Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week/Archive 6

message: The first proposal would be to limit the number of votes each voter can cast to 3 as I have realized that people (including me) often vote not for what they will write about but what they find important. This would force us to be more selective. I also suggest that people can only vote for the articles that were nominated after they registered - in order to fight sockpuppets. Any comments? Objections? --Eleassar777 20:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposals

message: *Please, help the Article Improvement Drive. I don't think it has long to live with such meager support, and as the members of the COTW you guys should all know that we're the next step after you. -Litefantastic 17:10, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Aid the AID

message: I created a template that could be placed on the COTW page in the event of voting ties, if anyone is interested in using it.  It would better notify people that there has been a tie, and they could vote for one of the potential candidates.
Voting for this week's Collaboration of the week has been extended 24 hours until Monday 30 May, 2005
</div>
It could be at the top of the page, or before the first candidate. Phoenix2 04:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously it would have to be subst:'d in. Talrias (t | e | c) 09:06, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting Ties

message: Could we have two COTW's a week. All the current topics are good choices but many won't make it because of how many else are listed. So for the summer could we have two COTWs every week, I believe enough people are participating to do this. Falphin 16:10, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - article improvement drive has two articles a week, for example. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Another reason would be how well Roaring Twenties has done that it is  getting  fewer significant edits everyday  because almost all the topics are covered.  I imagine this will continue over the summer as long as their good topics.Falphin 18:00, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I proposed this a while back.  See discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:Collaboration_of_the_week/Archive_5#Proposal_for_two_COTWs_per_week —thames 21:20, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: We should have a vote on this proposal since everyone agreed with your proposal. Falphin 22:28, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: Are we going to do two or one? The vote ended 10-2 with one user in opposition stating a trial period was fine and the other would support if two non-similar topics were picked each week. Falphin 18:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess that that decision has been made; let's start the trial period with two categorically unrelated articles on June 19. NatusRoma 00:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've created a new page, Wikipedia:Collaborations of the week, so this can happen. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Two COTWs

message: I was wondering if anyone would be interested in having a Biography Collaboration of the Week. Lately I have noticed that wikipedia lacks good articles on well known theologians and philosopher and I imagine elsewhere to. Thoughts? Falphin 01:46, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New COTWs

message: Support two weeks per COTW:
# Falphin 16:48, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Biography COTW vote

message: I wonder why COTW is not on the frontpage. (The corresponding is put on the frontpage in Wikibooks.) This way it will attract more attention and thus more expansion. I would suggest to put it under the current Featured Articles, Selected Anniversaries, In the news, DYK, to indicate that it is not a featured thing of Wikipedia, but clearly needing more attention.
: This is something that should probably be discussed on Talk:Main Page, but I think it one reason for not having it there might be because the COTW is typically very short to begin with and there isn't much worth reading. Another reason might be that no one has suggested it! (please remember to sign your messages on talk pages) Talrias (t | e | c) 17:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I considered raising this point myself at one point, but after having seen the tiresomely repetitive vandalism that tends to occur to articles featured on the main page, I think having at least one link to go through eliminates most of the risk, and allows those really committed to the COTW's improvement to carefully plan a path of improvement without having to constantly revert vandalism. --Mark Lewis 18:57, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I think we wanted to keep the Main Page as a starting point for Wikipedia readers and users. The corrisponding page for editors is the Community Portal, which is disturbing for those who both read and edit Wikipedia. I think we pull in enough people into editing articles anyway, and the large audience the Main Page has probably works best for what it already does -- correcting small fact/language errors in already very well done articles. — Sverdrup 19:20, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could we put the Article Improvement Drive on there too? -Litefantastic 23:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  COTW on Frontpage