Wikipedia talk:Article Improvement Drive/archive3

message: I want to nominate Dubai for lack of information in modern history and not much info about the artificial islands and the Dubai Waterfront.  How do you do it?  It should be told how to on the page, like the COTW does.  Would you please tell me how to? --Weirdperson11 00:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do you nominate an article? 

message: This is an empty discussion page. I like to see waht happened last. WAS 4.250 03:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Who archived everything?

message: I would like to suggest Criticism of Wikipedia for improvement. Imagine it as featured article. I'm serious. WAS 4.250 03:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those who vote for the promotion of featured article candidates have to have an account and, by definition, are Wikipedians. I am not sure a Wikipedian can ever be impartial enough to determine whether an article criticising something to which they spend their free time contributing should be featurable. I am not criticising individuals, and am not suggesting that Wikipedia has no impartial members, I just believe it is a decision we can never make. However, if you do want to make a suggestion that we work on this article as an AID project, then suggest it on the project page. --Oldak Quill 13:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think those with the most familiarity to Wikipedia know its flaws the best.  I know myself that the only reason I believe it is important to contribute to Wikipedia is that it is full of holes and misinformation, and that this can be corrected with effort.  I do not think I am alone in  not sharing the opinion that wikipedia will ever "replace" other encyclopedias, but will rather continue to serve as a good starting point for research on a topic.  Wikipedia is a fascinating experiment and I believe that while it would be nice to have a sizable group of experts impartially analyze the methodology, phenomology, and results, the closest we have are individuals who have significant experience with the project, especially those that do not follow its tenets with fanaticism. - JustinWick 15:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for improvement

message: if a nomination is removed from the page the template in the article should be removed too? (i.e.
Talk:Terra_cotta) --Melaen 23:04, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, most of the times I forget this, but basically they should all be removed. --Fenice 10:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: removed nominations-->remove template?

message: Exactly when will the next candidate be selected? The date given directly under the "Nominations" section: 1) is completely wrong (says "December 4, 2005) and 2) doesn't give a specific hour-and-minute time. -- King of Hearts 00:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time of Selection 

message: How does "stays until" margine function? I doesn't seem to be explained anywhere... If I want to vote, what do I do with it? If I want to propose an article, how do I set it initialy? --Dijxtra 20:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, can anyone link to an explanation of the system? In "needs x votes by y", how is x determined; is y always increased by 1 week? Which article is selected? I'm just curious. Conscious 20:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I'm sorry. I've just read the answers, they aren't hidden far away =) Conscious 20:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "stays until" 

message: check this out, might make our lives slightly easier. in particular with citing sources. In particular, when we have to do the Hurricane Katrina article. --ZeWrestler  Talk 17:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: new inline citation 

message: Is  put on article main page or talk page? --Dijxtra 13:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer the article page but you can put it wherever you like.--Fenice 10:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  place to put the {{tl|AIDnom}} template 

message: The links from the AID box at the top of nominated articles do not seem to go to the article's entry on the AID page, only to the top of the AID page. In contrast, they seem to work fine for  COTW nominated pages? Jtneill - Talk 01:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is because we have the vote counts next to the heading and that is constantly updated. Having the number of votes in the TOC gives a good overview.--Fenice 10:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to "this page's entry"? 

message: I am copying this discussion here from the main page under Roma (people):
:On what possible basis are anon votes considered invalid? Marskell 09:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Because only registered users can vote, it says so on top. This is supposed to reduce sockpuppetry which we have had a problem with in the past. I informed the user to consider voting again once he or she has registered. If the user does not regiser and vote again, I will still inform the user with a voter template and invite the user to contribute, in case the article wins. That is why these votes should not be completely removed.--Fenice 09:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't noticed the sentence sorry, but I must say it is poor, un-wiki policy. Anons can vote on AfD and RfA which are of greater import than AID. Of course, these will be scrutinized and often discounted but to bar anons from doing anything ought to require a very high bar. Marskell 10:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we change it then?--Fenice 10:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the principle and there really has not been any sockpuppetry (that I know of) for more than six months. Let's have a straw poll:--Fenice 11:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: But a core principle of the wiki is that you don't have to if you want to make edits. Marskell 09:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, creating new pages (which is not allowed for anon users) is a good precedent... --Dijxtra 10:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But the onus in every case has been on those who want to restrict anon access--purported harm must out-weigh respect for the "anyone can edit" principle. "It's easy to create an account" simply is not a reason to disallow anon voting here. Marskell 10:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm... OK, lets put it this way. I fully understand your position. But, I just don't feel like leting anons vote. And I won't change my oppinion. I feel like having an icecream and don't feel like leting anons vote. I understand you think I'm wrong. And I'm fully aware that if you go to ArbCom, you will probably win. And, if the issue is that important to you, if you are willing to go to the ArbCom, I'll just drop my vote, as the issue is really not that important to me. But, in the mean time, I reckon no as I like the status quo (observe that, after all, you are proposing a change in a system that funcions well...). --Dijxtra 11:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This underscores the point above: if this is seriously a problem, go and actually request semi-protection. It's a still evolving policy but it exists finally and should be the required procedure for barring anons from anything. Marskell 16:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, that seems like the worst of all possible ideas. Even if we do negate anonymous voting, we should never semi-protect pages like this. First of all, even if anonymous votes don't count, anonymous comments certainly do, and should be allowed. Second of all, the best way to explain to anonymous users clearly why their vote can't count is to just let anonymous users vote and to clearly mark their votes as not counting and send them a message instructing them to get a user account if they want to vote. Protecting the page would just confuse and drive away the vast majority of anonymous users, who won't be familiar enough with page-protection nuances to understand how they can vote, and certainly won't understand why they aren't allowed to vote without a name. -Silence 17:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Silence, don't misunderstand. I don't for a second think a request protect would be acted on for this page and I don't believe at all that it should be protected. My comment was procedural: if you're instituting a kind of manual semi-protection on a page, the reasoning ought to pass muster on the policy page that deals with protection. Given that this page wouldn't pass muster there, this page shouldn't be protected from anons in a back-door way. Make sense? Marskell 15:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you just confused me royally--ZeWrestler  Talk 15:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Allow anons to vote?

message: Just wondering whether this page actually allows for an "Oppose" vote.... I have nominated Cold War for AID and, in addition to 15 votes supporting, it has also attracted 3 votes in opposition. This seems to be a peculiar feature for this particular topic.... Can anyone clarify whether an "Oppose" vote is actually allowed for? I would have thought under the current approach that any opposition to an article going to AID would be placed within the Comments section... Comments / suggestions anyone? Paul James Cowie 09:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no law against someone making an "oppose" section or putting it in bold, but such votes are not counted. Only support votes are counted—so if you wanted to vote "oppose" to a single topic, effectively, the way to do this would actually be to vote "support" for every topic except the one you're against. But the only real value of voting against something would be: to try to convince other people to not vote for a certain topic. In other words, just move those "oppose" votes into the "comments" section, since they're the same as any other comment saying "I don't think this should be the AID article". -Silence 10:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: From the page, "Opposing votes are not counted; see approval voting" So an opposing vote is a comment I suppose. They might have a role to play if they act as arguments for other poeple not to vote for the article in question.--JK the unwise 10:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hm. Interesting question. Opposing votes are not counted, that's for sure. I think that "Opposing votes are not counted" sentence sould be changed to "Opposing votes are not allowed". Just so we don't have questions like this one. --Dijxtra 10:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disagree. Opposing votes are allowed. They're just not counted. In the same way, you could say below an AID nom, "I VOTE FOR THIS AID NOM TO BE TURNED INTO A PURPLE MUFFIN". You'd be allowed to make such a comment, but it wouldn't be counted as a genuine vote. -Silence 10:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support:I vote for Dijxtra and Silence both to be turned into giant purple muffins.--JK the unwise 10:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make them yummy and tasty...! Somebody might eat them!!@ --DanielCD 16:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does this page actually allow for "Oppose" votes? 

message: Here are the instructions:
# On sunday at 18.00 GMT you are supposed to do a socalled rollover, that is switching the template to a new collaboration. All voters need to be informed and you need to change all the templates in the section called "templates for maintenance" at the bottom of the page. Fill in the new article in the history section and add the diff to the old.
# Every day, you should check to update the vote count and voting requirement. New nominations need to have a template (there would have been an option just to omit that template but you are obviously just into warring so we can't have that option). So they will need to have a template, nominators put them on talk or article page, whichever one is ok, but you should check for them to be complete. 
# The voting goes more or less automatic right now. If the page looses contributors to a point where it might die (will happen in approximately 5 months, since it is really well established now), you need to start advertising: put information about the nomination on project pages: WikiProjects, there is a link to the list, and put some info on related articles. 
#Also, you need to develop the project further in order for it to become successful and actually produce featured articles, you will have to develop some kind of strategy to get people to actually work on it. This works for one by advertising and accumulating voters, but you also need to develop some other strategy, I was only starting to develop this and so you will have to experiment. Start by developping a todo box while the articles are listed and try to get editors to decide upon a strategy, while the article is listed, because there are things you can't just put in the todo-box. The first attempts in this direction were unbelieveably and surprisingly successful, so I suggest to really explore that alley further. Create the todo box immidiately after the article is listed, and start filling it in some systematic way. People will pick up on it and go along. 
#And one further thing: there needs to be some kind of a box on AID which summarizes the criteria for a FA. The existing boxes on FA will not do, see discussion of this somewhere on old talk pages, it was discussed before even my time and I never got around to developing it. You may consider putting this box on the talk page of the nominated article also.
--Fenice 11:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree on the 'todo box'. It is extremely helpful knowing exactly what needs to be done, instead of general expanding. Gflores Talk 19:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This project 

message: Here are detailed instructions for the rollover:
# Remove  from old AID article
# Add  on talk page of old AID article
# Add old AID article to /History page
# Edit this section
# Fix Template:IDRIVEtopic
# Fix Template:AIDvoter
# Put  on new AID article
# Put  on new AID article's talk page if it doesn't exist already
# Remove new AID article from project page and put content you removed to new AID article's 
# Remove  from talk page
# Fix Template:Aid-summary: copy/paste introduction of new AID article to it and change the picture (just replace the image name, don't change image size)
# Put  on talk page of people who voted for new AID article
--Dijxtra 21:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some more instructions 

message: The changed format of this page, including both article name and the current voting situation in the section heading, breaks the automatic "#ArticleName" section of the link in the AID nomination templates.  I got confused when getting here from one and thought the article was no longer a candidate, so I mistakenly removed the template from the article's page.  Maybe the voting situation could be a subsection of each article situation, so the number of votes would still be in the summary box at the top, but the links would work correctly.--ragesoss 23:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Template links broken

message: Hi there,
I propose to lift requirement of 3 votes per week to 4 votes per week. At the moment there are 38 active proposals for Article Improvement Drive and I find that too much. If we all agree to that, I propose we just change the rule, put a giant notice on top of this page informing of the change (put it there for, let say, a week) and ignore the fact that there are articles which entered the list while the rule was different. Anybody else thinks this is a good idea? --Dijxtra 10:46, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. —Nightstallion (?) 11:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Four articles should have already been removed, and a similar number expire in the next three days. That is neither pro- nor anti-, just an aside. There are a lot of articles nominated at the moment, but isn't that a good reflection on the AID page for becoming notable? Anyway, many of the pages listed do need expansion, so just because there are a lot shouldn't mean that there aren't lots of worthy candidates. From what I've seen, there is an influx of new candidates every so often, then few/none for several days. It may even itself out. However, I am not against the proposal in principal, but my general philosphy is if it ain't broke, why fix it? -Estrellador* 17:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not very agile to do this reform myself either, but I think it might be a good idea because if we had (a bit) less (not significanty less) number of articles, people could spot articles they are intrested in more easily. Just a thought. I'd like to see the number of articles reduced to, saaay, 20, but, as you said, the system isn't broken and I won't cry if we decide to leave as is... --Dijxtra 20:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. Gflores Talk 19:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Keep it at 3. Many articles that became very successful AID recipients would have never made it past the first week or two (and thus been given the time to accumulate enough attention and focus to get a significant number of votes) if the requirement had been 4-per-week instead of 3 (which adds up to require that every article that would have survived for three weeks needs to accumulate enough votes for a whole extra week just to survive). For example, one of the current leading candidates for AID, History of Africa, would have failed in its very first week if the requirement had been 4 votes instead of 3; it took over a month for HoA to receive enough attention to rise above the "about to be deleted" region, and now it's not unlikely that it'll be our AID. -Silence 09:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I say make it 4.  Too many bad ideas are getting too far. Juppiter 02:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lifting it to 4 would, relatively speaking, make just as many bad ideas survive as currently do, but fewer bad and good ideas will make it past the first few weeks, meaning much less potential and vitality to the system, as fewer options would be available for voters. Also, which "bad ideas" are you refering to, specifically? You recently criticized the successful CotWing of History of art, which I don't really understand. -Silence 11:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Which ones are bad ideas? Do we need to elect a censorship board? =) — RJH 15:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifting the barrier to 4 votes per week 

message: A slight majority (5-4) believed we should allow anon votes to stand. May I remove the line? Marskell 08:50, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mhm... I'd call that a lack of consencus... Darn, I feel like I'm behaving like a dick, but the thing is that current rule is not to allow voting and there's no clear consensus to change that rule... --Dijxtra 09:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or conversely, there's no consensus to violate Wiki policy, which is to allow anon editing. Marskell 09:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon votes 

message: Worth mentioning, anyway: the AID has now existed for 23 weeks' worth of work, tying it for the combined lengths of its earlier incarnations, the TWID and the old AID. Okay, so it's not that big a deal. -Litefantastic 23:49, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another milestone

message: Check out Maintenance subpage, it looks like a swell idea to me. This way we'll make sure anybody who wants to help won't think "ah, somebody must have done it already". --Dijxtra 14:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Improvement Drive needs you! 

message: Does it go on the article page or on the talk page? I don't see this in the instruction area. --DanielCD 20:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's the current AID, it usually goes on the article page; if it's being nominated, it usually goes on the talk page. —Wikiacc • ¶ • ∞ 21:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AID tag 

message: People updating Template:Aid-summary need to be careful about adding pictures that are fair use.  I removed the picture for Sofia, and I've found others in the history of that page.  Fair use does not allow us to use these pictures in the Template mainspace, particularly when the template is only used on community pages (user pages and the community portal.)  198.110.249.201 14:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures on [[Template:Aid-summary]] 

message: The threshold should be lifted to 4 votes per week. Voting ends one week after first vote cast.
;Support
#Dijxtra 11:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote: lifting the threshold to 4 votes per week 

message: The threshold should be set to whatever number leads to an equilibrium of nomination candidates. If we leave the number at 3, the list will continue to grow indefinitely until there are hundreds of candidates and it takes a year or so to win election. There are only 2 ways to fix this: Set the time that an article is on AID to less than a week or raise the number of votes required to stay on the list. We have to do one or the other. The argument that we will lose worthy candidates is complete nonsense unless you decide to set the time that an article is on AID to less than a week. Otherwise, in the long run, we lose the exact same number of candidates, as we can only have 52 winners per year regardless of how the voting works. Kaldari 19:33, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said! Juppiter 06:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threshold: You're missing the point 

message: There would be two articles worked on together each week, instead of one. This practice was used by the first version of the AID, but was dropped when it become the TWID (See 'History' for details of this). Voting is now over. The majority consensus is to have two articles per week again.
;Support:
#Litefantastic 13:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote #2: Having two AID articles per week

message: The AID is one year old today! -Litefantastic 13:35, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Happy Anniversary!

message: We might consider having two AIDs in a week. That way if people aren't interested in one, they might be in the other. May be a good idea, may not be. Just thought I'd toss -t out. --DanielCD 16:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two AIDs? 

message: The number of nominees is constantly growing in last few weeks. The something needs to be done. The vote for lifting the vote barrier is 12:6 in favour of lifting. Vote on 2 AIDs is 6:5 in favour of 2 AIDs. I propose we lift the barrier as protective measure right away, before we reach the number of 100 nominees :-) We need action! I just spent 30 minutes straight updating the nominations. Using the bot! This is unacceptable. If the consensus is not reached by the end of this week, we should execute the measure which has stronger support (currently, that's the barrier lifting measure). --Dijxtra 17:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree that action needs to be taken tout de suite Juppiter 21:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There, I lifted the barrier. --Dijxtra 09:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something needs to be done 

message: Vote #2, a motion to double the throughput of the AID, has passed. Henceforth, the two highest-rated nominations will be collaborated on each week. -Litefantastic 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm. I wouldn't quite call that a consensus... but, OK, if you say so. --Dijxtra 21:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note