Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week/Archive 7

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

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

message: I will go ahead and created modified templates for multiple collaborations. Phoenix2 17:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers, I've already created two templates,  and  in which the names (only) of the two article titles should be written. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:50, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Templates

message: 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)
thread_title: Next week

message: It just links to Categories for deletion. Falphin 21:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Purge the cache to refresh this page

message: 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)
thread_title: OLD collaborations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. Phoenix2 03:22, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: So how does this work now?  Both history?  instead of 2 different cats? --ZeWrestler 03:58, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Both history?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Goodbye to single collaboration page

message: 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)
replies: text: Sí. Falphin 19:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense to me. Maurreen 21:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stray Templates

message: 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)
thread_title:  Redirected [[Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week]] here 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New entries at top or bottom? 

message: Please contribute. Revolución 03:29, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: African COTW

message: 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)
thread_title: Problem with display on Community Portal

message: *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)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: 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  or ? 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)
replies: text: 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  to , 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)
thread_title:  What's going on?