Wikipedia talk:Article Creation and Improvement Drive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
Article Improvement Drive Formerly, "This week's improvement drive"
April 2005 – July 2005 August 2005 – September 2005 January 2006 – March 2006 March 2006 – April 2006 April 2006 – May 2006 Vote Archive - a vote-only archive containing AID votes
Collaboration of the week Formerly, "Article of the week"
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7
Article Creation and Improvement Drive
May 2006 – August 2006

[edit] Nomination page updates

There appears to be a problem with updating the nomination page. Very often previous week's winner is still listed as the current project more than 24 hours after a new article should have been selected. Same problem also occurs with removing nominations with insufficient number of votes. Can anyone make these changes, or is it a job for the administrators? If anyone can make the updates, it could be a good idea to include a check list for things to be done somewhere. --Chino 06:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger: WP:AID and WP:COTW

WP:AID split off months ago from WP:COTW, as WP:COTW was focused only on filling in major gaps in Wikipedia. Being that the English project has very few major topic stub/missing articles, it appears that WP:COTW has fulfilled its mission and made itself unneeded. Case in point - the dwindling of nominations and participants of WP:COTW. Finally, I have stepped up and volunteered to maintain WP:COTW for the past few months, but am heading-into a forced Wikibreak due to law School starting back up. It seems the time has come to congratulate COTW for a job well done and and send it off into the WP Archives, allowing the participants of COTW and AID join together in a single project once again. - Davodd 18:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I support that. I initially proposed that what ultimately became the AID be simply a modification of the COTW - that it would simply be a change in scope. But now, yes, I think a merger is in order. We could call it: ARCAID -the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. How does that sound? We could just overhaul everything. -Litefantastic 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ammendment: if we want to keep both projects from collapsing, we need to do this now. COTW is very nearly dead, and the AID is in the middle of slow times... I think it's now or never. ARCAID (stop me if you think of a better name) can reuse most of the infrastructure (templates and userbase) from the AID... is there anything else we're missing? -Litefantastic 19:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

About the name -- I guess it's too late now, but I would have kept the simpler "COTW". Maurreen 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And the merger is a good idea. Thanks for doing it. Maurreen 08:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry you don't favor the name, but I figure I've been here long enough that I had a major unilateral descision coming my way :) -Litefantastic 15:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. :) Maurreen 06:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fallout

The merger between AID and COTW is largely complete. It's a sad testiment to the complexity of all this that the chief trouble comes not from meshing the ideologies of the two projects, but their templates.

I've reset most of the AID (and the even older IDRIVE) templates for the ARCAID. I haven't had time to tinker with the COTW stuff yet. Most of the old redirects need to be reset, and the page subpages from the Talk: pages need to be inlinked from here. I'll be back on this tomorrow. -Litefantastic 01:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing: there will be two articles this week - the endgame winners from the AID and the COTW. This is a quick fix; starting next week there will be only one article per week again. -Litefantastic 01:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So that's why an article was selected today and not the usual (for AID) Sunday? Oh. -Fsotrain09 03:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just finished the rollover and notified everyone who voted for French Revolution, I'm not sure where the votes for Lee Smith (baseball) are. Someone please check this and notify everyone with {{subst:AIDvoter}}. --Draicone ^(talk) 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

COTW VOTES usually went to the article talk page. - Davodd 19:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Templates

Some of the templates still need to be brought in line. We're now working from three legacy sets of templates - the IDRIVE, AID and COTW versions - which need to be integrated or replaced. It would help if we had a full list to work from, so we could prune. -Litefantastic 15:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stylistic Thoughts

I had a thought (as shown in my nom for the DuMont Television Network): If applicable, why not add a small, unobtrusive picture next to each nomination, just as a little eye-catcher. My only thoughts contrary are 1) would this make things too cluttered, and, 2) is this a violation of Fair Use? -Litefantastic 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)h

[edit] Renomination

Can an article that has been removed be renominated? Is there a set amount of time that it has to sit out? I feel like some issues get more exposure at certain times then others (Such as FLCL being the co-article this week, when it might not have made it 6 months from now), but that just because some issues don't get enough exposure to avoid the removal list, doesn't mean they shouldn't be reconsidered at a later date. -TransNique 01:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

See the archives. GreenReaper 02:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointin me there. I wasn't sure where to look for an answer. TransNique 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

To date, no article ever successful as the AID did so twice, though History of the Balkans came very, very close about a year ago, during the time the AID was called the TWID. That same article, incidentally, had previously been the COTW. -Litefantastic 20:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there are a few articles that ought to get a second chance sometime, but I'll wait til it seems right. TransNique 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New template!

Hello, in an attempt to help collaborate across COTW projects, I've made a template that displays the current picks of each. I've made a template for you to be able to add the name of the current article {{IDRIVEtopic article}}, which you can also use to transclude in your other templates so you don't have to update those manually. You'd only need to update this new one to populate the others on rollover. The new template that will display your current pick is {{COTWCurrentPicks}}. plange 03:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spamming policy

The nominator of Queen's University, Speedystickd (talk • contribs), has spammed over 90 user talk pages over the past two days in an effort to raise support for his nominee. He is a very new editor and clearly meant no harm, but this is a potentially disruptive precedent to set. My questions are as follows: first, is there a precedent for how to handle this nomination, and second, if not, then should we consider disqualification of the article? – Clockwork Soul 01:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I would hate to call it spamming. I think, as you said, he clearly means no harm, and the use of the word spamming could be considered uncivil. Second, I don't really have a problem with it, as long as the receiving editors don't have a problem with it. I think this situation occurred previously, and no action was taken then. Any votes resulting from his action should therefore be counted as normal votes, and the article certainly should not be disqualified. Errabee 07:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

He "spammed" my talk page...I didn't really care, but I'm not going to sign it because he begged. --andrew 08:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I found an earlier discussion with a vote about prohibiting sollicitation for support. 7 people supported prohibition, 9 did not. See here. Errabee 09:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

That's it I am sick and tired of dealing with these people on Wikipedia! I am withdrawing the nomination, so I hope your happy. Do you people have anything else to do?! I though Wikipedia was supposed to be a forum to further people's knowledge around the world. A free encyclopedia if you will. In my short time here on Wikipedia all I have run into is falsification on articles, false articles, biased information, righteous admins. clinging to this online bureaucracy. So why don't you guys stop messing around on this site and maybe make a valuable contribution to the world, like volunteer or something. Anyway I never am again going to contribute to this site. Again I hope your happy! Speedystickd 20:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have changed my mind I will contribute to this site. BUT I do not appreciate being bullied by other editors because I did something they did not like. Speedystickd 21:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of Nominations

How many nominations may one put up? Speedystickd 20:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there's a limit, but please don't overdo it. I'd say three is about a good number for max nominations. Its good that you're enthusaistic enough to find appropriate articles, but at the end of the day there's only one or two collaborations at a time, and all it does is waste time if the article fails. --Draicone ^(talk) 12:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AID twice

If an article has already been an AID collaboration, can it be so again? Green caterpillar 23:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes. This also goes for the COTW. -Litefantastic 16:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote: conditional allowing of solicitation

In May 2006, some uproar was caused by a mass solicitation for votes. A vote followed (see here), with the following proposal: To disallow individuals from soliciting votes from other users interested in a page. This proposal was rejected 7-9, not exactly a clear majority.

Recently, another mass solicitation led to another uproar with even suggestions of disqualifying the nomination. I hope nobody will object to this new vote so soon after the previous vote, but I feel this proposal is a consensus between the support votes and the oppose votes of May 2006, and has a better chance of reaching a decision supported by a large majority. Errabee 10:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Considerations

The main goal of WP:ARCAID is to get editors interested in improving an article, preferably to FA status.
Mass solicitation for one article could lead to mass solicitation of other articles; this disruptive situation is to be prevented at all costs.
Mass solicitation could lead to irritation of the targeted editors.
Most articles are part of the terrain of one or more project and/or portals.
Solicitation via relevant portals and/or projects is an effective way of targeting potentially interested editors. It is probably more effective than random mass solicitation.

New proposal

Solicitation on individual user talk pages is not allowed
It is allowed to post an announcement on a relevant portal or project (in the appropriate place, like talk pages or announcements).
This announcement should be something like [[Article]] is nominated for the [[WP:ARCAID#Article header|Article Improvement Drive]].

Support

Errabee 10:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Argos'Dad 15:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Clockwork Soul 15:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Litefantastic 16:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC) - I actually voted for the original proposal you're trying to overrride, but I have since found that solicitation doesn't actually bother anyone (inasmuch as I contacted thirty+ people, and the only complaint I got was from an unrelated admin who blocked me for 24 hours for "spamming").
Draicone ^(talk) 12:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Firsfron of Ronchester 18:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

Comments

This seems eminently reasonable and follows the usual convention for notices on article developmentArgos'Dad 15:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
This seems like an excellent proposal, and would certainly help avoid the issues we've experienced in the past. Is it possible this can be clarified, though? Preferably even restricted to people using a particular template that is agreed on by all to avoid disputes over the content of announcements. --Draicone ^(talk) 12:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, we could try the slick little plan that got me in trouble. In order to raise support for FLCL, I had to find all the FLCL fans. In order to do that, however, all I had to do was look at the "Linked to" toolbox item for Template:User FLCL, which gave me a nice list. I believe it would not be unreasonable to restrict solicitations to the group of people using a given userbox - what say you? -Litefantastic 01:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  - I'd say no to that. FLCL is a part of the WikiProject Manga, and you could use that WikiProject to get people to notice your nomination. Errabee 01:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    - How? I left a message on its talk page; it didn't work. This did. -Litefantastic 11:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two collaborations

I think it would be a good idea to have two collaborations in the same week. This would be helpful because of the AID/COTW merge, and because we are now having 30 or more candidates at a time. Any objections? Green caterpillar 22:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC) I'm all for it. It would provide an opportunity for more articles to get attention. --andrew 13:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a bad idea. You don't have to take my word for it - just look at the /History page. The AID was originally conceived under a very different rule system than the one it operates under now (I believe I may be the last active founding member here) and it was conceived under a two-a-week policy. This was later revoked. I championed its return, which lasted two weeks, and was frankly glad to see it leave after that. I repeat: This is a bad idea. It just splits the available number of people. -Litefantastic 16:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
If you put it that way, it does make better sense to have one project. I withdraw my support for the idea.--andrew 17:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, back then, you would have two AID collabs and one COTW collaboration, therefore having 3 collaborations total in this area, and I agree that was too much. Later, there was only one AID collab and one COTW collab, making two, a good amount. However, because AID and COTW were merged, we only have one in this area. And I think that's too little. Green caterpillar 14:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  - The reason the two projects merged was because the AID was hobbling and the COTW was probably a week away from dead. The ideology of the COTW carried over, but by then they didn't have much of a work force to contribute. If you put two pies in two ovens, they'll cook. But when the element in one of the ovens burns out, you can't just throw that pie into the second oven and have enough heat to go around. And that's what you're proposing. -Litefantastic 15:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] voting question

Hello there, in the voting instructions, it says to update the vote count in the subheader, and then to change some items in the "Nominated" line, including the deadline date and the number of votes needed by that deadline.

Is my understanding correct, or is there some missing text? If everyone who votes changes the paramaters of the deadline, won't that make it so that none of the articles are ever successfully voted on? It seems to me as if only the first person voting within a week should be changing the deadline parameters.

Please clarify this, as I would like to vote on some articles. Thank you. --Tachikom a 14:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Everyone should update the header of the section, so that this reflects the current amount of votes cast for that nomination. Every fourth voter for a nomination should also update the Nominated line, by increasing the stay until date by one week, and increasing the required number of votes by 4. The current procedure is correct; there is no text missing. Errabee 15:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that I must have misread the instructions. Many thanks for your clarification. --Tachikom a 15:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of WP:ACID to Wikipedia:Goings-on collaborations section

Please note the new template {{Template:Collab-ACID}}, which I have created for use with the Wikipedia:Goings-on page. The template needs to be updated whenever the current article changes; I suggest that be added to procedure somewhere. Hoping this is found helpful, –Outʀiggʀ 23:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Forget the new template - {{Template:IDRIVEtopic article}} is already being used for this purpose. However, WP:ACID remains newly listed on Goings-on. –Outʀiggʀ 00:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] reformating of this page

I messed a bit with source code of this page so that AIDbot can parse it easier. If anybody thinks that was a bad idea, we can revert it, but I just don't see why that would be a bad idea... --Dijxtra 15:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polar exploration

FYI, as part of an experiment, ACID folks might be interested in Polar exploration, as a Daily Telegraph reporter will be using it as a case study of how an article can go from a stub to something useful in two weeks. Edit away! -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Output

Has anyone ever done a study (in the informal Wiki sense) of how successful this drive is at actually improving articles? Marskell 16:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

A brief look at the history section Wikipedia:Article_Creation_and_Improvement_Drive/History brings me to the diagnosis of: "pretty successful, for the most part". Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the diffs there which so significant changes. I would be curious to see by how much the total volume of edits and number of contributors stopping by increases. Marskell 08:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement Drive of semi protected articles

I was just wondering, what is the purpose of having articles in improvement drive semi protected? This is current situation of Pluto article. Maybe it is an ommision because Pluto article was not marked as protected (but it is, try to log out). --Jan Smolik 10:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Pluto was semiprotected because it was downgraded from planet to dwarf planet, which attracted a lot of anonymous vandalism. Established users can still edit the article, though, so there is no reason for semiprotected articles not to be on WP:AID. Errabee 11:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Automagic

As I think it's difficult for some people to understand how to recalculate the dates and needed votes, I have made a template {{acid}}, and have made the nom Death a test-nomination. I also made the title static (no vote counts in the title). _→AzaToth 15:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If no one complains, I'll update the other nominees later. _→AzaToth 17:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I really like this template. Jeltz talk 19:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What needs doing

I'm very busy with university work at the moment and don't have much time to edit Wikipedia. I want the time I do have to be used well which means contributing to articles which the community have flagged up for improvement. I was just taking a look at the current article in the Article Creation and Improvement Drive (coffee) and am stuck for what to do without spending more time than I have planning the article out and comparing it to similar articles which have featured article status. Could I suggest we either encourage those who nominate an article to propose a plan for what needs to be done to take the article from its current state to featured articlehood, or get volunteers to collaborate on such a plan? If a specific road map were available telling me which pictures/diagrams need to be found/created, which sections need to be written and which improved, I could quickly and effectively get to work. I would bet that such roadmaps would, by giving the Drive aims and endpoints, allow us to produce many more FAs than we currently do. --Oldak Quill 13:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I had a similar thought but from a different angle. I know that I personally have a hard time contributing to many articles when I don't have any references (the general articles are particularly difficult). But many of the articles that get chosen her really just need some really healthy peer review to create a To Do list with specific tasks which could be done to improve the article (e.g., move refs to the right side of all periods, reword the opening sentence, alphabetize See Also, get ISBNs, etc). A really great way to contribute to ACID would be to just read the article and list the improvements that COULD be made. Other ACID members can fix those tasks, or add to the list. When the collaboration moves on, at least the article's regular editors are left with some direction on where to go, and it splits the time suck that all of us have by needing to read through an entire article, put together a coherent plan of action, and then fix those problems. Could we get an ACID To Do list that gets placed on the Talk page of the chosen article which people can add to or cross off as we go?--Will.i.am 10:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Change

Did someone forget to change the current collaboration? I thought Islam was last week's article. --Gray Porpo ise 20:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It needs to be updated, but it was supposed to be done automatically 1 or 2 days ago. Atomic1609 20:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no automation, it's only a manual update. As it went to many days this time, I'll decide that we waint uitil next week for next one (probably cactus). _→AzaToth 17:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia_talk%7EArticle_Creation_and_Improvement_Drive_3530.html"