Wikipedia talk:Good Article Collaboration of the week

message: What will we do if not many people show up for the collaboration efforts, I mean, I guess it's easy enough to improve articles when you've got like 8 or 10 people or even more helping out, but since the Good article wikiproject and this collaboration effort is so new, do we need to like wait a little longer or extend the deadline on improving the first article or two? If we only have a small group of people, like I think one guy sort of noted, not everyone is an expert or even remotely familiar with many types articles, with a small group of people, we might have a problem if we just start trying to blaze into articles on a one week deadline without a bit of extra time or more people that know something about different subjects. Homestarmy 23:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that if we work on an article instead of extending the voting deadline people might click on the article and take a look and perhaps see what we are about. I was also considering giving this being the first article that we are working on an extra day, but I think we should wait till the end of next week and we can decide what to do from there on in. Tarret 19:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: say, shouldn't there be something on this project page announcing to everyone what the current collaboration is? :/ Homestarmy 16:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nevermind Homestarmy 17:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this is the date it was supposed to be done, what do we do now? Im not even sure if anyone showed up from here to work on the article :/. Homestarmy 16:56, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could wait till tomorrow and change it or we could change it today but I will let someone else decide that. Tarret 21:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well since apparently we've changed articles, shouldn't we at least nominate Jesus for FA status just to see what will happen? Homestarmy 03:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: First time collaboration : Jesus

message: H5N1 is a subtype of the virus species Influenza A virus that causes a disease discussed here: Transmission and infection of H5N1 and is currently infecting birds worldwide as discussed here: Global spread of H5N1 and is a current pandemic threat as discussed here: Influenza pandemic as is summarized in the H5N1 box on the H5N1 article pages. WAS 4.250 04:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You guys have not helped, so far as I can tell, and we need help! Please help! WAS 4.250 07:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Second collaboration : H5N1

message: This is a great idea, but we got off to a bad start. I've been rejigging things, and getting us on the Community Portal. This should now gain a bit more trafic to the page. In light of this, I've turned back time, and reset us to H5N1 as the current GAC. The new template reflecting this has been changed, so it is more informative about the article selected.
The next GAC will be History of the Internet. By the current votes, the one following that will be Chlorine. --Barberio 21:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wish we could of gone back to Jesus, but I guess it's a good idea to try again heh. On H5N1, it has a non-closed FA nomination that only got a few votes but apparently was never closed.... Homestarmy 23:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks like the FAC was mistakenly handled or resubmitted. It's off the page now. I think it does deserve a return to FAC it its improved state. --Barberio 20:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restarting with H5N1 

message: I created Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week/current-short to be used instead of Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week/current in the left column of the community page. CG 05:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Announcement 

message: :Example: # 3 votes per week. -- ~~~~
# 2 votes per week. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requiring ''x'' votes per ''y'' weeks (like the normal [[WP:COTW|COTW]]) 

message: :: Object to the Poll. This is not WP:COTW, and is meant to be a more relaxed method. (Since the articles have already had work done on them) Nor is there any actual reason to explicitly state a time limit. WP:FAC uses the same vauge pruning, with their wording being "If enough time passes".
:: We do not need bureaucracy. --Barberio 09:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other 

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 00:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template on Article or Talk page? 

message: Good job everyone Stuyvesant High School is our first GA collaboration article to be promoted. Tarret 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuyvesant promoted

message: This one became an FA shortly after the collaboration ended, even though it was mostly the work of some person who went around improving all the FF articles in general, I think we still helped :/. Homestarmy 23:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final Fantasy VI

message: Let us know if you happen to pick an article on a person and we'll alert our members! plange 05:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Biography 

message: Why is the Collab only for two days?--HamedogTalk|@ 01:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scotch College 

message: I think I should put vote counts, such as the "_ vote, stays until _____". Any objections? Green caterpillar 02:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we ever get the amount of nominations that the AID gets then we can consider using this pruning method but at the present we don't need to use it. Tarret 14:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vote counts

message: On the GACOTW, it says "Articles without support votes for long lengths of time will be pruned." How long is a long time? Should we set something like a time limit until articles are pruned? Green caterpillar 14:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With only 10 articles on the list I don't think we need to prune the nominations as of now otherwise we might run out of articles eventually. I wouldn't mind if we start pruning the listwehen the list grows to 20 article though. Tarret 13:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pruning

message: I just noticed that the current collaboration, United States, is now listed as a good article. So, I think it is time to move on to a new collaboration. ike9898 18:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This collaboration seeks to make Good Articles adhere to the "highest of standards", which generally means make it an FA. Homestarmy 19:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please select a new topic

message: I delisted Moon from the good article list a few days ago, so I was surprised to see it tagged as the GACOTW this week.  I then noted that the GACOTW nomination rules had been changed a few hours after I delisted Moon.  This change – to allow the consideration of delisted GAs – was made "to encourage more nominations".  I looked for the discussion which resulted in this change, but could not locate it.  So, being kind of new here, I was just wondering:
*Can anyone change the rules regarding what's eligible for what sans discussion?
*How does adding the 365 delisted GAs to a nomination pool of 1470 good articles materially encourage more nominations?
—  Opelio 02:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did wonder about this rather odd situation, I already made a comment on the Moon talk page, should we really have this conversation in two places at once? :/ And that random act of changing the rules wasn't something I ever knew about, I certainly wouldn't agree to it, some delisted GA's are delisted because their abysmal.... Homestarmy 02:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but there are many articles are delisted usually because they lack some small item such as references but they are otherwise good. I know that the moon article was delisted for more that references but the point of a collaboration is to improve articles. Now this is just a thought but I think we should wait the week out and see if this is worthwhile. After if this doesn't work out this week we can always change it back. Tarret 23:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose, and besides, I sort of already stated heh. (If you can count changing a bunch of "m's" to "M's" a start...)Homestarmy 00:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Hawking was delisted all the way back in September, and still looks pretty un-broad, it would probably take very major changes just to make it a GA :/. Do we really have to keep trying this? Homestarmy 01:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll just let it go for the week then after were going to slightly adjust the rule to only include articles that were delisted for minor problems such as references. Tarret 01:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  GACOTW nomination rules 

message: Should this collaboration allow de-listed GAs to be among the nominees? It seems like it would be worthwhile (in some cases) to bring articles back up to GA level. — RJH (talk) 18:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, seems fair to me, some of the articles that are delisted often just have some easy problem to fix... Homestarmy 19:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As said above it was like that for a short time but people were nominating articles with really major problems. However due to the low amount of nominees I think I'll change it back for the time being. Tarret 01:05, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  De-listed GA's 

message: I have nominated Grameen Bank, co-winner of last years Nobel Peace Award, for a GA status. Hoping to get the attention it needs to become a GA (recent Nobel Winners deserve to become, I believe, at least GAs, if not FAs). Now, how do I get it listed for a GA collaboration? - Aditya Kabir 19:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're only taking GA's at the moment, so your article needs to pass the nomination first, though I have to say, lack of interest is sort of hurting the collaboration.... Homestarmy 19:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The collaboration as a whole? Or, just the Grameen Bank article? Can I help in any way? Please, let me know. I may have a lot of drawbacks as an editor, but lack of interest is not one of them. Aditya Kabir 04:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a collaboration that aims to improve articles to GA-status? I think the title of this collaboration is quite misleading in that respect.--DorisHノート 09:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for misunderstanding. It says - The intent of this collaboration is to polish the many good articles within Wikipedia, to bring them up to the highest standards expected of Wikipedia. So, I thought there may be space for a collaboration that aims to improve articles to GA-status. What does the collaboration do then?  And, what should I do to take this article to a GA status? Aditya Kabir 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At first, the collaboration was specifically meant to raise GA's to FA's, but that was changed to just the "Highest of standards". Technically speaking, nominating your article for GA status wasn't really a bad idea, even though it might fail if it's not actually up to the standards, a reviewer will probably give criticism that will lead you in the right direction. Homestarmy 21:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I guess I need to know about the process here. Aditya Kabir 03:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How do I request a collaboration? 

message: As a conclusion from the last thread, it springs to my mind to change the rules in this collaboration, and ask for the nomination of good B-class articles to be turned into Good articles. I believe the participation would increase, because the goal is easier to achieve. I am afraid the collaboration is going to die if we do not change something. What do other editors think?--DorisHノート 11:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahahaha... I thought it was a thread, not a threat. Anyways, I get more typos than anyone else. And, you can count me in on this, if I count at all. Aditya Kabir 14:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, you need to separate task from the WP:COTW, which works on possible FA class material. Aditya Kabir 14:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: Hi everyone. A week or two ago, I started a proposed reworking of the criteria; the changes are not major, but there are enough to influence the review template and other things. Only three users have commented so far, and I feel more people should be involved in the discussion before the changes are implemented. Thanks. — Deckiller 00:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Good article Criteria

message: Found a good article collaboration tag in mainspace at Elvis Presley; just a reminder that Project tags go in talk space.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Project templates go in talk space

message: For how many more weeks will Elvis be the "Good article Collaboration of the Week" ?Yamanbaiia 16:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm thinking this part of the project is nearly abandoned. Lara❤Love 20:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad, it was a good idea. Oh well, thanks for replying.Yamanbaiia 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this should be tagged historical, until such time as there is renewed interest? Homestarmy 21:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this whole project be removed from the community portal? Cheers!Wassupwestcoast 05:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  when is Elvis going?