Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week/Archive 4

message: There have been a lot of new Collaborations of the week popping up for specific subjects (such as Magic Collaboration of the Week) so, following the trend, I've put together a page for gamers to work together to collaborate on various computer and video game articles.  The page, Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week, will run similarly to COTW, but will focus on articles pertaining to gaming.  If you're interested in helping out, go ahead and introduce yourself in Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week's talk page.  Please post any comments/questions/etc. there too.  Thanks a lot; I hope Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week will lead to valuable contributions on Wikipedia!  --pie4all88 21:41, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Announcing a new collaboration project...[[Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week|Gaming Collaboration of the week]]!

message: I moved the collaboration of the week template to the talk page. This is information for editors, not readers. Pcb21| Pete 08:52, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  fyi 

message: An article can spend a month on this page (well, not this page; this is the talk page...you know what I mean) before it can actually be put under the torch. I think this is too long. One solution has been to create separate COTWs for different things, but I wonder if maybe we should have more than one page being worked on each week - to COTWs each week. What do you think? -Litefantastic 12:52, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This was dicussed a couple of times before (see /Archive 3 and /Archive 1) - if I remember correctly, the consensus was that it would dilute the (rather minimal, it has to be said, at the moment) effort directed to the selected page. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary: If someone doesn't know anything about one of the pages, he/she can just go work on the other. -Litefantastic 17:53, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they all remain on WP:COTW as candidates, until they are pruned, even if they are not the COTW. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:20, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Slow

message: Are previous votes archived somewhere after deletion from the main article page (e.g., like now, after U.S. embargo against Cuba won the race)? Mikkalai 20:51, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: No: for some reason lost in the mists of time, the records of unsuccessful votes are archived in /Removed but no details of successful votes are kept in /History other than the number of votes and days on the list.  Feel free to go back and extract the voting records and comments into, say, /History/Votes ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving of votes and comments 

message: If anyone wants to help me, I am starting at the top of this list and adding  to eac user's talk page.  If you start at the bottom, we should meet in the middle.  Thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:43, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tagging voter pages

message: I've had limited contributions to CotW, for various reasons. But I'm considering an additional form of CotW. If you’re interested, please see Wikipedia:Breadth and quality. Maurreen 02:34, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Breadth and quality

message: *I hate to hawk my own product here (especially since last time it was that lavender-colored template you all hate so much) but would you be willing to help out on the science COTW? I think there's endless possibility here (but then, I always say stuff like that) and all it needs is a kickstart. -Litefantastic 03:36, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Science COTW

message: Is there an easy way of posting messages on the talk pages of all those who voted for African art that the article has won election as COTW?  (ie a way to post a message on multiple talk pages simultaneously)? Posting the same message on 25 odd talk pages is somewhat tedious. AndyL 18:36, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Informing voters of new winner 

message: To anyone who is using either of these templates.  Please be advised,  != (does not equal) .  Please remember to include the section number when using . -- AllyUnion (talk) 13:09, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sectstub and Sect-stub 

message: The concept of pruning is fine, but there is no date on the articles up for CTOW, so how do we know when to prune? - Amgine 22:47, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruning 

message: With the Christmas holidays should we delay the next COTW selection by a week until Jan 2, 2005 (and give all current nominees a one week grace period?)? I don't think a COTW for December 26 - January 2 will get very much work done on it. AndyL 17:24, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas 

message: I don't want to be too bold on this, so I'll ask for input.  Does anyone else think that maybe we should get rid of at least one template?  Multiple templates + my monitor resolution = squeezed text and one headache trying to read some things.  But then again, others may like the templates.  So what do you think? -- The KoG | Talk 14:03, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
:Which one? -- ALoan (Talk) 15:40, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing a template