining factor is not that having two per week divides the effort, but rather that having two per week means very little time and very few votes on the COTW page. With only one per week the queue was lengthy and most pages would wait around a month before becoming the COTW. More time on the page meant far more people would be aware of an upcoming collaboration, and when it did become COTW dozens would participate. Having two almost completely removes this wait time, for instance the utter failure that was the History of South America COTW was only listed for six days. Going back to one COTW would thus, in my opinion, deliver the increase in publicity for each article that we need. This queuing effect also means that those pages that were listed during the one per week period, but had their actual collaborations during the two per week period were successful. The entirety of the voting for the successful The Seventies COTW and almost all of the voting for history of Greece and History of Scandinavia COTWs were in the earlier period. It is only once the backlog was cleared out, around July 10, that COTW really collapsed. - SimonP 15:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised that no one has updated it, then. Is there any reason for the delay in updating it? A possible solution to your point that the nominations aren't there for long, perhaps require less votes a week before it is removed (e.g. lower it to 3 per week from 5 a week)? Talrias (t | e | c) 16:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure who has been updatting it recently, but the failure to do so is understandable, since being COTW has virtually no effect these days. I'm not sure if changing the removal time would have the desired effect. History of South America would still only have spent six days on the page before being elevated. For the most part removal date only affects those pages that are not going to be COTW's anyway. SimonP 17:25, 16 August 2005

I think the number of votes for each nomination is not due to the number of collaborations chosen, but instead due to declining interest in the general cotw, in favour of more specific ones. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

That might be true, but I personally feel that the decline is too closely timed with the move to two per week to be coincidental. It could also be true that a combination of the two factors is a cause. Either way trying to go back to one per week can't hurt. SimonP 17:38, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

After reading all of the new arguments, I am going to have to change my opinion in favor of going back to one COTW. Last thing i want to see if this go under. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 16:58, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I brought the table up to date. lets please keep this updated and not let it slack off for a while. It took me a while to fill everything in. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 19:50, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It has now been almost two weeks since the last update, and COTW continues to struggle. I'm thinking of just selecting one COTW on the 21st. Are there any strong objections to my doing this? - SimonP 21:21, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Featured Article

• Its been a while since a collaboration from here has become a featured article. I was thinking how about we have an unoffical poll, and vote an article that we have worked on in the past to undergo a peer review. Its just a thought i figured i'd through out your direction. What do you guys think? --ZeWrestler ^Talk 15:07, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds good, but unfortunately the COTW is not doing very well: last weeks articles Winter and Horn of Africa got little edits. We will soon have to consider returning to one collab. a week, as the arguments given to keep that format now seem to be prevailing. Phoenix2 01:21, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Overview COTW page

Talrias mentioned the possibility of changing this page to an overview COTW, while I wouldn't go that far it might be nice to have an overview page explaining the basic COTW process, the essential, goals, info on all COTWs including inactive ones(Irish etc), among other things. Thoughts? --Falphin 21:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Perhaps it could be created at Wikipedia:Collaborations instead of replacing this page. —thames 22:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I also agree. With the success of the smaller COTWs an overview would be very useful. - SimonP 00:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I've started the page. Seeing as this is about collaborations how about we collaborate on making it! :) Talrias (t | e | c) 02:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that the article has been started, we should make it a collaboration of the week ;) --ZeWrestler ^Talk 03:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely :D Phoenix2 02:29, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

What's going on?

Why are both COTWs the same (Militarisation of space), and why isn't one of the other successful canditates (eg. Krakow Ghetto) on either of the templates {{cotw1}} or {{cotw2}}? Why does one redirect to the other? Are we returning to one COTW? If so, why hasn't the template on the Community Portal been changed, and why wasn't there a discussion (there were suggestions)? Cheers, Mark Lewis 19:37, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

SimonP (talk · contribs) was the person who promoted the collaboration of the week, but did not appear to update anything other than the main collaboration page. I updated the template and redirected {{cotw2}} to {{cotw1}}, as I thought it made sense. SimonP made the decision to have just one collaboration this week following his comment at #Going back to one COTW per week. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)