Wikipedia talk:Anime and Manga Collaboration of the Week

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Wikipedia:Anime and Manga Collaboration of the Week is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of anime and manga. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page (Talk). See our portal to learn more.
NA	This page is not an article and does not require a rating

Archives
January 2006 – March 2006 April 2006 – May 2006

1 Should AMCOTW need at least two votes?
2 Another failure?
3 Anime on the Article Improvement Drive
4 Redesigning the templates
5 WikiProject Biography
6 Anon Nomination - Cowboy Bebop
7 Nomination Question
8 Regarding Kino's Journey
9 So....Whos updating?
10 Next "Collaboration of the Week" candidate
11 Move page

[edit] Should AMCOTW need at least two votes?

Over the last month, we've had two AMCOTW that only received their initial nomination vote. Even though the most recent example, Kaleido Star, did well despite its single vote, I don't think this is proper. Therefore I propose that any nomination must have at least two votes before it can be selected as AMCOTW. If, for some reason, no nominees qualify when it comes time to select the next AMCOTW, then there will be no AMCOTW for that week. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity that there's only single votes... but I disagree with not having any selected collaboration if none "qualify". As you said, Kaleido Star did well despite receiving a single vote, if even a single article can benefit, even minimally, than it should still be collaborated on. It's not a waste of this collab's time to work on articles... it's better to have one than none. Perhaps, to increase the number of collaborators, we should include into the scope of this collab B-class articles (I remember reading somewhere that only stub and start class articles should be collaborated on... I don't remember where). Just my two cents. --Miss Ethereal 22:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The 2 vote idea is fair enough, it's approval voting after all. There's no reason for there not to be an AMCOTW for an entire week (which is what I think Farix means, correct me if I'm wrong). So as soon as a second vote is given and there is no currect AMCOTW, it should get promoted straight away. --Squilibob 07:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My only argument against this is that there for those few days that there isn't an collab, those are a few days lost as productivity. However, if consensus is that there shouldn't be any collab if there is only 1 vote, then I'm okay with that. --Miss Ethereal 14:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If there are no objections for me to include B-class articles, and start-class articles into the scope, then I will add it to the main page for this collaboration. --Miss Ethereal 20:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Start-class articles should definitely be included. I'm not so sure about B-class articles. At least, not without some additional criteria to keep people from nominating the same article about a popular anime/manga over and over again, even though it's been selected as an AMCOTW in the past.

Which brings up two other questions. How long should it be before an article can be renominated? And can previous AMCOTW article be renominated if it didn't improve beyond the Start-class during its first run? --TheFarix (Talk) 22:32, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that stub, start, and B-class articles should be included. Perhaps we can say that an article can only be nominated a maximum of 3 times every 6 months. In addition, if the article is actually collaborated on in that 6 month duration, it cannot be renominated. (6 months is approximately 26 weeks, which sounds reasonable to me.) If the article didn't improve past the start-class is a bigger issue. Those article tend to be less well known, with little information floating around on the ether about them. Some of those articles, however, may have just been collaborated on at a bad time for someone who could have potentially given the article a good re-write to upgrade it to B-class. I would say, to allow the article to be renominated... you never know if the article may improve. But wait 6 months or so before the article can be renominated. --Miss Ethereal 14:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a good proposal. I'd like to add a clause that states that in the event of a tied vote, the article that has been nominated the least amount of times should automatically win, for obvious reasons. --Squilibob 07:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I must be a dunce because your point isn't so obvious to me... do you mean the article with the most votes? --Miss Ethereal 14:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another failure?

Looking at the last AMCOTW Saber Marionette, it's clear that it hasn't improved at all. The only notable addition has been the infobox and one comment about the manga, but that's it. --TheFarix (Talk) 16:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole A&MCotW thing has been pretty pitiful. Maybe we should discontinue it. Unless someone can think of a good idea to make it work. --SeizureDog 21:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Because this weeks AMCOTW hasn't improved and I don't see how I can pull a viable excerpt for the portal, I suggest that we pick another article for the selected anime article. A couple of weeks ago, another editor attempted to stack three anime articles ahead of time, but I wiped them out in favor of previous AMCOTWs. I'll take a look at one of those three articles—Voltron, Vampire Hunter D and Ninja Scroll—and see which one is in the best shape and I can make a proper excerpt from. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Broadening the scope of this collaboration I think would help (see Should AMCOTW need at least two votes?). --Miss Ethereal 14:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Saber Marionette was already a B-class article before it became AMCOTW, so expanding the criteria to officially include B-class articles probably isn't going to help improve matters with lack of participation. --TheFarix (Talk) 15:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This isn't defined on the project page though. If we collaborated on a few B-class articles people may become more aware and more interested. We can't assume that just because Saber did badly, that all B-class noms will replicate. --Miss Ethereal 16:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think having a collaberation is of much use unless we are able to bring up articles to Good status. If we could somehow encourage everyone to obtain references needed for above B-class status, then these collaberations might go somewhere. --SeizureDog 23:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and included into the scope of this collaboration B-class articles. I also nominated Neon Genesis Evangelion. I think it's a good article to nominate as it will attract attention to the collaboration as it is quite popular. Furthermore, this article has recently undergone a peer review, and as such, has discussions on how it can be improved. This article is also close to GA status, but as it lacks references it will help emphasize the requirements for references, one of the problems with references are that people don't know how to reference them. If this article is collaborated on, the first step would be to have someone (not me as I'm pretty bad at referencing) go through the article and stick in {{fact}} templates so that users know what needs to be referenced. A few references should already be in place, and from there, users can use those as templates and attempt to fill in the citations. Hopefully this addresses everyone's concerns, it was the only thing that I could think of for this collab. --Miss Ethereal 16:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see that Monster is a failure too. If it weren't for me deleting that big useless Trivia section, then the AMCOTW would have been a total failure. Seriously, either you have a drive of people who will help out every week, or this sinks. This shouldn't really happen again. --TcDohl 01:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

As Ynhockey pointed out before, COTWs in general have been suffering. People won't be able to collaborate on stuff that they know nothing about as well. Because everyone has different interests and there are so many genrés of anime and now we've broadened that range to include manga, even those who want to contribute find themselves unable to. Perhaps we need to do something different such as change from working in a collaboration type way, to instead create a centralized peer review project as I see a few other WikiProjects doing. I don't actually like that idea, but peer reviews seem to be "easier" for those with little knowledge on the subject to contribute. --Squilibob 14:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I like that. It seems that most mangas and anime that have not yet been collaborated on fall in the "obscure" category (apart, maybe, Ranma 1/2). And even if ability was there, motivation may not be. --SidiLemine 15:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Howabout just have seperate sections (i.e. Manga, Anime, Misc, et al), and arrange them in a queue format? Slot one article per section for a week, then rotate. Nobody nominates an article for a section, then the section remains blank for a week. --293.xx.xxx.xx 00:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anime on the Article Improvement Drive

The anime FLCL is currently a nominee on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive, and it would mean a lot to us if any of those interested would vote for it. -Litefantastic 14:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redesigning the templates

I've been thinking of redesigning some of the templates, {{Anime and Manga Collaboration Notice}}, {{AMCOTW candidate}}, and {{Past AMCOTW}}, to make them look more attractive. For starters, the current color schema doesn't stand out among the banners when there are several listed on a talk page. The {{Past AMCOTW}} could be more subdue then the others, but {{AMCOTW candidate}} definitely needs to stand out. {{Anime and Manga Collaboration Notice}} also appears too cluttered and should be streamlined. It should also be moved to {{AMCOTW notice}} as well. And while not on my list, {{Current AMCOTW}} could use a makeover, or at least have a matching color schema to the other templates. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the overall design I've came up with so far.