Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Collaboration of the Week/Archive 2

message: The shortcut, WP:ACOTW is currently not redirecting to this project. Fix or Remove? - Squilibob 07:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would add a disamb link at the top of Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight since it's likely people would be confused. --nihon 08:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done that now. I also set up a new shortcut, WP:AnCOTW, since WP:ACOTW links to the Australian COTW. --nihon 08:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight be under other one "ACOTF" anyway? Shiroi Hane 19:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They used to be listed under Australian Collaboration of the Week, and set up a shortcut at that time using WP:ACOTW. So, rather than try to wrangle with them over it (since more pages use ACOTW to point to their page), I set up AnCOTW. (^_^) --nihon 19:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it have been too cheeky to set up ACotW? :P Shiroi Hane 19:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could still do that. They have two shortcuts, so why not us? (^_^) --nihon 20:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know how you guys link to this project, but when I'm not home and this isn't bookmarked, but I want to see what's going on, I type into the wikipedia search box AnCOTW and every variation that I can come up with.  Usually I just end up being frustrated and just go the Australian Collaboration via acotw and then come here.  Is there a better way or can this be fixed?  Thanks.--Miss Ethereal 15:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that's the point of the shortcut. In any wikipedia search box type WP:AnCOTW and you'll come to this project. - Squilibob 06:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds a lot more appropriate.  I second this! --Miss Ethereal 15:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We're going to have to vote again aren't we T_T - Squilibob 06:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shortcut

message: Please join in! ike9898 14:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manga is the newly selected comics collaboration of the month 

message: Phorque 13:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand completely. The current guideline is Please only nominate Anime articles which need serious work, such as stubs or articles that do not exist. So are you saying that a non-existant article should first be created and made into a stub before nomination? That's fine IMO. Also would apply to articles that need serious work, as they should also be stubs anyway. Correct me if that's not what you imply as including in only allow anime stubs. Or do you just mean large more complete articles should not be allowed? --Squilibob 05:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I re-read the updated rules and it does actually reflect what I was suggesting now. I think I will boldy try to improve the clarity of the "Considerations" section. - Phorque 08:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it's one of many things that need to be emphasised now, I've moved reinstating to its own section too since it has become a significant point recently. - Squilibob 09:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This collaboration should only allow anime stubs to be nominated

message: I hope this is relevant enough to your topic: our list includes manga and anime references to Joan of Arc.  For future indexing we'd like to include more information, such as year of release and studio.  Please drop by and add or improve our entries.  Regards, Durova 20:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Joan of Arc in art#Comic books and anime]] 

message: I have been monitoring the page and found that, if a nominee has 6 votes, it is already reinstated until it's eight vote stage. Now, until the two weeks are up, it is NOT reinstated. Just trying to get my message across. Katanin 21:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ever since the collaboration started it has worked this way. For what reason do you want to change it? The rule states clearly For every two votes that a nomination attracts, the period will be extended by another two weeks. So by saying until the two weeks are up, it is NOT reinstated does that mean you want this rule changed? Any rule changes should be proposed and voted upon. - Squilibob 00:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that means that I want the rule changed. An article is reinstated every two weeks since it's nomination. If an article recieved... let's say 16 votes in two weeks (even though it's somewhat unlikely, it's still probable), will it be reinstated eight times and then have it's voting period extended for a few months (as that's approximately the amount of time 16 votes will give a nominee)? 
And so, I officially propose the rule change until the two weeks are up, a nominee is NOT reinstated.
Katanin 20:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: No, I don't think you understand the concept of the rule. The rule won't change how long a nomination is active; Just that it could only be reinstated when the two weeks are up and not before. Katanin 12:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which means that, even if the nomination gets enough votes on the first day, it would have to wait 2 weeks to be reinstated, and then 2 more weeks before it can be taken off. This means that every nomination that passes the initial vote quota will remain for at least 4 weeks, isn't that right? -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 12:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's what's happening anyways! Let's say that a nominee, on it's first day, get's 2 votes. It's voting period is extended for two weeks from the day it was nominated, not from the day it received the votes.  Katanin 20:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

text: The way it currently stands is that when a nomination gets 2 votes it gets extended two weeks from the nomination date immediately setting a new deadline for two more votes to again extend this deadline. If a nomination gets a lot of votes in the first two weeks its deadline gets extended for many weeks. The way this vote will affect this is that if a nomination gets many votes in the first two weeks then it only gets extended another two weeks regardless of whether it got 2 votes or 200 votes.  The current rule keeps a struggling nomination alive for months which is the issue, this new rule would stop that from happening. There is a disadvantage in that if a nomination gets a lot of votes in one fortnight and then less than two the next fortnight, it will be removed. That's what we're voting on. - Squilibob 00:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reinstating 

message: ;Support:
#Ok I support, if only because it will make keeping track of the dates easier. Although I do hope this won't make people "hold back" on voting to keep a nomination alive. - Squilibob 00:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think you understand the concept of the rule. The rule won't change how long a nomination is active; Just that it could only be reinstated when the two weeks are up and not before. Katanin 12:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which means that, even if the nomination gets enough votes on the first day, it would have to wait 2 weeks to be reinstated, and then 2 more weeks before it can be taken off. This means that every nomination that passes the initial vote quota will remain for at least 4 weeks, isn't that right? -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 12:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's what's happening anyways! Let's say that a nominee, on it's first day, get's 2 votes. It's voting period is extended for two weeks from the day it was nominated, not from the day it received the votes.  Katanin 20:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it currently stands is that when a nomination gets 2 votes it gets extended two weeks from the nomination date immediately setting a new deadline for two more votes to again extend this deadline. If a nomination gets a lot of votes in the first two weeks its deadline gets extended for many weeks. The way this vote will affect this is that if a nomination gets many votes in the first two weeks then it only gets extended another two weeks regardless of whether it got 2 votes or 200 votes.  The current rule keeps a struggling nomination alive for months which is the issue, this new rule would stop that from happening. There is a disadvantage in that if a nomination gets a lot of votes in one fortnight and then less than two the next fortnight, it will be removed. That's what we're voting on. - Squilibob 00:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote: Rule change ''until the two weeks are up, a nominee is NOT reinstated''

message: The considerations for nomination section in the project page says:
If you believe that the article is close to featured status but would fail a peer review then this is also grounds for nomination.
I have a serious problem with this. It means that good articles will be nominated just to 'improve' them to featured article status, but they will neither improve nor benefit in any way (I think this was proven in Bleach (manga)). An article close to featured does not need a COTW, it needs one user who have good knowledge of both the article's subject and featured article requirements, and has time to improve the article by him/herself. I think we should take down that sentence. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 04:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The  Considerations for nominations section no longer allows such articles as per Ynhockey's proposal. Now three of the four current candidates are not what I would call stubs. So we have to decide on what constitutes an article that needs serious attention and collaboration. The three nominations in question are Eikoku Koi Monogatari Emma, Zatch Bell and Elfen Lied. Should these nominations be removed as per the current rules? --Squilibob 01:16, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zatch Bell and Elfen Lied should definitely be removed. The other one, probably. I think we should also add a heading such as ===What should not be nominated=== to the project page, explaining that articles with a large amount of content which are well-written don't belong. We can give Elfen Lied as an example even. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 04:24, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then, in place of Considerations for nominations section or to be added to it? --Squilibob 06:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Closed to featured status

message: Due to the recent discussions and votes going on, I'd like to go ahead and change the rules to that of which we have decided upon. The votes will continue so that others may have their say and if anyone objects to the pages then the page can easily be reverted. - Squilibob 05:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could I further suggest that we feature this somewhere to suggest somewhere to put articles that aren't candidates for the COTW but need attention nonetheless (eg. articles that aren't stubs) - Phorque 05:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah good idea, added it to Considerations - Squilibob 06:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the rules 

message: To change the collaboration notice link you only had to edit Template:AMCOTW article but to change the image you had to edit the actual collaboration notice template. You now may instead add a different image to the page Template:AMCOTW article/image. That should make things easier since this will be changed on a weekly basis. --Squilibob 05:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cycling to the next AMCOTW 

message: In light of our new policy on only nominating stub-like articles or articles in serious need of attention, I am removing my nomination of Elfen Lied. It has been on the list for a long time and has actually improved a lot since then. I'll put Elfen Lied on the to-do list. Hope nobody minds terribly. If you really want it to get better come along and edit it with me! =)
Phorque 09:56, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of [[Elfen Lied]] 

message: Should the candidates be listed in the order they were nominated or in the order their reinstatement time limit expires? --TheFarix (Talk) 18:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was listed in the order they were nominated, but time limit seems fine to me. What do other people think? --Squilibob 05:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that keeping them in the order they were nominated would be easier --TheFarix (Talk) 21:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of candidates 

message: I've briefly proposed this before, but it didn't seem to gain much attention so I'm making a new talk section. Basically, I think this project should include manga and be renamed to Wikipedia:Anime and Manga Collaboration of the Week (AMCOTW). Here are the reasons:
*The project that runs this COTW deals with anime and manga, not only anime
*The scope of anime only is very small and therefore manpower is even more limited - and we really don't have much manpower
*Not a great reason, but the abbreviation AMCOTW is easier to guess and remember than AnCOTW
I won't be able to reply for at least the next two days, sorry for that, but please vote or post suggestions and hopefully we'll reach a consensus by the end of the week. -- Y Ynhockey (Talk) Y 04:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anime to Anime and Manga

message: This is just a reminder that AnCOTW will not accepted nominations or votes from unregistered users. That includes users of pseudo-accounts that do not actually exist. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it tick you off? We've already discussed why anonymous votes aren't a good thing. Besides, it won't kill people to just register. Prince of Tennis is as worthy as the votes relfect anyway. That's how the voting system works I believe. - Phorque 11:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Why should coniderations be made when people can freely and easily register an account? --TheFarix (Talk) 21:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, if you're so keen on a Prince of Tennis collab, why don't you nominate it, GatoGirl? -Phorque 08:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She did, however, she doesn't use a registered account. --TheFarix (Talk) 10:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous nominations or votes 

message: Once again, we have a massive article nominated for COTW that doesn't fit the criteria we recently stated. This looks like a cleanup job more than anything else.
We're only going to work on non-existent or stub-like articles. If nobody has a good objection or justification for it being there, I'm going to move it to the to-do list, same as I did for Elfen Lied. -  09:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The absolute length of an article shouldn't be the only criteria that an article can be nominated for, but content (or lack thereof) should also be considered. LoGH is essentially a serious of huge lists. If those lists were removed for the article, the article would be a stub. --TheFarix (Talk) 11:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legend of Galactic Heroes nomination 

message: Does it only limited to articles about a particular anime and manga or can it be an anime or manga related article? The reason I ask is because I would like to nominate AnimeNfo.com as a candidate, but not sure if that will fall within the scope of this COTW. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way we currently have it worded is that the article must be directly related to anime or manga. You could argue that animenfo is directly related so I can't see why you can't go ahead and nominate it. I think that a general "anime database and review website" article could be made that included several of these types of websites and the features of each could be listed. The article would have a decent amount of content, potentially and it would definately be directly related to anime and manga. There isn't an AniDb article that I could find and Anime News Network is just as small as animenfo. --Squilibob 02:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article nominations 

message: We somehow lost our archive someplace. I was able to salvage and restore it. --TheFarix (Talk) 02:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lost archive 

message: I thought that there would be some Manga articles nominated from those who voted for it to be a part of the collaboration. >_< --Squilibob 01:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most manga-only series are not very popular, and there will probably be very few such nominations (if any). The reason I suggested for it to be part of the collaboration was because anime and manga are almost inseparable subjects and running a Japanese animation collaboration, which is almost entirely based on manga, involves a lot of cherrypicking. It also gives the impression that articles should be nominated for their sole anime value, while in practice, most (or all) our manga-based anime articles include canon from the manga which did not make it to the anime. --  Ynhockey (Talk) 07:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. -  13:51, 01 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manga nominations? 

message: Anyone got any ideas on how we can attract more people to the project? We haven't been gaining any new interest lately --Squilibob 07:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the problem isn't the lack of collaborators, rather the lack of commitment from collaborators. (Though the lack of collaborators isn't encouraging either.)  For the past two collabs I've been cycling through the collaborations, and though I don't mind doing it at all, my main concern with this is that it was after the week's been up.  When I archive the articles that were collaborated on, I also noticed that oftentimes the individuals who nominate the articles don't collaborate on them at all.  I would have assumed that if you nominate an article, that you would at least make an attempt to improve it.  All the anime series that have been nominated so far, I've never seen, though I may have nominated it because I thought it required more attention than other nominated articles.  But I've tried to contribute to most of them.  I also thought this was the main reason that this collaboration elected to have only registered users nominate/vote on articles - to eliminate the unknown user who would not contribute.  I don't have any suggestions for how this collaboration can garner more interest, but it would be better if people who nominated the articles would contribute if they can. -- Miss Ethereal 15:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. I guess we should allow for it, however, because sometimes an article doesn't get succeed straight away and a person who nominated an article two weeks ago is likely not to notice it was elevated after such a gap in time. --Squilibob 00:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Collaborators 

message: I was wondering what the definition of a stub article is... from the wikipedia's definition of stub I would have thought that Midori Days was a stub article... but Squilibob indicated in their comments that it was not.  Could someone please clarify this for me?  Thanks.  --Miss Ethereal 17:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A stub is an article that lacks essential information. When you look at an article ask yourself "What essential information should be in this article?". For Midori no Hibi I would say a Story synopsis, which it has, a character profile for the main characters, which it has, and I'd touch on the love triangle between the main three characters, which the article has done. Disagree with me if you think it really is a stub. Read WP:STUB for the Wikipedia guideline. --Squilibob 22:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub Articles 

message: What happened to List of English Dubbed Anime?  I realize that it must have been deleted, but obviously I missed that and it only came to my attention when I saw the red link.  There goes at week's worth of collaboration.  But what happened?  Was there some sort of consensus reached as to why it was deleted (like how when it was nominated as AnCOTW there were suggestions to turn it into a category)?  I would just like to know from anyone out there who may know what happened with this article.  Thanks.  --Miss Ethereal 15:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was turned into a category.  See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English dubbed anime --Kunzite 15:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of English Dubbed Anime... what the?!

message: 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 00:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template on Article or Talk page?