Wikipedia talk:Anime Collaboration of the Week/01

message: I have inserted an icon into . I found this on commons and it does not seem to have licence problems. --Fenice 07:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having an icon is a great idea. I suggest we change it to a picture of the current COTW if relevant, every week. - Squilibob 10:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Icon suggestion

message: People probably don't have the History page on their watchlist, so please have a look at the history talk page and have a look at my comment. Jacoplane 03:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History page formatting 

message: Are the candidates supposed to be organized by time/date of submission or alphabetical order? --Dave 03:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever is friendliest to users adding new nominations. Alphabetical is a good idea, if you want to organize it like that then note somewhere that new nominations should be arranged alphabetically - Squilibob 06:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: : There has been talk amongst several users showing interest in making this a category, rather than a list because of its length. --Dave 03:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought...in defence of a list, there is a list of anime in existance. --Dave 23:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The "List of anime" is redundant and out of date due to there already being a category "Anime". I think this would be better as a category (same with the "List of anime". --nihon 04:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It'd make much more sense for this to be a category IMO - Phorque 09:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Moved from the project page to here. This is the talk page! I think "comments" was a bad title to use. It was supposed to be just to state the reason for nomination, that others could add to if they wanted. I'll reformat the main page - Squilibob 10:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of English Dubbed Anime 

message: Now, seeing how much support Naruto got, it's not surprising that people seem to come out of the woodwork to support Bleach. Now, one thing that's bothering me is that the first vote of support is "Ichigo", who is not a member of Wikipedia. Should we institute a policy if we're going to have non-members vote, at least have them use their real signature? I mean, if this stays, then I'm afraid that the support page might look like this:
#Neko
#SSJGOKUGOKU
#SSJ2VEGETTO
#Bob
#TALKABOUTKURIRIN
And so on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TcDohl (talk • contribs) .
:Good point... whoever wrote this... Though if they copied the template properly in the first place, their IP would have been displayed. "Please use the template provided and change information between the asterisks" should clear up this confusion. - Squilibob 06:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bleach support? 

message: I have quite boldly suspended a few nominations because the reasons for nomination are not valid. Ever since the inception of Naruto_(manga) there has been a greater number of visitors to the page, this is what we wanted and is by no means a problem. However the reason for nominating an article seems to have been sidetracked and many are copying Naruto thinking that an article needs to be nominated because it is popular, long running or is their favorite anime. 
This is a collaboration to improve anime articles. Stating that an article should be improved because it is popular is not a reason. If you want your favorite anime to be awarded then go to an award project page and not to a collaboration page.
I believe that Fullmetal Alchemist, Bleach, Sandland and Niea under 7 could all be AnCOTW, but people need to know what is wrong with the page. If an article is nominated and nothing is done to it, then a week is wasted and people may lose interest in the collaboration. If a collection of 10 or thereabouts people edited Fullmetal Alchemist or Bleach (manga) for a week stated what could they do during that week? If the answer is something one person could do in an hour then it does not need to be nominated. - Squilibob 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agreed. There have to be valid reasons for a collaboration, preferably in point form. - Phorque 12:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons 

message: There is a tie between FMA and Planetes, and there's no tie policy yet. Oops! - Squilibob 11:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a tie anymore. --nihon 01:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hehe, you voted twice :) - Squilibob 06:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must be getting tired. This week has been very stressful at work. Oh, and I must really want Planetes to get the vote. ;-) --nihon 08:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A tie 

message: You know... the FMA article doesn't really seem all that bad. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject but the most I can say at an initial glance is that the first sentence about the name variations is a bit unwieldy. Shiroi Hane 17:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FMA 

message: Is it just me, or is it that the collaborations of the week haven't really improved drastically when they're chosen as the collaboration of the week? I mean, the Paranoia Agent article looks almost the same, FMA didn't really change much. Even the main Anime Collaboration of the Week page isn't updated reguarly to renew the status of the collaborations themselves. For example, the "next collaboration" is supposedly chosen last week. If that's not changed by those who are supposed to change it, then is it really worth it to have this Wikiproject?
--TcDohl 04:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The project's fairly new, so give it a little time to get going. (^_-) --日本穣 06:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a successful wikiproject?