Wikipedia talk:Article Creation and Improvement Drive/Archive 1

message: Currently on the FAC nominations list: None</Center>
:Discussion moved from Wikipedia_talk:Collaboration of the week at 23:28, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion moved from AID archives at 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

message: How do you add support for an article nominated?
:Copy and paste this under the Support heading:
::#~~~~
:119 04:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Support

message: So far it seems such a project would select non-stub articles and improve them. Alright, now improve them how? I suggest we consider at least some of our goals be to ensure NPOV, ensure it is comprehensive in factual scope and summarizing every major viewpoint, and attribute/reference every major claim/argument. 119 23:27, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are fine goals, but I expect they are something to reach for more than something that will be achieved on a regular basis. Time will tell. Maurreen 05:23, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Goals

message: Perhaps it would be beneficial to run a few 'winners' each week. If these are non-stubs, the contributions one can make may be more specific to a field of knowledge, and we'd be leaving a lot of people idle I'm sure if only one article per week was nominated (and genre-specific COTWs have had difficulty keeping participation adequate). 119 04:51, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point, but I am concerned that multiple winners would dilute the collaboration too much. Maybe as a compromise, it would be good to start with two winners and then re-evaluate in a few weeks. Also, hopefully the nominators will be able to direct people to good sources. Maurreen 06:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The * seems to be in vogue just now. -Litefantastic 12:00, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple "winners"

message: Should we restrict voting to registered users, as on the main COTW? Maurreen 07:22, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so. It may not be a big deal, but sockpuppeting seems enough reason. 119 07:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: I was thinking of adding this to the Community Portal, but I'm intimidated by the table. Maurreen 00:35, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, thanks to Kaal --Dmcdevit 05:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Publicity

message: Because so far, we only have a couple items on the pending list, I'm thinking maybe we should tweak our planned procedures until we get at least 10 items on the list. For instance, we could just remove whatever items have the single lowest number after a full week.
That is, if we have one article with only one vote, it gets removed. Or if we have the articles with the fewest number of votes have two votes, they get removed. I'm not sure how well I'm saying this. Maurreen 08:09, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, then with two nominations currently pending I suppose we'll cut Graphic design for 1 vote and Culture for 2 (longest voting period for a 2)? 119 23:30, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you're saying that of the ten articles in vitro, after one week, the best two go on to greater things, the worst two get dropped, and the other six drop down into pending? Nifty idea. In fact, why don't we just do that, instead of auto-dropping articles after their second trip around? -Litefantastic 00:35, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not exactly what I meant, but that's OK. We can drop the lowest two articles that have been on the main list for a full week. And move four articles up each week. Is that what you mean? But I don't think we need to zero the vote. Any votes that were already on should just be carried over. I'm also thinking that maybe we don't need to worry about seconding. Maurreen 15:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pruning and pending

message: You deleted all the votes older than one week when the AID nominations came up? Why!? -Litefantastic 12:29, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I understood each week as being on its own. The language was that an article could be nominated twice in a row, which I took to mean separation. If everyone else intended votes to stay, I'll fix it. I see some problems with it, though: holding over votes may effectively mean it takes two weeks to vote on all but the most popular articles, with everything added in the current week would be pushed back to a second run as a matter of course. 119 18:50, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with keeping votes week to week, I mentioned this above. Maurreen 07:13, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep votes week to week?

message: We might need a tiebreaker later. If so, I propose that the oldest nomination(s) with equal votes wins. Maurreen 00:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tiebreaker

message: Should we discuss what qualifies as a "nonstub" for the purposes of AID? I don't care either way, but it seems like it could be worth thinking about. Maurreen 19:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: AID criteria -- floor for nonstubs?

message: I tried to update the project page, but I'm not seeing how to update the new collaborations, so I gave up. Maurreen 20:37, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean you want to add a new nomination? In that case just edit the 'To nominate an article' section, copy the template, and insert it at the bottom of pending nominations. Is that what you meant? Jacoplane 08:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think she meant the weekly rollover that all WP collaborations use to update. I just did that for this weel, because I think that 119, who used to do it, has given up. -Litefantastic 11:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating?

message: *I won't be doing the AID this week; there weren't enough entries until just recently, anyway. I'll try again next Sunday. Please, if you value this page, keep it alive. If you don't, that's fine. It's not supposed to be self-serving. But I'm the only one of the crew who started this (in Feb.) and I'd really hate to see it die. PS - If anyone wants the job of the guy who changes things over after each contest, tell me. The job is yours. -Litefantastic 23:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please help!

message: *I'm going to do the rollover one last time this upcoming Sunday. Beyond that, anyone who wants to maintain the AID is welcome. I, personally, am cooked. -Litefantastic 16:13, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Final notice

message: Since becoming part of the WP:AID, all of two edits have been made to this article, both of which were simply adding two language tags.  Are there actually people involved with this project? --brian0918™ 16:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like it's in danger of dying. The rollover wasn't done this week, or is it supposed to be on two weeks? And two articles are probably too much - there were more edits on the second article, Papua New Guinea.--Fenice 17:51, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I keep trying to pawn the rollover job off on someone else after User:119 dumped it on me. Fenice, if you want it, it's yours. And I suppose dropping to one article a week is a good idea. And yes, it's supposed to be weekly. -Litefantastic 00:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't do it on a regular basis but I'll try to help out some times if it's necessary and if I can.--Fenice 06:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: The voting system is also quite complicated and needs constant maintenance (unlike the COTW)--Fenice 07:00, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: As the person who nominated this article, I'd like to thank Brian0918 for the amount of work he has done single-handedly on it. To be honest, I didn't even realise it had been selected until a few days ago, isn't there meant to be a template for putting on voters' talk pages? As for the future of the AID, I think it should definitely stick to one article. the wub  (talk) 08:57, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there is no such template, but we need one. And we need people who spread these templates.--Fenice 09:31, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong! :P Template:AIDvoter, though Bob knows how anyone was meant to find it. I've updated it to only use one article and put it on the pages of the people who voted for abortion. the wub  (talk) 13:07, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Norman Borlaug]] 

message: The voting/nomination system is much too complicated. The person who just added Astrophysics also was quite confused by it. It should be changed to match the COTW, with three votes per week. As a consequence there would also be less maintenance work. :)--Fenice 06:27, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting system

message: I had nominated Kannur which was top in the queue for some time and has been overlooked by everyone. I at least need to be told why it has not been chosen. This is the least courtesey you can extend to me . I do not see this forum surviving and it deserves to die 
Sumal
:Why don't you try the Wikipedia:Indian collaboration of the week and nominate it there?--Fenice 08:37, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Kannur

message: How do people know to vote? Shouldn't there be a notation "cast your vote for next week's article" on Community Portal Page.
anache 04:51, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, either directly on the main page or change the template IDRIVEtopic.--Fenice 05:25, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, changed template, thanks. anache 06:52, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you!--Fenice 07:06, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting

message: Just as a bit of a milemarker, today the TWID has tied the COTW in articles under consideration - seventeen. I believe the old AID, predicessor to the TWID, once got as high as nineteen, but I also think the COTW still had more articles at the time. -Litefantastic 7 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)
*...and: now we've overtaken them; 19 to 18. -Litefantastic 7 July 2005 23:35 (UTC)
*The COTW is for some reason kind of dead. Many more are going to be pruned after tonight. The COTW has reached 35 I think. Falphin 7 July 2005 23:38 (UTC)
Tangentially and out of curiousity, why was this changed from "AID" to "TWID"? Maurreen 8 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
*See Fenice's talk page, where I asked the same question. -Litefantastic 8 July 2005 23:06 (UTC)
I don't think nominations are a good milemarker, anyone can put them in, we can have a hundred today, if you want. Many of the nominations were made by me in the course of a kind of regular maintenance and in an attempt to give people options of all areas to vote for. The real success would be people actually participating in expanding/footnoting/illustrating or otherwise improving the article that won the most votes. This situation has not changed since my attempt at revamping the site: the participation is as low as ever, even though it is slightly better on Trade this week, I have to admit. And of course participation was lower before that because of the downtime and then it was lower this week because of the 4th of July and from now on it is expected to be lower because people are on vacation. So there is no sign of improvement on the improvement drive, but because of these inhibiting factors we can be glad it is holding up at all. (Maybe we should close some of the COTWs down for two weeks in summer?) I am thinking that the problem goes deeper: people just don't know what to do on the IDRIVE, as opposed to the main COTW, where the goal is clear: fill it with text and there are enough people to have the guarantee of the satisfaction of an almost complete article by the end of the week. The articles under consideration for the IDrive are usually much more complicated to do. Not that it would make the IDrive obsolete, but, in the long run, I believe, the thematic COTWs or COTMs will probably prove more efficient in improving non-stub articles. --Fenice 8 July 2005 07:30 (UTC)
*I really do doubt that. The themed COTWs all tend to fall apart after a while - the only one with any real staying power is the Gaming COTW, which has survived all its contemporaries except the COTW and the AID/TWID. But still, I do see more participation here now than I ever saw while I was running it. Trust me on this one point, thought: Do not shut it down as a temporary measure. You will most likely just drive away anyone that's left. -Litefantastic 8 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)
:*No, I did not mean the IDrive or the big COTWs, but some of the smaller collaborations. Some of them are doing ok, but have lost contributors during the past two weeks already, and probably will lose more during summer, like Japan. But you have a point that this might drive people away.--Fenice 8 July 2005 16:58 (UTC)
::*I suggest waiting until they fully die out befoe putting them in the historical section. I'm hoping that at least some of them will survive these coming weeks. Falphin 8 July 2005 17:07 (UTC)
:::*I wasn't thinking about flaging them as historical, but having a shiny template that says: We are closed for the summer holidays due to wikivacation of many participants and will start the next collaboration on August 15th. Or something like that. It was actually just a thought, I am not even that involved in any of the smaller cotws except Spanish which is doing great.--Fenice 8 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)
::::*I've actually become more involved in the sub-COTWs as I am in the main COTW.(I hardly do anything here). I don't think they should be on there because  as stated before it might drive away current editors. I created a section at the Bio-COTW where people can nominate articles that have done poorly during the period to have a tag placed on the talk with the idea of getting focus from the BioCommunity in time otherwise they might be forgotten. Falphin 22:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: TWID vs. COTW

message: We are getting to have a lot of nominations. I'd like to suggest that starting with articles nominated in August, we require four votes each week to stay on the list. Maurreen 06:17, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure about my last edit where I suggested that voters update subheads ("Please do us all a favour").  Revert it if you don't like it!  Also, this page is starting to get unwieldly long.  I haven't been here until recently, so perhaps this has happened before and is no problem.  But when do we decide that a nomination needs four votes per week to stay (or some such)? --Eric Forste (talk) 06:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I've changed my mind. The list is starting to balloon out of control, and I think that all articles in August and thenceforth should require 4 votes weekly. You might want to divide the page into Requires 3 votes/Requires 4 votes sections until all the three vote articles have been phased out. -Litefantastic 23:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 4 votes?

message: Please take a look at this. This is a comparrison between an edit that i made today and Jacoplane.  Notice that nominations that have been previously removed have been returned to the page, nominations that still have a few days if not weeks left to be voted on have been removed, and votes have been removed from certain nominations changing how much longer the nomination can stay part of the collaboration drive.  I would like to know why this happened, and I would I think that these articles should be restored to the changes that were made before Jacoplane made his edits. --ZeWrestler  Talk 19:01, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Woops didn't see your comment there. So please see what I wrote below. Apologies for my mistake! Jacoplane 19:57, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes changed/removed/added 

message: Do you think this is too stubby, or is it suitable for IDRIVE? Maurreen (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Cook Islands]]

message: I was wondering how we decided that the next AID article would be chosen on 18:00 UTC on Sundays. Personally, if we could choose the article on 00:00 UTC on Sunday, that would be much easier for me to rollover. What do you all think of changing the time from 18:00 to 00:00 UTC?
(^'-')^ Covington 19:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am willing to do rollover this week, but it's literally impossible for me to do it as late as 18:00. Let me know if anyone objects to me doing rollover at 00:00 UTC this Sunday. (^'-')^ Covington 02:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 00:00 UTC Sunday is ambiguous. It can mean the 00:00 when Sunday begins, or the 00:00 when Sunday ends. To correct this, change it to 00:01 or 23:59. Art LaPella 02:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sunday at 18:00 UTC?

message: Maybe one of the admins can block the IP that did this. --Jersey Devil 02:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, I reverted the page blanking. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 04:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks more like a test or something, as the user only had four edits, some of which removed nonsense from Gulf of Sidra and the last of which was the above diff. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 04:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Blanking

message: I think the most visited articles, e.g. Maths, World War II, Western Philosophy, should be getting higher priority in terms of improvement and welcome discussion on this.  I think this would improve Wikipedia's reputation and increase usage and number of editors.  Maybe the most visited sites could get automatic nomination for AID and go higher-up the priority in terms of cleanup. Tom 16:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Getting most visited articles into Article Improvement Drive process 

message: This ugly template is now at the top of the mathematics article. Is there any reason it cannot go to the talk page instead? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oleg Alexandrov has started a debate at Wikipedia_talk:Collaborations. Pruneau 00:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The template 

message: I see that mathematics is the current AID collaboration. May I make a plea for contributors to discuss their ideas for improvements on the talk page first, before wading in to the article intself ? Practically every sentence of the article is a compromise resulting from lengthy debates between contributors with strongly held opinions (yes, some people do have very strongly held opinions about mathematics). FWIW, my advice is treat the article as you would a minefield - test the ground before taking each step. Gandalf61 08:52, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mathematics

message: As its already Wednesday, perhaps we should wait until next week before rolling the AID over to Recycling? PDXblazers 02:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rollover?

message: Should we have the AID notice on an article's talk page, or on the article itself?
Proposal:
Place the AID notice on the article talk page.
Support:
#Josen 20:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote 9: nomination notice on article talk

message: Shouldn't Shakespeare now be the AID Article of the Week?  Who is responsible for the turnovers? Sam 15:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change 

message: I haven't been involved in this project too long, but I'm curious—what criteria do you use for supporting a paticular nominee?  —D-Rock 23:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually vote for countries and continents. Maurreen 23:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: D-Rock, I think you're on the right path. Your criteria look similar to mine. Just to curb any ideas here, though, I don't think the project needs formal criteria. People should be free to decide as they wish without having to justify. Best regards. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You two might be interested in the core topics collaboration. We work on articles toward the top of the "tree of knowledge." These are often relatively neglected. Maurreen 06:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria? 

message: I looks like in a few weeks, AID will start to be articles with far fewer votes than many of the nominations that have been removed over the last several months.  Maybe we should reactivate some of the old lapsed nominations and/or change the keep criteria to something like "3 votes per week or in the top 10 for total votes."--ragesoss 01:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose renom of tectonic plate, see plate tectonics and my merge suggestion. Support Human Genome Project. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Retention time and reviving old noms

message: Someone needs to take the time to report the bug that messes up the section "edit" links. See duplication of Yugoslavia nomination. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bug 

message: Eek, can someone fix the votes needed count (and expiry date? Though I think Ideogram fixed that already) for "Furry fandom"... I tried to correct them and screwed them up bad because I didn't understand the instructions :( - ∅ (∅), 05:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed the needed count. It always goes up in fours, so the next is 16. GreenReaper 07:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Votes needed for Furry fandom 

message: The way it works. Articles have to "battle it out" to see who decides which one will get the best cleanup, often resulting users to look for other techniques that are longer and slower; that would mean users have to do it themselves, leaving a lot of stress on this and no back-up support. This page needs to find a better way to do this. Iolakana|T 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most users do have to do a lot of things themselves anyway. That's the wiki way - if you don't like something, fix it yourself . . . and if you don't know how, learn. Projects like this are attempts to help give a broader outlook that will improve some articles in quality. "Cleanup", as I understand it, is something that can be learnt and should be done by everyone. GreenReaper 00:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I don't like this

message: What is the policy on renomination? Is it allowed, or is an article 'disqualified' permanently if denied? If it is allowed, is there a certain time period that must elapse first, or can an article be renominated immediately? –Dvandersluis 15:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just wait a reasonable amount of time ... at least a month, in my view. That's all. Maurreen 15:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renomination guidelines?