Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week/Archive 1

message: I suggest replacing the current "Ancient pages" section on the Community Portal with the AOTW. The ancient pages section is mostly ignored, so it's no big loss.--Eloquence* 20:10, May 8, 2004 (UTC)
: See the Community Portal talk page. Tom- 21:58, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement 

message: vote open to users who registered at least one week ago
I'm wondering if it is helpful to require this.  We could require
use of a registered userid, but are people really caring about, or checking, when the user registered?  Removing this might even encourage more people to register.     Are there examples like this where longevity rules have been helpful?  I would think that votes from anyone motivated enough to do so would be helpful in this case.
NealMcB 02:24, 2004 May 21 (UTC)
:It was just to prevent sockpuppets being created to vote. It doesn't really stop them, but it at least makes them wait a week rather than being able to register a dozen accounts and cause an inappropriate article to be voted in on the same day. Angela. 03:15, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
I certainly see the value of this sort of rule in votes where there is significant risk involved.  I'm just wondering if the stakes are high enough in this case to motivate people to game the system in that way.  And if they are motivated enough to create a bunch of sockpuppets, they'd probably be willing to meet the letter of the law by just engaging the sockpuppets after a week of existence, affecting as many future elections as they like.  Is there an easy way to check whether votes qualify?  I don't mean to over-emphasize this question.  I'm just trying to avoid unenforced rules and encourage participation.  Thanks.  NealMcB 05:21, 2004 May 21 (UTC)
:I doubt it would do any harm to take it out. It's probably best to take it out now and add it back if it does seem to be needed than to leave it in unnecessarily. Angela. 07:49, May 21, 2004 (UTC)
::A good compromise. I just took it out. ✏ Sverdrup 23:24, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Tom- 00:05, 5 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why require prior registration?

message: Just an idea; would it work to have two articles each week? If two vastly different topics are chosen each week, I don't think having more than one place to work on would necessarily cause less effort to go into either; on the contrary, it might make it easier for people to find a place where they feel able to contribute. It'd also help keep the growth of the candidates list down, of course. Fredrik | talk 20:42, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Two articles of the week

message: As it didn't seem to be in use (was only linked to from one user's page) I've edited Template:AOTW and placed it at the top of the talk page for each of the current candidates. We'll need to make sure to remove it when pruning. --  ALargeElk | Talk 14:16, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Template:AOTW

message: This article has a link saying it had been nominated as article of the week. It has recently had its name changed, and I thought I would move the link to the new t Noticed that its no longer nominated, did it win? Should I delete the link, put a mention of it having been article of the week in the new talk, or what? Thanks for you advice, Sam [Spade] 20:05, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - I should have deleted this when it was moved to /Removed.  Now done. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Sayed Qutb]] -> [[Sayyid Qutb]] 

message: Can someone explain to me why Art theft and Medieval warfare were removed? User:Pjamescowie removed them with the explanation "removed articles of more than 4 weeks duration". They weren't put in the /Removed section either. I can't find any discussion or rule about that tho, nominations can be here as long as they get enough votes, other things should be discussed here first. If no one objects, these two nominations should be reinserted. --Conti|✉ 22:25, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Until we sort out what the policy should be, I just added them to Wikipedia:Article of the week/Removed for consistency. --Lexor|Talk 10:34, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless they have failed to garner sufficient votes to stay on the list, they should be put back, I think. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Last removing of articles