Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Singapore/Archives/SGCOTF

message: Er..I tot there was already a template page created for a COTW before? Cant remember where is it now thou. :D--Huaiwei 16:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid you have spelt duplicate wrongly. I didn't see it, not sure about this. :P --Terence Ong |Talk 16:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah paiseh. Me typo king. :D Anyway I think Mailer or Vision did it before...still trying to find it, if its around.--Huaiwei 16:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplicate?

message: Considering we dont exactly have a huge number of sgpedians, and the differing amount of time we appear prepared to spend here in wikipedia, it does appear that one week is too short a time for a collaboration like this. Should we change it to a fortnightly effort, or even a monthly one? Even major English-speaking communities like Australia, the US and the UK does it monthly, while Canada's is a monthly effort. I would personally recommend a monthly effort before moving on to a fortnightly than a weekly one when the momentum picks up.--Huaiwei 14:35, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's no problem with me, since we are not a big community. A number of SGpedians' who are not on the list, do not really get involved in joint efforts. Our number of SGpedians' is low now, and only less than 20 are active contributors. --Terence Ong Talk 03:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh ok. So all is well with a move to COTF? Any last objections?--Huaiwei 14:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can move it already? Does that mean the LRT will be the COTW for another week? --Terence Ong Talk 18:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. ;)--Huaiwei 02:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: COTW, COTF or COTM?

message: I propose two changes in the rule:
# To abolish the rule that: "It needs at least 5 votes in 3 days.". The reason is because the number of nominations is small, so we don't have to prune the list of nominations periodically. 
# If there is no outstanding candidates, the "incumbent" SGCOTF article shall remain as the SGCOTF article for the next period, to encourage editors to further contribute in it. 
If these rules are in place, I believe it will keep the collaboration movement running continuously, and we don't have lull period like now. For example, the Economy of Singapore would have been the current SGCOTF article. Comments please, thank you. --Vsion 02:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think with this changes with the new rules, it will be better than what it is now. :D I support the movement to take this changes. --Terence Ong 07:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: While I fully agree with suggestion two, I would think suggestion one still needs a minimum number of votes before it can go through even if we are to remove the time limit?--Huaiwei 10:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with the minimum number of voters, don't want this to become a one-man show. What should this mininum be, 3, 4, or 5?   At least 3, I would think. 5 is nice, but could be too ambitious? --Vsion 20:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the liberty to update the rules and set the minimum number of votes to 5. Let's see how this works, we can fine-tune it later as things progress. Thanks for the comments. --Vsion 13:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I hope it will be about 5 to prevent articles from being passed without much community interest. 3 is too small a number, unless the 3 heros are otustanding enough to push an article to FA stutus on their own! :D--Huaiwei 02:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose rule changes 

message: Hi SGpedians', since its the Chinese New Year festive season now, everyone's busy with their real life activities. I suggest that we should extend Sentosa as the COTF for another week, as we have to balance our real life commitments and our Wikipedia commitments. Thanks. --Terence Ong (恭喜发财) 17:52, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you wish to contribute in Sentosa after 8 February, we certainly can extend, although it is quite early to decide now. :)  --Vsion 00:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any objection for extending sentosa's SGCOTF by a week? --Vsion (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extention of [[Sentosa]] as COTF for a week 

message: I guess we are extending the SGCOTF of Education in Singapore by a week at least until another candidate garner enough votes. Please remember that the nomination no longer expire unless it is totally hopeless. It certainly helps if there are more nominations and votes. --Vsion 06:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education in Singapore extended 

message: Co-curricular activity should be extended for another week. During this two weeks, not much progress has been made and there is much more potential for the article to be longer. I believe all of us should take some initiative into editing the article or else COTFs are meaningless. --Terence Ong 13:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CCA extended for a week 

message: Hmmm? Next should be history of Singapore, seeing how we're already making a major overhaul of that article already. Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 12:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We're well overdue...