Wikipedia talk:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight

message: I noticed that the sign at the head of ACOTF was still saying Gough Whitlam several days after Bringing them Home was announced as the new ACOTF, so I tracked down the templates and updated them to point to the new article. Hope I haven't broken any rules. Phaedrus86 22:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all - thankyou. The main page says anyone can update it after about 8pm AEST on the relevent Sunday nights. I got round to it at about 1am the next morning, and seem to have missed one of the most important bits! Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 00:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We all slip up occasionally, especially at 1am! Glad I could help. Phaedrus86 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current collaboration template updated

message: Only a few more days of the Palm Island article being ACOTF, but already a new record for this Collaboration has been set!!! In only ten days 140 edits have been made by about a dozen editors!  
This is what ACOTF is all about :) Please jump on board for the last 100 meter slog to get this thing up to a standard that is eligible for consideration to become a featured-standard article. This could be the first in over two years to make it, but we need more editors who would like to see this one go Feature.  See you on Palm, WikiTownsvillian 12:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jump on board, another Feature article is within our grasp

message: That bright yellow banner hurts my eyes. Perhaps choose a more subtle, pastel shade? --Oreo Priest 00:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's meant to be gold, as in green and gold.Garrie 22:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Banner 

message: For Scott's work in notifying particpants of results (Mulesing, Leyland Brothers, Road transport in Australia, Bushranger, Climate of Australia) I have awarded him the Working Man's Barnstar at his talk page. 
Thanks Scott, I'm sure your notifications have helped in improving articles at least as much as the voting process and choosing which article should actually be the Collaboration article.Garrie 23:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results notification 

message: The current nomination precess requires that the subject/edit summary field is left blank during nomination, given the profound want for 100% edit summaries at WP:RFA can this be rectified. Gnangarra 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment/Concern 

message: Hi everyone. I've been slack and not rolled over the ACOTF for nearly a fortnight more than it should be. Sorry about that, real life got in the way. I'm about to do it now, and will change the time from 8pm to midday on Sundays, as I find I'm at least as likely to want to look at it in the afternoon as in the evenings on Sundays. --Scott Davis Talk 08:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm cool with that. Thanks for your work. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time of new ACOTF 

message: Following on  from the discussion above and the recent reversion at Gundagai (current collaboration), I have raised an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Collaborations#RfC: Should the collaboration template appear on the article page--Matilda talk 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's now at Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace#RfC:_Should_the_collaboration_template_appear_on_the_article_page, for the record. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Should the collaboration template appear on the article page

message: Is there a view about whether a fortnight is too short a time to get an article close to featured standard, as the template says? Should we be looking at ACOTMonth? I notice from the archives that it used to be ACOTW but that articles were either new or stubs. Now we are working with established pages, which means to genuinely improve them requires more detailed research. Unless an editor happens to have materials to hand at the start of the fortnight they will struggle to get the background to make a major contribution before the fortnight closes. I appreciate anyone can continue to work on articles after the ACOTF period has closed - I'll keep going on HM Bark Endeavour for example - but we miss the point of the collaboration if some contributors can't get involved at the same time as everyone else.
I'm not wedded to this suggested change - just thought I'd throw it out there for discussion. Any other views? Euryalus (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tended to being rather slack on Wikipedia lately, and I'm the main person who changes these around, so some have extended closer to a month anyway. My feeling is that if I remember to change it and advertise the change, then the edit  rate drops off by the end of the fortnight. If someone or a small team want to progress to FA or GA, then they've had the wider collaboration to get well on the way, and they con continue without the ACOTF banner, which clearly needs to be removed from a GA or FA anyway. --Scott Davis Talk 12:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some idle thoughts on fortnights and months 

message: I went to work on this current Collaboration but could not find any unassessed articles. No details are listed on the talk page as to what is required, so am unsure what we are trying to improve there. Not sure also how it can be improved to featured article standard as it states 'this page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale'. So am lost on what is required here. Boylo (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Unassessed Australia articles 

message: Just in case anyone is interested, the principle I have been attempting to follow when deciding whether to update expiry dates or to move nominations to the /Removed page is that "two weeks" is equivalent to "a selection cycle". Thus a nomination can't expire until as many days after the next selection date as the number of days it was nominated after the preceding selection. Every two additional votes move the expiry date out by the number of days (theoretically 14) of the next active collaboration. If I or anyone else correctly change the active collaboration every second Sunday, that is the same as the rules written on the page. This paragraph is an attempt at explaining how I've decided what to keep, and what dates to use, for when I've been busy outside of Wikipedia. --Scott Davis Talk 14:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  expiry date principle 

message: You were kind of useful for a little while.  Never quite reaching a critical mass you seem to have just faded away into a nice thought. I'll miss you as I keep doing my own thing just as many other Australian editors do. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Will try to revive ACotF over the Aussie summer - don't give up hope yet! Australian Matt (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is now July 2010, was anyone looking at this?  I would run with it, but the template used to specify the article is locked by an administrator and cannot be changed by myself. Jwoodger (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RIP ACotF