Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive/Archive2

message: We've had a tie this week between Bobby Charlton and List of football (soccer) clubs. I wasn't sure what to do in this case as this is the first we've come across. I've followed what Gaming Collaboration of the week does, that is
In case of a tie, voting will be extended for 24 hours. If there is still a tie, the candidate that was nominated first wins. During the extended voting period the old collaboration should still be active. In the case of extended voting, the collaboration period will be reduced to 6 days. 
Should we follow this? Does everybody agree on the fairness of the process? -Aabha (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections. Though "In case of a tie, the candidate that was nominated first wins" would be a simpler rule. Conscious 12:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, just the "first nominated", without 24 extra hours of voting, seems easier to have. -- Elisson • Talk 14:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and added this version to the project page. Conscious 08:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tie 

message: It's great to see so many people getting involved in the AID, but I've noticed that the articles that are chosen aren't having that much done to them (I know, sofixit).  One way round this would be to make the project fortnightly but I think too many articles are being nominated for that.  So I suggest that we leave articles on for a fortnight and continue to vote weekly, giving us two articles at a time. That will give us time to get more work done on the articles that are nominated and also increases the chance of each person in the project having at least one AID that interests them.  Thoughts?  CTOAGN (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a great idea, specially after the response to Bobby Charlton :( -Aabha (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaving articles on for a fortnight 

message: I just noticed that User:Hargreavesfan has only made edits to pages with votes in progress. There is nothing to suggest this isn't allowed, but perhaps it is something we should think about. Oldelpaso 22:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's only made votes to pages Kingjeff has voted on.  I wonder what the odds of that are.   CTOAGN (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And (s)he's only ever made any "contribution" to pages which Kingjeff has "contributed" to. I'd say do not count those votes unless User:Hargreavesfan has a good reason for us to do so. -- Elisson • Talk 23:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I think that as  only contibutions so far are votes, we should discount all of them. Conscious 13:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I have to agree with that.  As it's unlikely that a genuine new user would turn up on a project page and start voting without editing anything, it's reasonable to ignore the votes of anyone who hasn't made a few article edits.  Anyone disagree or can we implement this straight away?  CTOAGN (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Implement. -- Elisson • Talk 09:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've changed the vote counts and dates after discounting votes of User:Hargreavesfan and User:Jack O Lantern (who seems to have no edits at all, funnily). What about User:Gail Wynand? -Aabha (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at User:Kaiser23 too, and a stated rule for a fixed number of edits before voting would be the easiest way to go. Poulsen 14:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: It doesn't matter what's on this page. It only matter what is on the main page. If you want people to know about some little voting rule at least put it where everyone is more likely to see it. Hargreavesfan 16:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, we need to have a rule in place. Whats a reasonable number? 50 edits in the Main namespace? -Aabha (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I say Hargreavesfan votes count untill the situation is sorted out. Kingjeff 17:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I say his votes shouldn't count as the situation is sorted out. Four people agree that his votes should not count. -- Elisson • Talk 17:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the current rules on voting he's allowed to vote counted. But there was an agreement to have a change in rule for 50 edits. The situation is not sorted out untill the rule actually changed. Kingjeff 17:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please, Kingjeff, do not be such a pain in the ass. There has been a discussion here, and at least four people were in favor of discounting the votes (and no one was against, until now, after a decision had been made), and thus we decided to discount his votes. There is nothing more to it, so let's just keep this simple, otherwise we would need to have votes for everything, which is not the way Wikipedia works (m:Don't vote on everything, m:Polls are evil, Wikipedia:Straw polls). -- Elisson • Talk 17:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok. But the discussion should be about the specific rule under nomination and voting. It's insulting when you talk about specific users. A rule was proposed of a minimum of 50 edits and thats what the discussion should be about. I think an apology is required to Hargreavesfan, User:Kaiser23 and User:Jack O Lantern all deserves apologies. So, the issue is very simple. Either we all accept the rule about 50 votes or we don't accept the rule about 50 votes. Kingjeff 20:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok, so a minimum rule is in action. Then why do these users need apologies? For what? Could you care to explain that? Additionally, please read guidelines before starting polls, especially Wikipedia:Straw polls, which says: "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process." Kingjeff, you are doing way to much on way to short time. -- Elisson • Talk 20:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Explaining things to you feels like explaining them to a wall, so I've decided not to engage in discussions with you anymore. -- Elisson • Talk 10:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Users

message: Since when is archiving vandalism? If you think any topic is current why not just bring that discussion out?Kingjeff 21:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The archiving itself I did not consider vandalism, but being reverted because of a perfectly good reason (some discussions still being active), and then re-doing the action, I consider vandalism. -- Elisson • Talk 22:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: WP:VAND include blanking of pages. When the article approaches the 30kb limit, the finished topics should be archived, not an indiscriminate archiving of all topics at 20kb. Poulsen 22:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, your archiving was reverted once without anyone yelling "vandalism". Then you did the same thing again. That is not what I call a "good-faith effort". -- Elisson • Talk 16:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Archiving current discussions is not right, nor is it good faith, no matter what you think. -- Elisson • Talk 23:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

text: For better for worse, the material is archived. What's done is done; it's not a big deal if no active discussions are taking place. You should wait until the page is full (30kb), but hey, consider it lesson learned. Was any material deleted? --DanielCD 01:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, like I said, for better or worse, it's done. Just leave it. I don't see anything to get concerned about here. BTW, how do you "delete" archiving without deleting the page that was created for the archiving? If someone left a blank page there, that's kinda lame. But still no big deal. Leave the crap archived and let's everyone find something more interesting to do. --DanielCD 01:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, we are leaving the page archived, but the proper archiving was done by Kingjeff after he had been reverted twice for archiving the whole talk page leaving this page empty. But yeah, let's leave it at this, as long as Kingjeff realizes that if he is reverted with the edit summary: "rv archiving - some of these discussions are still current", then maybe he should read that and follow it, instead of doing the same thing again. -- Elisson • Talk 09:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think he's learned a bit here. He made a mistake and got a little ego bruised, that's all. And like many of us, is not real savvy at dealing with people we can't see. It's really a skill that takes time to develop (for those who have the adaptability and patience to hang around long enough to develop it). I recommend just reading the issues here and learning from them, and take as that: a learning experience. Terse words were crossed, which isn't right by any means, but perhaps next time, because of this, fewer will be. ;-) --DanielCD 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it's mostly over, but would you please not archive it right now? This page was archived just 3 days ago, and is still quite short. Conscious 09:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving

message: There have been issues about certain members only using their accounts to vote. Aabha R suggested 50 posts should be the minimum.
===Support===
* As discussed. -- Elisson • Talk 20:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting for rule change

message: * As discussed. -- Elisson • Talk 20:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: *I don't think the rule should be carved in stone. This is a rule aiming to prevent sockpuppetry, but wouldn't it just legitimize sockpuppets with 50 edits? We can deal with users who start editing Wikipedia with extensive voting the way we just did. Conscious 09:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I think it would be best if you avoided editing talk and project pages for a while, and concentrated on editing articles.  You've caused a fair amount of friction over the past couple of weeks, and if things continue that way we'll end up opening an RFC against you.  I'd rather avoid that.  I suggest you leave it a couple of months or so before getting involved in the project discussion again and see if you get more of a feel for how things are done on Wikipedia.  Obviously I've got no authority to tell you to do that, this being Wikipedia, but I think it would prevent a lot of conflict and wasted time.  
I've put this here instead of on your talk page as it's relevant to the other people who've discussed things with you recently.  CTOAGN (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingjeff: a polite request 

message: I've requested a check at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser to see if we can find out whether any of our voters are 'linked'.  I can't help noticing that Poulsen asked Kingjeff a question about an entry that he had nominated and Hargreavesfan answered it, even though he hasn't voted on it (yet).  Even if they're using different IPs, I'm past the point of assuming good faith on this, and think we should probably ignore votes from both of them.  CTOAGN (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sockpuppet check 

message: Contentious topic, but what are we doing about votes from "new" users, with most of the contribs as votes? -Aabha (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Discount the votes, as discussed above I guess. I too noticed a few "new" users casting votes, but I was not sure that any of them qualified to be discounted as they had contributed a little. -- Elisson • Talk 19:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd wait and see what happens with the Checkuser first. Oldelpaso 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What Aabha is talking about is not the suspected sockpuppets of User:Kingjeff but rather ,  and , I think. -- Elisson • Talk 19:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I do imply the latter. -Aabha (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TwilaStar was already on the CheckUser list (very similar contributions to Jhollernwhatever) and I've added Spandx.  I don't see a problem with Uapatriot (at least, nothing different to the rest of the Kyiv pile-on) - they've only voted for one article and have already started working on it.  CTOAGN (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the idea of waiting for the CheckUser, but unfortunately they can take a while.  Sadly, it's clear that we can't run the project on WP:AGF and common sense at the moment, so we need to nail down a load of rules (or a load of users).  I can't see any reason why a user who has more poll votes (AFD votes etc would be different) should be counted, nor any reason why someone who has never edited a football article should be allowed to vote in the poll. CTOAGN (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: A combination of registration date, total contributions and contributions to football related articles in the last 100 edits (or similar) maybe? That would sort out most "suspicious" votes I guess. -- Elisson • Talk 21:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I say we decide on a rule before we start discounting votes, lest it dissuade somebody honestly interested. -Aabha (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Count votes? 

message: Kingjeff, could you please stop nominating articles almost every day? The point of the FAID is not that every article that need something done should be nominated (for example, why not add the club career and international career of Beckenbauer yourself?), but  a mean of improving an article you think really deserves featured status, and that you can not (or hardly can) complete on your own. So please, keep your nomination tendencies down to maybe one article every or every two weeks. -- Elisson • Talk 21:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kingjeff, PLEASE be a little more cooperative. -- Elisson • Talk 21:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Good then, and please refrain from nominating any more articles in a few weeks, as you've filled your quota for this month... -- Elisson • Talk 21:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no need for guidelines to be explicitly written everywhere Kingjeff, use some common sense once in a while. Read WP:CIV, WP:EQ and WP:POINT, cool down, return here, try to understand what I tell you. -- Elisson • Talk 21:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does everyone think about increasing the number of minimum votes needed per week? -Aabha (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Three votes per week is ok, that would still mean that popular nominations stay on long while not so popular are removed. -- Elisson • Talk 18:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, three is a reasonable number. Oldelpaso 19:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The improvement drive has become very popular, and now there are about a dozen articles on the table, so yes, it makes sense. Conscious 20:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Why not just use the common sense you must have hidden somewhere? -- Elisson • Talk 20:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recklessly nominating articles 

message: I have discounted some votes that according to this were a heap of sockpuppets. I've left one of their votes on each nomination, like we should leave Kingjeff's votes on even if he used a sockpuppet (Hargreavesfan). -- Elisson • Talk 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go step further and block those votes as well.  They've caused a lot of inconvenience by doing this and I think we should ignore them all permanently.  And while Jhohenzollern etc. are on a different IP to Hargreavesfan and Kingjeff, the chance of another German-Canadians Bayern Munich fan wanting to edit the FC United at the same time as jeff seems too much of a coincidence to me.  What does everyone else think? CTOAGN (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Removing the last votes as well is ok with me. -- Elisson • Talk 13:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's wait and get as many opinions as possible.  Dynamo Kyiv is going to go through with any system we use, so we might as well wait a week before making any decision.  CTOAGN (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just the fact that someone used sockpuppets to influence voting is reason enough to discount their votes, I think. Though I don't mind Kingjeff joining back after his ban, provided he doesn't indulge in this again. -Aabha (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, after giving it a bit of thought, I don't think I have any opinion on this at this time. -Aabha (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More discounted votes 

message: I see La Liga is about to become archived today. But it's the leading vote getter. Should we extend the deadline to sunday or archive it? Or any other ideas on how to deal with it? Kingjeff 15:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Should be removed, unless someone votes today. Conscious 15:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: So the fact that it's a leading vote getter doesn't influence that decision? Kingjeff 19:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does feel a little weird to remove a nomination with that many votes, and I think this should be discussed further how to handle the situation. Maybe some kind of rule that a vote leader stays at least until the next article is chosen? -- Elisson • Talk 21:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've removed it, 11 votes in 28 days... Conscious 06:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  As the article had been improved much even without being the FAID of the week, I guess that's ok. -- Elisson • Talk 11:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ok. I guess thats an acceptable reason. But how about setting a standard for next time it happens. Kingjeff 13:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: However he voted one day to late, and as someone noted in the comments, the article has been expanded much already, so I guess we should just let it stay in the removed section. But I still think it is a good idea to have a rule for what to do when a nomination has a lot more votes than all other nominations but will be removed before the next FAID is chosen. -- Elisson • Talk 15:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Something like that seems good. Maybe adding that the nomination in question must have at least 6 votes, or something. Let's wait and see what a few more participants think about this. -- Elisson • Talk 16:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: La Liga

message: hey, i'm new to projects on wikipedia, and i dont know if im ment to join up to this somehow or be invited or what, ive made some decnt contributions to other football related articles. Basically i'd just like to join in, and i dont know where to start or what to do Philc 0780 21:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to be invited, anyone can nominate or vote for an article. If you mean WikiProject Football as a whole rather than just the Article Improvement Drive, all you have to do to join is add your name to the list on the main project page. Oldelpaso 21:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Joining up

message: Aparently there is some standard for MLS club articles that is different from the standard European club article. Does anyone think that there should be only 1 standard for all soccer club articles?Kingjeff 16:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All MLS club articles adhere to a standard, which is not necessarily equal to the standard for other club articles. I have worked very hard for the past 2 years in keeping and maintining that standard. For example, they have a detailed info box, which other clubs do not have. They also have a specific order of sections. I think it's stupid to have sections with one sentence in them, which is what you tried to do. In fact, when WikiProject Football started, Elisson and I talked about keeping different formats for different countries. Please try to respect others' work. DR31 (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: And I think they're better; the only thing missing is history subsections for a few of the teams; the rest is incredibly consistent. I worked for 2 years to keep them up, you just showed up. Your point is? DR31 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Is this consensus being reached anywhere in particular or is it spread across several talk pages? Just remember that the manual of style "is a proposal for the general style and contents of an article on a football club" not set guide lines, best attested in the featured club article Arsenal F.C., which doesn't "live up" to the manual of style 100%. Poulsen 19:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MLS soccer club articles vs. European soccer club articles

message: I'm moving houses, and starting work, can't say when I'll be able to get back. If it isn't before next Sunday, can someone please take over the administrative work for the time being. Will try to get back asap. Thanks, and apologies for the inconvenience. Aabha (talk) 05:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll do it next week if you're not back. Oldelpaso 21:19, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikibreak 

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

message: How many votes are we allowed? I've noticed that User:Kingjeff routinely votes for everything, and nominates multiple articles each week, is this allowed? also, isn't this completely pointless, as if someone votes for every article, don't they just completely devalue their vote? Philc TECI 22:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, just so you know, I wasn'y trying to accuse you, just enquiring. Philc TECI 10:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But you do realise voting for everything, is the same as you not voting at all, so you have devalued your vote, right?  Philc TECI 10:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Kingjeff comment on my talk page: Do you see the situation on FAID? There are only 2 articles and come next sunday, it'll be down to 1. Thats why I nominated a few articles. I'll let you nominate an article or two. Kingjeff 14:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no real problem with you nominating multiple articles, now that I am aware that you are allowed to vote as much as you like, as it does not dilute the votes as I had worried. But are you implying that I need your permission to nominate articles? Also, why do you repeatadly post seperate and different answers on my talk page, and this discussion page? Philc TECI 19:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You said "I'll let you nominate an article or two", how was I meant to interpret this. Philc TECI 14:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting 

message: Hello, I've put FIFA World Rankings up for peer review and all of your comments on the article would be appreciated, leave them on the peer review page not here though. Cheers! Philc TECI 14:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Watford FC got the recquired 6 Votes well inside the time limit (7th June) so why has it been moved to 9 votes with the deadline a week later? Philc TECI 21:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's how it works. If it reaches 9 votes, the deadline will be one more week later, an so on. This gives articles with much support a chance to be selected on second or third, or later Sunday. Conscious 14:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I don't quite understand that, but how then is the article selected, as I previously thought it was the one closest to its recquired amount of votes, but if that goes up with the voting, how is one selected. Philc TECI 14:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the article with the most votes is selected. Conscious 15:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Philc_0780, I can see what you're saying. But how would this work if the current format was changed? Kingjeff 22:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No the systems fine, I just had a breif lapse and misunderstood it, and was surprised when watfords time limit went up. Philc TECI 17:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Watford FC

message: Hello, I've put FIFA World Rankings up as a Featured Article Candicates and all of your comments on the article would be appreciated, leave them on the FAC page though, not here! Cheers! Philc TECI 21:35, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FAC

message: Kingfisherswift wrote: Is it just me or are the articles we're nominating have little or no importance, and won't be worked on anyway? Last week I nominated Watford F.C., and no-one helped work on it! Maybe we should call it a day on the whole article improvement drive. Hate to be sceptical, but just being realistic.
:It ebbs and flows. Heysel stadium disaster is a pretty recent AID which was one of the busiest we've had. I suspect in this case some potential contributors were either busy watching the World Cup or editing WC related articles. Also a fair number of edits were made while it was nominated, but before it had been selected. Oldelpaso 17:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only people who ever seem to edit are the ones that would have edited anyway. Really I think the thing needs more organization. For example a lot of AIDs provide checklists of things that need doing. The porject really has no sense of commitment, I think, when a lot of people vote, they are voting for the article they would most like see someone else improve, not the one they would like to help on. Philc TECI 17:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least, it brings attention to articles which might have gone unnoticed.  Therefore an article is more likely to be improved, but whether it actually will be is a different matter.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  18:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I always make a point of visiting the Football AID at least twice following a successful nomination. In doing this, I find one or more edits that need making of varying degress of importance. My view is that if all those who are signed up to the drive did the same, we should end up with improved articles. The World Cup is taking the attention of many of us at the moment (it would be strange if it wasn't!). Vandalism to pages relating to football is also ongoing and will always require an effort. It does surprise me, however, when someone who nominates an article does not take the lead in making edits or participating in discussions on that article but, similar to Wikipedia itself, there are no hard rules for this. Few articles go untouched that receive nominations and that, in the main, must be a good thing. -- Alias Flood 19:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Continued discussion from main page

message: Does anyone have any ideas for nominations? The last one on the page expired yesterday. We should try to keep at least 5 nominations up at all times. 17:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll nominate a few then. Philc TECI 12:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If nothing else is garnering support, might as well leave the current leader up a bit longer. Oldelpaso 21:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nominations