Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Collaboration

Start time

(header added 24 April 2006 to assist in page formatting)

When should we start the first one, in May ? Brian | (Talk) 08:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with first one starting from today. Peter Ellis seems to have enough support. - SimonLyall 05:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Started, Lets see how it goes. Brian | (Talk) 07:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Size of vote needed

I think the number of votes needed should probably be increased. Currently, only two votes are needed, and one article has already beaten that even though the next collaboration won't start for quite sometime. I was wondering what happens for it to be changed? Is there any set process? --Midnighttonight 08:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep the low number for the time being. Any topic which doesn't reach the number of votes required for the number of weeks since it has been nominated will be dropped from further consideration. It doesn't matter if we have some articles which reach quite high numbers of votes over several weeks - eventually they will either have the highest vote and be picked as the collaboration, or they will fall below the threshold. The method sets a balance between the articles which everyone thinks is an obvious candidate, and those which draw support over a longer period as people take time to think about what contribution they can make to the article.-gadfium 09:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I assume that the next topic will be selected not on Sunday 30th April as currently stated, but on Sunday 7th May, two week after the last selection.-gadfium 09:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Eligible articles

The top of the NZCOF page says that nominations should be for "a specific topic which either has no article or a basic stub page that is directly related to New Zealand". Two of my nominations so far have flouted this guideline, with no one objecting. Weta isn't a stub, and Years in New Zealand is a series of articles. Should we expand the criteria, or just continue to take them with a grain of salt in the usual relaxed kiwi style?-gadfium 02:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Continued with the relaxed nature. Maybe add "other suggestions, within reason, may be considered" --Midnighttonight 03:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, lets keep the criteria as is, but, who cares if we don't follow it to the letter :) Brian | (Talk) 04:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to also see, if possible, people voting so that it is not topic dominated- i.e. we don't have politics after politics after politics after politics and so on. While this isn't a directive, it is a friendly suggestion that there are a lot of NZ areas which need better articles, not just <insert your hot subject here>. --Midnighttonight 05:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

agree, i didnt read the rules, just jumped in, thanks for pointing all that out. we could re-write the rules over time as we find out what people want i reckon, so i do think its good to start a bit with 'relaxed kiwi style' and watch what happens. Doont want to put anyone off just yet, theres not enough of us as it is i feel. at 1 a fortnight thats only 24 a year and its probably not going to be enough, but thats irrelevant if theres only enough collaborators to do say 12 articles a year. We probably need to do hundreds, so it might take time to build the core support of enough people to do stuff. Also, if articles such as the Weta get built up enough ahead of the successful voting schedule here, then maybe they can be pushed down the list someway, although I dont really know how the system can cope with that. I probably wont support political articles so maybe it will balance out somewhat.moza 09:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Peter Ellis

Can I request that the regulars at NZCOTF keep this article on their watchlist, even though we're about to change to a different topic, as this will remain a controversial topic and will attract both vandalism (such as this edit) and POV editors.

I think we've done an outstanding job on this article, which is probably a lot more taxing than the average collaboration will be in the future due to the huge amount of detail relating to the case and the strong opinions it generates. I'm pleased to see that we seem to be drawing in new editors to Wikipedia as a result of the collaboration; some of them will stick around and contribute to a wider range of articles in the future, I hope.

Normally, I think the procedure should be that a collaboration should be put on peer review when it finishes its run, with a view to becoming a featured article. I have no objection to this article being moved forward in this fashion, but I suspect that most of us have had our fill of this subject for the time being, so I won't nominate it myself.-gadfium 09:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I've set it up. For ease of people checking it, it is included below. --Midnighttonight 02:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis

This article has just finished being the NZ collaboration. The article needs a general peer review. Also, if it could be looked at for POV-pushing in particular due to the controversial nature of the case. Cheers --Midnighttonight 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance at more than a cursory look so far, but the short third paragraph bothers me. If he was not homosexual, would that paragraph be there saying he is heterosexual. No, of course not. Is it able to be interpreted as saying hey, he is homosexual and a lot of the complainants were girls, so........? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moriori (talk • contribs)

A lot of the article seems to deny that the children were abused. It seems to be pushing a POV that Ellis didn't do it. There is little focus on the evidence that convicted him without it being a focus on why that evidence is wrong. The evidence for the defence is, however, given no qualifications and treated as fact. There is a POV being pushed in that article. --210.86.75.96 03:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

also needs to have more internal links. --210.86.75.96 03:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've put more in, but its not exactly the sort of article that lends itself to this. PageantUpdater 04:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree a lot of the article seems to deny that children were abused. That opinion is widely held throughout NZ, but that point is not developed enough in the article, so it comes across as being the opinion of Wikipedi (which I don't think was the intention). Moriori 03:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the paragraph on his sexuality down into "Early life" and expanded it. I think any biographical article should deal with the subject's acknowledged sexuality. No implication or connection of this paragraph with the Civic Creche case is intended. It's quite possible that some people will have been prejudiced against Ellis due to his sexuality, but this is unprovable.-gadfium 04:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Since this is a potentially controversial article and uses a lot of primary source information, direct quotes should be explicitly referenced. The lead is a bit short, it really should summarise the content of the article, and I don't think that it is necessary to state he is a homosexual in the lead, unless it is placed within some sort of context. Using some ===h3=== to better group together content may be a good idea. And I agree, the article does seem to be skewed toward the innocence POV.--nixie 03:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

"A lot of the article seems to deny that the children were abused". Really? Please show where. As a matter of fact, nobody except Peter Ellis and God knows if children were abused. The case is ongoing. At the bottom of the article, there is reference to a Privy Council appeal. What if Ellis wins that appeal? Will the whole article need to be re-written? I should hope not. 20:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

OK, fair enough about "deny", but how about "infers innocence/unfair trial" rather that denial. Here's one example -- "Karen Zelas, testified at trial that there are behavioural factors, which the crèche complainants allegedly exhibited". Allegedly?. I'll eat my hat if Zelas didn't say the children exhibited certain behaviour instead of they allegedly exhibited certain behaviour. There's a subtle distinction. Moriori 22:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)>

I think you misinterpret that sentence. I'm saying that Zelas testified that there are certain behaviours that are consistent with sexual abuse. I also say that these behaviours were allegedly exhibited by the complainants. I cannot say (and I don't think Zelas did either) that they were exhibited because I (and Zelas) weren't there. None of us were present when these behaviours were allegedly displayed. Only the children and their parents can address this issue and the parents alleged that the behaviours were displayed. We don't know that they were actually exhibited.

I think we'd be better off focusing on the facts rather than getting caught up in inferring innocence or guilt. If there are facts that anyone is unhappy with or simply think are wrong, then say what they are. 22:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

I concede to meet you half way on the misinterpret bit. But, in the context of that whole paragraph it could most definitely be interpreted to mean Zelas said the complainants exhibited symptoms. It is difficult to see exactly who is making statements. For instance, look at the following -- "Le Page said that in his experience, children and adults who had been abused usually expressed distress when they recounted their experiences of abuse. Apparently the complainants showed little or no distress during their formal interviews. Who said the complainants apparently showed little or no distress? Le Page or Wikipedia? If Wikipedia is saying this, how is the word apparently justified? Moriori 23:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be suggesting that apparently shouldn't be used by wikipedia. Are there any other words that you don't think are appropriate? I don't see any problem with apparently. I don't think Le Page said that the complainants showed little or no distress during their formal interviews (if he had, I would've tried to quote him). But from my reading of some of the transcripts, and from my reading of Le Page's testimony, I think it is apparent that the children showed little or no distress. BTW, I don't recall Karen Zelas saying that the kids were distressed. Seeing as she was the prosecution's expert witness, I imagine she would have highlighted any distress from the kids. 00:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)~ User:NZ researcher

The crux. You say you think "it is apparent that the children showed little or no distress". That is blatant POV opinion. Also, I don't say certain words shouldn't be used in Wikipedia, but that we should not attribute a word to someone who never used it, or use any word to support a POV. Moriori 03:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the use of 'apparently' either. The observation is nevertheless correct, thank you (Moriori) for pointing it out, I shall try to find time to find a cite in Eichelbaum's report or trial record. then it can be categorically said "the children showed little or no distress" I recall Louise Sas tried to expailn away the Bander child's lack of emotion while he detailed horrific satanic abuse, perhaps that will do? Richard 12:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

User:NZ researcher has done a lot of edits in the article I see. S/he clearly has a POV and is pushing it. The article is, at the moment, still showing this POV. Neutral language and equal weighting is needed. At the moment, it doesn't have it. Furthermore, these peer reviews are for editors unrelated to the article's creation to discuss it and to recommend changes. User:NZ researcher, people are trying to help the article, don't throw it back into their faces.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.22.18.241 (talk • contribs) .

The above comment is unsigned. The last time another writer made similar comments they went on to vandalise the article. There is a fundamental problem with reporting on the case. Those unfamiliar with its history seem to be asking why was he convicted, implying that sort of evidence isn't highlighted. In reality the conviction wasn't a result of any credible evidence, it was a result of a myriad of social and circumstantial factors that many analysts have since recognised as a describing a witch hunt. So, what was he convicted upon? Good examples have already been supplied - they are in essence children's stories, digging up Jesus, killing all the boys with axes etc. Mingled within were credible allegations 'he did poos in the bath' (scatological content featured prominently) and others that the adult interpreters coaxed out and then sifted (through arguable means) in order to create a case. Allied with that were parental anxieties about behaviours falling within perfectly ordinary range of childhood behaviours, behaviours that would be remarkable if they didn't occur in such a sample size. That's basically it. Let me repeat, the so called 'toddler testimonies' are IT in terms of evidence. The article just records the resultant fall out. Some of the language may be tweaked but the facts are facts. Those who feel something has been left out are welcome to research such and include it. That doesn't make the existent fact POV. Richard 12:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

An unsigned user wants neutral language and equal weighting. Well, who is stopping that person from doing just that if they feel offended by the article? I have tried to use neutral language and to give plenty of weight to both sides. A claim has been made but no evidence is provided to support it. If anyone has a problem with the language used, feel free to say what it is. Vagueness is not helpful. 21:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

Moriori, yes, I do think "it is apparent that the children showed little or no distress". That is not POV at all. I have explained why it is apparent that the children showed little or no distress, an explanation which you haven't contested. If it is not apparent to you that the kids showed little or no distress, please explain why. But as it currently stands, you seem to want to ban apparently from Wikipedia and I find that truly astonishing. 21:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

Once again, YOU say that YOU think something is apparent. That is clearly your POV. Had it been stated in evidence or summing up that it was apparent the children showed little or no distress then of course we could use it, by quoting the person/s who said so. Until we can do that your personal opinion has no place in Wiki. I'm beginning to suspect you are a politician, because they are known to express astonishment at things that exist only in their minds. Like you. For the second time, "I don't say certain words shouldn't be used in Wikipedia, but that we should not attribute a word to someone who never used it, or use any word to support a POV". But you already knew that, because it is the exact information you were given a few pars above this one. Moriori 21:52, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've already quoted Le Page who said that in his experience children would show distress when describing being sexually abused. He implied that the complainansts didn't exhibit any distress. Have you read any of the transcripts? It is apparent to me and probably others, that from reading those transcripts, the children are not distressed. It has got nothing to do with my personal opinion and everything to do with facts. If you can refute these facts, please do so. And where exactly do I attribute apparent to anyone? If Le Page had said apparent, I would've quoted him. He didn't, so I haven't. By all means remove apparent if it bothers you so much, but I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by doing this. 22:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

Goodness gracious me! Le Page implied the complainants didn't exhibit distress? What? Here's a quote from the article, attributed to LePage -- ".........there was no evident stress from any child in relation to any of these things until they were questioned. Got that? LePage says they showed distress when questioned. But then, only four sentences further down, Wikipedia states - "apparently the complainants showed little or no distress during their formal interviews." Has the penny dropped yet? Wikipedia is contradicting a statement made by the defence expert. That whole sentence needs the axe. Moriori 00:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Good gracious is right, you're like a dog with a bone! You haven't even read Le Page's testimony, yet you claim to know what he said and what he meant. Le Page was talking about when the children were being interviewed by their parents. Some parents said their children were uptight or had behavioural problems, but these alleged problems occurred when the kids were questioned by their parents, not before. Despite the fact that children were allegedly being urinated and defecated on, they showed no "evident stress". Le Page said that if the children's behaviour was out of the ordinary (and we don't know that it was), that could be due to a whole lot of reasons. When the children were formally interviewed, which is the only factual record of what the children were asked, they apparently showed no signs of distress when describing horrific acts of abuse. That's why we should use apparently, because although it seems there was no distress, we cannot say it as a matter of fact. 01:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

Please don't debate the issues on this page. Commnents on the article should be directed towards improvement which can be made to it. If you feel a comment is unjustified, then add a very brief reply suggesting the discussion be pursued at Talk:Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis.-gadfium 06:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. This should be debated elsewhere and I should be ashamed of myself. However, as this is the peer review page where editors will come to review the article, I must point out something they should know about the content of this article. Following my last post above (at 00:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)), User:NZ researcher removed from the article "there was no evident stress from any child in relation to any of these things until they were questioned". That was a quote of evidence given by Le Page, the defence expert, saying the children were distressed when questioned. It was chopped because it is contradicted by the POV opinion of an editor/s in the article which says "apparently the complainants showed little or no distress during their formal interviews." The expert's verbatim quoted testimony gets chopped, an editor's POV rules. Sheesh. You gotta fear for Wikipedia. Moriori 09:42, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no ojection to the wording Moriori added. In fact I think it highly relevant. Put it back in. Richard 11:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Avenue 12:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Moriori, you are wrong. Le Page didn't say the children were distressed when questioned. If you can show that the complainants showed distress during their formal interviews or at trial, please do so but so far you haven't been able to. You haven't even read Le Page's testimony, so I suggest you don't comment until you've read it. BTW, who was the person who originally inserted the quote that was chopped? Me!!! So much for POV. 20:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher

userbox

Placing the following on your user page will produce the box below

{{User NZcollab}}

The current NZ Collaboration is None.

.

A good way of advertising the collab! --Midnighttonight 09:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Tie

It looks like we may have a three-way tie coming up! Someone should vote to break the deadlock! --Midnighttonight 08:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The situation is handled by the tie breakers clause. I've already voted for two of them, and while I have no objection to the third becoming NZCOTF I don't have much to say on the subject.-gadfium 09:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Where are we voting for this? --Midnighttonight 08:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've set up a section in the page to do the tie breaking vote. --Midnighttonight 08:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit Confict, just beat me to it :) Brian | (Talk) 08:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Does the vote for RU in NZ tie breaker get carried over to the current nom? Cvene64 13:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not, you'll need to revote Brian | (Talk) 19:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Template on Article or Talk page?

Oleg Alexandrov has raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:Collaborations of whether the template for the current winner of a collaboration should go on the article or the talk page. You might be interested in taking part. Pruneau 00:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

Could we use a hash (#), instead of a star (*) on the voting? That would make counting a lot easier? Cheers. --Midnighttonight 01:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. I'll convert the existing entries.-gadfium 02:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

reawakening old topics

What are the rules surrounding reviving a previous topic that failed in nomination? Should there be a period in which an article cannot be renominated? I would suggest either four or six weeks. --Midnighttonight 09:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

A month sounds sensible, but I wouldn't oppose six weeks.-gadfium 19:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. maybe add for at least a month Brian | (Talk) 19:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Rubgy

I was away last night, ran out of time to promote Rubgy, thanks for doing that Brian | (Talk) 00:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

no prob. But it should probably be checked in case I stuffed something up somewhere (probability: 99%). --Midnighttonight 02:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

update

This should have been updated by now, I'm unsure of what to do regarding whether to promote all of "year in New Zealand" or just the 1980s. --Midnighttonight 07:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I think there was enough of a call for separation by decade (plus vote) to just make it the 1980s articles this time. IMO, it would be worth keeping all the decades that were voted for on the nomination page but delist the others for now (they can always be nominated again later). I know I'm biased, having nominated another highly-voted (non "years in") article, but it might be worth alternating the decade groups with other articles (i.e., a decade of articles this fortnight, a non-"years" article next fortnight, then another decade, and so on) for now until we get a considerable amount of these years out of the way (alternatively, we could simply have the years articles as an ongoing project separate from the CotF). In any case there's nothing to stop us doing a little work on the other years anyway, whether CotF or not. Grutness...wha? 08:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

id like to see that too tho i see its all been archived already. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 08:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to renom another decade, go ahead!. I was just trying to clear off the nom page for now. If you want the other decades back up be bold :) Brian | (Talk) 08:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Might wait a few weeks :) But they do all deserve to be done sometime soon. Grutness...wha? 08:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand

I know what the rules say, but given that there are a number of countries with FA status, could we, at some stage, have the colla work at the New Zealand article and get it to FA status. To do so I think we would peer review it before hand to see what was wrong, and then edit it up to scratch. It would be nice to see it on the main page at some point in time. I am not suggesting we do it now, as there are some very deserving articles currently put forward, more something to think about in the future. --Midnighttonight 05:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

tie

Looks like we are going to have a tie, anyone care to vote before it closes at 8pm? Brian | (Talk) 06:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

More people

Methinks this needs more people. Maybe someone should use a bot and leave a message for everyone in Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand?? Will return shortly - MidnightTonight (yes, I'm logged out at the moment)

WikiProject Biography

Let us know if you happen to pick an article on a person and we'll alert our members! plange 05:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

candidates called

All candidates are overdue for removal due to not enough votes to stay there. Looks like an opportunity for anyone to nominate their most important articles, for collab. Brian | (Talk) 19:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reviving the collaboration

The collaboration has languished for several months now. Why? At first I thought it was because those of us who are students were busy with end of semester / school year assignments and exams, but it hasn't picked up again since.

One of the problems I can see is that people may vote for a topic because they agree it should be improved, but they have no particular expertise themselves in that topic. I'm guilty of this myself; I nominated New Zealand literature, but since it became the COTF I've looked at a few sources, sighed, and decided to do something else instead. I'd like to see this article become a good one, but I don't have the inclination to do it myself. In retrospect, I shouldn't have put it forward.

What can we do to revitalise the NZCOTF? Here are my ideas:

1. When a new topic is selected, drop a message on the talk page of the people who voted for it, requesting that they improve it. The Collaboration of the Week used to do this about 2004, with a message (using Template:COTWvoter) such as:

   Your vote for <topic> has helped bring about the article's selection as this week's Collaboration of the week. Please join in trying to make the article a feature.

   There's a discussion about use of this template at Wikipedia_talk:Collaboration_of_the_week/Archive_4#Pledging. I think it was discontinued, but I haven't been able to find a discussion on why.

2. I think we should relax the pruning rules. Some good candidates were pruned because even better candidates were voted up. Lets make it one vote per two weeks, or drop the pruning entirely for a while (which has happened by default anyway)
3. Look for joint collaborations. Make a space in the collaboration template for "other collaborations or wikiprojects which may be interested in this article". E.g. for New Zealand literature, we should have notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Books that we were working on it. For List of New Zealand feature films, we should notify Wikipedia:WikiProject Films.

Alternatively, if no one is very interested in the idea of a New Zealand collaboration any more, maybe we should scrap it.-gadfium 08:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Good ideas. I would like to get the cotf back up and running, look how good the first cotf has turned out (Peter Ellis). I wonder if we should drop a message on the talk page of some of the active kiwi editors, the ones who don't follow the NB and the project NS side of the wiki, and let them know about the cotf. Brian | (Talk) 09:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

inactive

Let's face it, this collaboration is inactive. If you want to revive it, please do so. --Midnighttonight ^(rendezvous) 21:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

OK! - Shudda ^talk 00:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to try and get back in this again, the main prob why in the past, why I was not updating Fortnightly was because, not a lot of changes were happening to the current COTF Brian | (Talk) 01:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that does happen. I have changed the selection criteria quite a bit. This is mainly because two weeks for a collaboration can be too ambitious, having a fortnightly time frame probably won't work with only a few contributors. Hopefully if a nomination gets four supports then at least those four will contribute. Making it worthwhile having the collaboration. - Shudda ^talk 02:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion for reinvigorating the project? Change the banner colour! It scares people away being that bright ;-) dramatic 07:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Lime? it was the first colour code I could think of :P yeah it needs a kiwi coulor to it, sort of like the NZ portal Brian | (Talk) 07:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm this project is as inactive as I am. perhaps a change to a monthly collaboration? Onco_p53 11:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Australia-New Zealand relations

Since this is the current Australian collaboration, and the NZCOTF hasn't changed for over a year, I've updated the topic to join the Australians. If there's lots of participation from New Zealanders, maybe this will serve to trigger a revival of our collaboration.-gadfium 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

November collaboration

I'm not going to be available on 1 November to select the topic. Anyone else is welcome to do so - just follow the instructions at Wikipedia:New Zealand collaboration#Selection. If no one does, I'll do it a day or two later.-gadfium 19:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I am currently researching most of the books written about the 1981 tour with a view to expanding and fully referencing the article (a previous collaboration). My target will be GA or A class. dramatic (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

We all seem to be working flat-tack on election coverage right now, and the collaboration on State Housing hasn't gotten anywhere. Why don't we defer that article until December and reflect reality by declaring New Zealand general election 2008 and associated pages to be the November Collaboration? dramatic (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I've been almost inactive for the last three weeks due to other events. I'll update the featured article to the election tomorrow unless there are any objections. Also, I think perhaps I should change the pruning criteria to be four votes in two months, or all existing candidates will be pruned shortly.

I was thinking of nominating Fifth National Government of New Zealand for a future collaboration, but if we're making this month's collaboration the election then that's really covered by default, and I'll reconsider that nomination if there's no substantial article in a couple of months time.-gadfium 17:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

For those who don't know, the co-ordination of all the election updates is at Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/Election 2008 taskforce. --Helenalex (talk) 04:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the collaboration to the election.-gadfium 22:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Agriculture in New Zealand

I only happened across the collaboration for Agriculture in New Zealand on April first, and all the significant improvement to the article seems to have happened since then. There's a long way to go, so shall we retain the collaboration status for the rest of April? dramatic (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, at least while substantial edits are still being made.-gadfium 06:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of participation

It seems no subject is getting the four votes I've deemed necessary for promotion. If I drop the requirement to three votes, then I fear not much collaboration will actually happen on the target article. It seems this process has not managed to gain the interest of sufficient editors.

In practice, collaboration (sometimes) happens as a result of appeals on the New Zealand Wikipedian's noticeboard. The New Zealand river stubs is a good example. Another is my request for help at Fairfield College, where several editors responded and one has continued to take an active role. There was less response to SimonLyall's request about 2degrees, where one editor not previously involved in the article has contributed.

Is there a future for this page? What if anything should be done to revitalise it?-gadfium 10:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Might be worth advertising it again at the NZWP notice board, WPNZ, and maybe even WP Australia. Or even a general mailout to the user talk pages of everyone listed as a participant at WPNZ. That might generate a little bit of interest, at least. Grutness...wha? 01:41, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made the next article "None", since it seems this collaboration isn't working. Not a single edit was made to Gregg's (New Zealand) during the two months it was the collaboration subject. I think part of the problem is that articles take a few months to be promoted, and by that time most people are no longer interested in them, or the article has already been greatly improved since the nomination, as was the case with Gregg's.

Anyone else is welcome to take over the process if they believe they can restore interest in it. Grutness' suggestions above might help.-gadfium 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Since the collab was moribund, and Howard Morrison had been collab of the month for 18 consecutive months, I hope no-one will take offence at me taking unilateral action and changing the topic to 2011 Rugby World Cup, a topic of current interest. The info about the lead-up to the tournament could do with some work, for instance. Nurg (talk) 07:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)