Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive/Archive/January31

message: I've copied this from WP:AID and made the following changes (and possibly others I've forgotten):
*Any article with two votes stays on (to be changed when  we get a few more articles on there)
*Stubs can be nominated (the project probably isn't big enough yet to support multiple collaborations)
CTOAGN 10:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

message: If anyone's looking for something to do, we could do with football versions of the AID templates to put on the talk pages of nominated articles.
CTOAGN 10:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: There are a few things I didn't think of when I set this up, so could I have a few opinions on the following please?  
* Whose votes should be counted?  Everyone's/only users with logins/only project members/etc?
* What should we do when there's a tie?  
* Should we ask people to strike out their votes when they feel an article no longer needs to be here or switch to a minimum N votes per week system like on WP:AID?
:*Any logged in username, I reckon - project members only would be too exclusive IMHO.
:*How about do the first one that was nominated, but automatically set up the second one as the next collaboration?
:*Not quite sure what you mean - can you expand? Qwghlm 17:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
::Sorry, could have made that clearer.  The idea of using this system was to allow articles to stay as the COTW for as many weeks as necessary, to solve the problem of not knowing whether to make it weekly, fortnightly or monthly.  We'll need some way of deciding that an article has been nominated for too long and it's time to get rid of it.  On the main AID they remove nominations when the number of votes they've had is less than 3 times the number of weeks they've been on, so they need to keep getting votes to stay on.  That would obviously be too much for this one; maybe one vote per week might be okay though?  Alternatively, we could just keep the same article on the Football AID until we feel ready to put it through peer review, or come up with some other system.  I don't have a strong preference myself  so I'd be interested to see what everyone else thinks we should do and see if there are any other ideas.  CTOAGN 20:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decisions, decisions 

message: I feel quite bad for not having contributed to this weeks AID after nominating it, but I'm temporarily without internet access at home.  I should be able to get involved next week.
Also, thanks to whoever did the banners. CTOAGN 20:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry 

message: The page seemed to be stagnating, with nobody updating the current article, and pruning, so I've taken the liberty to move Bobby Charlton to the current improvement drive. I also updated the format of the page quite substantially. I hope people like it better like this. Seems clearer to me. Jacoplane 13:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various updates 

message: I'm restarting the drive as per discussion on the Project talk page. The first nomination is being made today, though it is Tuesday. But we'll end the voting next Sunday (January 1, 2006), like always. -Aabha (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I took the liberty of moving FIFA to the Removed Nominations page. Please renominate it if you feel it should be taken up. -Aabha (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restarting the drive 

message: This is an idea:
Thank you for participating in the  Football AID vote. 
 has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.
</div>
Any improvements/changes/comments? -Aabha (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is for all those who have voted. I don't think we should thank only those users who vote for the article that is chosen, but everyone who has voted that week. Whatever the chosen article, the point is participation. And everyone who wants to is going to work on the chosen article, not just who vote for it, isn't it? -Aabha (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, and I think that people who voted for a chosen article should be notified even if they voted several weeks ago, not just the last week. Conscious 14:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voter template 

message: As per the voting (17 votes), Football World Cup has been made this week's collaboration. So lets get working! -Aabha (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football World Cup 

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)
thread_title: New Users