Wikipedia talk:Article Improvement Drive/votes

message: Vote #	Subject                                                     	Proposer     	Date                      	For/against	Status
1     	Lifting the threshold to 4 votes per week                   	Dijxtra      	February 26, 2006         	13/6       	Passed
2     	Having two AID articles per week                            	Litefantastic	February 27, 2006         	6/4        	Passed; Annulled by Vote #4
3     	Nomination Moratorium [for articles]                        	Juppiter     	March 3, 2006             	1/1        	Since both Votes 1 and 2 passed; Vote 3, which was intended as an alternative, was abandoned
4     	Return to one AID article per week                          	Juppiter     	March 21, 2006            	8/0        	Passed, annulling Vote #2
5     	Reelection [of incumbent AID articles]                      	Litefantastic	April 5, 2006             	2/1        	Stopped (No result) Scheduled for re-voting.
6     	Removing votecount from headings                            	Dijxtra      	April 16, 2006            	0/5        	Failed
7     	Removal of voters with only votes as contributions          	Steven       	21:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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: 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: Many feel that consensus was not reached in the decision to go to two articles per week and it should go back down to one. Juppiter 04:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote #4: Return to one AID article per week 

message: 10 days ago User:Lethe removed votecount vrom headings without discussing he move before that, so  it had to be reverted since the AIDbot can't cope with the new format. Well, I'll be returning from my wikibreak in a week or two and will be able to spare some time to mess with the bot, so I think that now is the time to put the issue on the vote, so I cat adapt the bot if the community decides that we don't want the votecount in the headings. --Dijxtra 10:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess. We have most of the maitenance voting already. (^'-')^ Covington 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote #6: Removing votecount from headings 

message: I stopped by the Anime COTW and noticed they have a good idea on their hands: reelection. An article can be reelected to serve as the AnCOTW if it gets two more votes before the next election. As part of my What The Hell, Let's Try It and Find Out policy of system modifcations, I'd like to propose we have a re-election system (although not neccesarily the one they use), so we can use articles more than once. Some of these articles deserve it, if you think about it. -Litefantastic 20:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I see. You mean it would say something like "This previous winner had X votes," and any additional votes for its re-nom would count toward its overall scoring. So a previous winner that won with 25 could only beat a fresh contender with 32 if the old nom got 8 votes, by 8 new voters. Is that what you mean? -Litefantastic 00:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think, if we make a seperate subpage for succesful nominations which mentions at the end of removal "how many additional vote the nomination had". When it would be renominated in future, it can be considered as additional votes in the nomination and we can start fresh voting after adding those numbers.  Shyam (T/C) 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *You mean you could vote twice. -Litefantastic 12:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, I do mean this. After frsh renomination, which contains only additional votes (minimum 8 votes), which should be renominated after an interval of minimum 3 months, anybody would simply eligible to vote.  Shyam (T/C) 12:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with that idea. --Steven 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *I second. (^'-')^ Covington 06:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *Wait a minute? we're voting to give old nominations an edge? Is that what you're trying to do? Sorry, I must have misunderstood then. In this case, I'm opposed. I would rather agree to the idea of renominating after a reasonable wait. --Steven 00:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *What you support is what you oppose: renominating after a reasonable wait and counting the earlier votes. -Litefantastic 01:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned minimum 8 additional votes because when an article gets selected it would be having 3 or 4 additional votes generally so we can atleast escape these 3-4 votes while it would be renominated. It can simply be started from 0 vote. If majority wants to escape this point then we can.  Shyam (T/C) 06:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote #5: Reelection

message: #Litefantastic 20:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: #Steven 20:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Oppose

message: *While I agree with the idea, I would like one thing clarified. As of the present, are we allowed or not allowed to renominate votes that were previously removed? --Steven 20:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I see. You mean it would say something like "This previous winner had X votes," and any additional votes for its re-nom would count toward its overall scoring. So a previous winner that won with 25 could only beat a fresh contender with 32 if the old nom got 8 votes, by 8 new voters. Is that what you mean? -Litefantastic 00:12, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I think, if we make a seperate subpage for succesful nominations which mentions at the end of removal "how many additional vote the nomination had". When it would be renominated in future, it can be considered as additional votes in the nomination and we can start fresh voting after adding those numbers.  Shyam (T/C) 04:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *You mean you could vote twice. -Litefantastic 12:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Yes, I do mean this. After frsh renomination, which contains only additional votes (minimum 8 votes), which should be renominated after an interval of minimum 3 months, anybody would simply eligible to vote.  Shyam (T/C) 12:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree with that idea. --Steven 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: *I second. (^'-')^ Covington 06:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Are any new process or rules really needed? Can't we just renominate any article after a reasonable wait? Maurreen 04:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wait a minute? we're voting to give old nominations an edge? Is that what you're trying to do? Sorry, I must have misunderstood then. In this case, I'm opposed. I would rather agree to the idea of renominating after a reasonable wait. --Steven 00:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *What you support is what you oppose: renominating after a reasonable wait and counting the earlier votes. -Litefantastic 01:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned minimum 8 additional votes because when an article gets selected it would be having 3 or 4 additional votes generally so we can atleast escape these 3-4 votes while it would be renominated. It can simply be started from 0 vote. If majority wants to escape this point then we can.  Shyam (T/C) 06:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simplifying