Wikipedia talk:Article Creation and Improvement Drive/votes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)	6/3	Passed
8	Should people not be allowed to advertise for an AID nominee	Steven	22:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)	In progress
9	Should the AID template go on the article's talk page	Josen	June 12 2006 (UTC)	In progress

Contents 1 Vote: lifting the threshold to 4 votes per week 2 Vote #2: Having two AID articles per week 3 Vote #3: Nomination Moratorium? 4 Vote #4: Return to one AID article per week 5 Vote #6: Removing votecount from headings 6 Vote #7: Removal of voters with only votes as contributions 7 Vote #5: Reelection 7.1 Support 7.2 Oppose 7.3 Comments 7.4 Simplifying

[edit] Vote: lifting the threshold to 4 votes per week

The threshold should be lifted to 4 votes per week. Voting ends one week after first vote cast.

Support

1. Dijxtra 11:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
2. liquidGhoul 11:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
3. MartinRe 12:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (Comment: With the proviso that new nominees are helped get over initial hurdle by having starting template at "Need 8/12/16 votes by +2/+3/+4 weeks", with further increments of +4/+1, similar to now) Clarification: If the two AID/week below gets passed, vote to make threashold remain at 3
4. Steven 15:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
5. Wikiacc (?) 16:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
6. Since it currently takes months for an article to actually make it to AID, the article is usually completely different by then and may not even need collaboration any more. Besides this is about keeping the list from growing forever, not about getting rid of worthy candidates. Kaldari 19:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Ugur Basak 21:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
8. shaggy 22:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Litefantastic 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC) - the AID is beginning to collapse under its own weight.
10. Aerobird 04:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
11. jacoplane 04:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
12. The only sensible solution.Juppiter 06:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
13. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Silence 11:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
2. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Lbbzman 16:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Joyous | Talk 16:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
5. See my vote in favour of the alternative proposal below. Samsara _contrib ^talk 16:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
6. JK the unwise 16:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC) (see vote bellow)

Comment

• What will happen to current nominees. It wouldn't be fair to recalculate votes. I guess it would be better, keeping their current expiring date and adding +4 after their votes reachs current expiring votes. If this is mentioned before, don't mind--Ugur Basak 21:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know whether this is closed, but I'll change my vote anyway, now that we have Wikipedia:Join in to ensure that articles that are not sufficiently well supported for AID or COTW can also become a collaboration. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:10, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I see that you've already made this change on the main page. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote #2: Having two AID articles per week

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

1. Litefantastic 13:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
2. MartinRe 13:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC) (that would keep the articles moving through at a higher rate, lose less articles and keep the canditates fresh)
3. Samsara _contrib ^talk 16:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
4. JK the unwise 16:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
5. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
6. DanielCD 02:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Juppiter 06:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Dijxtra 08:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Yeah, I too just don't feel like this is the right solution...
3. Kaldari 03:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
4. Gflores ^Talk 06:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Comment

• Don't forget that doing 2 a week ultimately contributed to the decline of COTW. The same will happen here. 2 cannot be sustained. To "unclog" AID, simply raise the threshold to 4 votes per week, or maybe 7 votes per fortnight to be less harsh. - Juppiter 06:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • What decline? COTW has occasionally been doing 2 a week and is doing well. Are you talking about something that happened a long time ago? In any case, it may just be a question of competition. If every collaboration did 2 a week, there'd likely be no problem. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 14:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
    • COTW officially switched to two a week in Summer 2005. It quickly proved untenable and COTW went back to one a week. After this stunt failed, COTW has suffered such apathy that it will soon probably have to shut down. Juppiter 00:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, but you forget that the AID started with this idea (among a wholly different set of rules than the ones its uses now). It diddn't work very well then because there were so few people. There are now so many that I think widening the bottleneck can only help. -Litefantastic 15:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with increasing the threshold though. Perhaps there should be some indication of those who are just voting and those who are willing to help edit. In the latter situation, they could gather independently from AID and improve the article instead of waiting months for their article to be selected. Gflores ^Talk 06:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote #3: Nomination Moratorium?

If we don't adopt either one of the other proposals, I propose that we impose a moratorium on new nominations for a while. That would definitely reduce the number on this page from 70. Juppiter 22:50, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

We shall lift the number of votes required. I found this note in "removed" section (click here and then scroll just a bit upwards):

Starting with articles nominated in August, at least four votes will be needed each week to stay active on the list of nominations.

That shows that old maintenance crew planed on lifting the number of votes. AND except for the fact we have 12:6 in favour for lifting the vote barrier, all of people who do the dirty work voted for the proposal. Therefore, if nobody comes up with very solid argument why not lifting the barier to 4 votes, I'll lift it tomorrow. --Dijxtra 11:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Last resort only! What you're suggesting will lower the number of votes, but you have to understand is that what you're suggesting is to strangle the AID back to a managable size. It will work, oh yes, but you run the possibility of killing the entire operation. If you choke off the roots, the plant will die. Tread carefully here. -Litefantastic 00:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Since both Vote #1 and Vote #2 have passed, I think this idea is now null, yes? -Litefantastic 17:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote #4: Return to one AID article per week

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)

Consensus was reached. Decision: Return to one AID article per week

Comments

• The only really hard thing about two articles per week is pasting the 'help, please' template onto seventy user pages. I am, in fact, the only person who ever did that, and I am not doing it again. However, if it was automated by a bot - or stopped altogether - then the workload is only marginally more difficult than doing one article per week. -Litefantastic 18:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm striking my vote. I just did the rollover for this week, and I can see that nobody edited these articles. Something tells me that having just one article isn't going to fix this porblem, but it might help a little. -Litefantastic 13:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Your reasoning seems good. I'm striking my vote too. jacoplane 14:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• I used to do the rollover, but I now refuse to do it for same reasons - to much job to do. But I think that even if we fix that problem (by means of a bot or deciding not to post noitces), I'd like to return to only one AID as having two aids is splitting of attention and is not good. --Dijxtra 19:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Same here, the pasting alone takes up too much time and effort, plus, as I mentioned before, it isn't much use. After all, if the person that voted for the AID is active, they will check the AID sooner or later. Otherwise, its wasted effort. It wastes a valueable 10-20 min that can be spent on another part of wikipedia. As well, there is something that just isn't attracting people to participate anymore. There is no longer that push that had driven the AID for so long. Reducing the AID back to 1 article a day would be a good first step back to gaining attention. As well, I noticed that the AID section is further down on the community portal page.... could that be a cause too? It takes a while to find. --Steven 00:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
• 2 articles/week was an innocent opinion but unfortunately it didn't work at least for last AID. Maybe we can try for one more week, but my vote is "return to one" for now. Btw we still don't chose new articles for this weeks, maybe we will wait till this Sunday and each Great Leap Forward and Decline of the Roman Empire articles get 1 week chanceUgur Basak 12:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
• Focus is important. Return to one. Soo 16:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote #6: Removing votecount from headings

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)

Consensus was reached. Decision: Keep old header

Comment

Is this a basic disagreement with a 0/4/2 loss? --Steven 19:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I guess. We have most of the maitenance voting already. (^'-')^ Covington 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'd say so. Go ahead and paste it over to /Vote. -Litefantastic 23:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Holy crap, did we just update at the exact same time!? -Litefantastic 23:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: it seems that people like the vote headers so that they can scan the table of contents. I suggested once a comprimise that allows the links to work and the headings to contain votes: put the vote counts in a sub-level heading. -lethe ^{talk +} 02:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Kind of a dumb question, but what exactly do you mean by links not working? --Steven 03:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • There is a template that people put on the talk pages of articles while they're being considered for AID. This template includes a link to the article's section on this page, but this link is broken because the section header is never the same on this page as the one in the link. -lethe ^{talk +} 19:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Oh, that. I see what you are trying to do. The thing is, does it really matter that much? After all, there is a contents on the page for fast access right? Its just the one more step of pressing Ctrl+F, then typing the article name and press enter. Its not worth that much of a hassle. --Steven 20:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Well, no, it's not that big a deal. It's just that broken things cry out to me for fixing, why have broken links when we could have functional links? But I'm not prepared to redesign the bot and the page, so I guess it'll stay the way it is. I removed the links from the templates in the end, so I guess it's resolved, though I don't consider it the best resolution. -lethe ^{talk +} 04:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote #7: Removal of voters with only votes as contributions

After a recent minor disagreement, I noticed that there needs to be a group agreement on what kind of users are allowed to vote.

Consensus was reached. Decision: Only users with contributions besides voting is allowed to vote in the AID

Comments

• We do not allow IP users to vote due to the fact that we have no way of making sure one user doesn't vote on one nomination multiple times. However, currently, we have nothing down in writing about newbie users. This allow people to create multiple accounts for the purpose of voting on one nomination multiple times, giving that nomination an unfair advantage. In my opinion, we should require users to have at least 1 contribution on another part of Wikipedia before they are allowed to vote in the AID. --Steven 21:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • If that's how you feel, then why did you vote "Support" above, in answer to the question "Should newbie users with no other contributions be allowed to vote?" You're supporting the option you oppose. -Silence 22:37, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This may be difficult to handle because we want to search whether he has made any contribution in the past. This is not a big deal, if an user wants to vote, he can make a single minor contribution in fraction of seconds. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:40, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
• Since I support this, I figure I might say something brief. I think a user with no other contributions (and I mean NO other contributes; someone with two or three article edits under his/her belt is fine with me) is a bad idea. It's just too suspicious. The AID is something you only find after a lot of time at the WP. -Litefantastic 22:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
  • One of the first places I found on Wikipedia was the AID, and I was attracted to it because I didn't have to edit an article itself; I had everyone else who voted on it to help me. But yes, I agree that any accounts without edits should not be voted, and that accounts with, let's say, at least 5 edits can vote. (^'-')^ Covington 02:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I have added not in the proposal according to the response. Shyam ^(T/C) 22:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I recommend only those registered usernames that have made at least one edit during any previous "Article improvement drive" (to the article being improved) can vote. WAS 4.250 22:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
      • The major problem in that case is maintenance. You will have to search every voter whether he has contributed on any article improvemnt drive project earlier. Shyam ^(T/C) 23:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Good point. I'm sure that we can have a template to show a link to the vote count like the user2 template, but this one would have a datestamp. And maybe we can have a bot scan the users? I'm sure that if we choose to support this, we can find a way to make it work. (^'-')^ Covington 02:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
          • The bot idea we'll have to wait until our resident AID bot maker to come and look over. On a side note, I apparently missed alerting a few people. Heh, sorry folks, my first time doing a vote. --Steven 03:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
            • S'okay. I made it here. That's what counts. :) (^'-')^ Covington 23:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Er.... thanks Shyam. Litefantastic, i moved your vote since you are agreeing with me..... sorry for the confusion people... --Steven 23:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

• I was actually thinking about this myself the other day. Signing up on Wikipedia is quick and easy, way too quick and easy for those that want to simply manipulate votes. If a user that has previously not paid any attention to an article votes, then their contributions should be checked to make sure they are not simply boosting numbers. Nobleeagle (Talk) 03:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I support in principle, but I also think we can handle this on a case by case basis. IF an article gets a lot of votes by users with few contributions we can take action, if necessary. --MarSch 08:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I see the rationale for the proposal -- but I'm uncertain whether I support its current parameters. Perhaps we should treat a registered user who has submitted several votes, especially over time, but who has not made other contributions, differently from a registered user who has only submitted a single vote. (I feel that the one-vote user is more likely a fake account than the multiple-vote user -- though I wouldn't be surprised if someone provides evidence to refute this view.) Also, should we count a comment as a contribution other than voting, so that a single-vote user that submits a comment would not be subject to deletion of the vote? --Scottwiki 14:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm not sure about the idea that they have a contribution in a comment, I have no strong opinions about that. However, here is the thing. What if the a person was too lazy to create a new account for every single vote he or she wants to double? Wouldn't they just make one account and use that? Besides, because they had no other contributions to the Wiki in the first place, they should not have been allowed to vote that first vote either ways, right? --Steven 14:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • We can fix a ratio (e.g. 15-20) between contribution to main space/wiki space (not associated with any kind of nomination vote) and voting for article improvement drive. But it would create an extra work for maintenance contributor. I am unable to seek any other feasible maintenace work, if you have some other sugestions for fixing a criteria, please suggest. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Does it have to be this complicated though? I mean, couldn't we just say, anyone that has less then __ contributions, may not vote? (Setting it at 3 contributions seems to be a reasonable amount, since we have to keep in mind of the newbies.) --Steven 20:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is little bit complicate. But according to your suggestions, after only 3 or such contributions an user is free to vote for AID as many times (s)he wants. We want to fix a criteria for avoiding such condition. An user can create one or more additional accounts in advance and when (s)he can vote accordingly when the user feels to vote. If we fix this type of criteria, what I mentioned earlier (s)he has to contribute before polling here. I think 3 is very less number for it. An user has to have little bit knowledge about editing articles here. We can fix the ratio equal to 10 which has total contribution in numerator. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • What you are saying is very detailed, however, if you say that for every vote a user puts forth, they must contribute to ten things. This means, one must then have at least 1000 edits under the belt before that person can vote 100 times. At the current number of nominations that gets churned up each week, 100 votes can easily be made withing 2-3 months, forcing the user to make an astounding number of contributions. As well, I believe that this discussion has completely veered off topic, in the sense that this vote is for a general agreement on whether there is such thing as an unqualified registered user. Should the detail of the qualification be on the judgment of whoever is maintaining the project that that time? Remembering that when a user is removed from a vote, he or she is placed under the Removed Votes section, and so if there is a disagreement for that paticular case, then people argue about it at that point in time, for this is more of a case by case problem. Certain users might make a big edit, while another user might make 10 small edits to achieve the same result. Quote from Wikimedia "It's quality, not quantity". --Steven 21:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
        • I am in agreement with Steven. Shyam, I am appreciating that you are looking at this from different angles, however, I do not believe that placing very strict requirements on who can vote is a good idea.

1) Yes I am biased against this; according to this rule, I'm not even eligible to vote more than three times. But bias aside, having a very strict vote requirements means that less people will be able to participate in the AiD.

2) As a n00b beginner Wikipedian (I just completed my first month here.), I was drawn to the AID because it gave me a chance to improve an article without having it to do it all alone; I had the other thirty voters to help me do that. I know I might be in the minority, but on the contrary I believe that the AID should be one of the first places a new Wikipedian should visit; they do not necessarily have to vote (and I suggest that they don't until they make two or three edits first), but they should have this opportunity to familiarize themselves with Wikipedia.

3) Some Wikipedians are more "readers" than "editors"; they use the Wikipedia too, and they should have a say on which articles they want improved.

4) We don't want to make it seem that the AID is controlled only by the Wikipedian "elite".

In short, while the voting requirements are a good idea, we should stick with votecounts between, say 3-10. This would let new users contribute, and if sockpuppets want to vote, they'll look suspicious anyway once we look at their contribs. If any of us feels suspicious about an individual user, we can deal with it on a case-by-case basis. (^'-')^ Covington 23:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• After mulling over this discussion, I believe that the rule should be something like: "A registered user may submit his or her initial vote on the Article Improvement Drive only if (1) the user has made at least one edit/post on Wikipedia other than voting or (2) the user submits a comment in conjunction with the vote." This would be a clear rule (without any need to resort to vote counts or ratios), which would allow new users to submit votes, but only if they do something other than mere voting. Accordingly, I oppose the proposal as currently written.--Scottwiki 23:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Wait, aren't you supporting my vote then? You say that the person voting must have a contribution of a comment (hence a contribution) OR another contribution to any other part of Wikipedia aside from voting. Is that not what my vote is saying? --Steven 20:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
    • My opposition is to the wording of the current proposal. I'm suggesting a redraft of the proposal. If you support the redraft, then I certainly support your view! -Scottwiki 21:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Er... what would you suggest as the new wording of the proposal? --Steven 22:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Why the "Er..."? ("Er..." seems to imply that I have missed something quite obvious, which I believe I didn't. Or does "Er..." mean something else? You used it earlier, apparently towards yourself, so perhaps I don't understand what you mean.) I suggested new wording at the start of this thread: "A registered user may submit his or her initial vote on the Article Improvement Drive only if (1) the user has made at least one edit/post on Wikipedia other than voting or (2) the user submits a comment in conjunction with the vote." I'd be happy to hear constructive suggestions about it. I'd also be happy to make it the subject of Vote #8, if Vote #7 is ultimately inconclusive. -Scottwiki 02:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
          • Here is why I used "er...". I believe that the two proposals say the exact same thing except for one small part. What my current proposal states is it anyone with only votes as contributions should not be allowed to vote. What your proposal states is that anyone with any other kinds of contributions, including a vote with a comment is allowed to vote. However, your proposal stills agrees with my proposal that anyone with no other contributions besides votes should not be allowed to vote. Remember that the details are not discussed in this vote, for its more of a case-by-case basis. --Steven 20:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
            • I believe that the current proposal is not clear, while my suggested wording is clear. I don't think that the rule should be interpreted on a case-by-case basis. I think, rather, the rule should draw a clear line between who may vote and who may not. Therefore, I do not support the current proposal, unless the proposal as implemented on the project page includes wording that is substantively the same as my suggestion. -Scottwiki 06:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
              • Very well, how about if I reword the proposal to the following: A registered user may submit his or her vote only after making a contribution on another part of Wikipedia. However, this contribution may not be for the purpose of voting.--Steven 21:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I now believe that, absent specific evidence of sock puppetry or other abuse of Wikipedia rules, votes by registered users made prior to placement of a new policy on the project page should count. At this point, the only voter qualification is to be "a registered user." Moreover, since some newbies gravitate immediately to AID, I don't think we can simply presume that a new account is a sock puppet. Accordingly, I recommend that we restore the votes by registered users that have been removed. -Scottwiki 09:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this, due to the fact that we do have a general agreement on the fact that a person with no other forms of contribution may not vote. --Steven 21:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I think, there is no meaning of such kind of proposal because if an user wants to submit a proxy vote by creating a new account, he can do a minor edit by this account before submitting his vote. This would not be a big deal to prevent proxy votes. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't want to prolong the discussion. I'll just say that I've made my proposal, and that until a proposal makes it onto the main page, the only qualification for voting (as stated currently on the main page) is to be a registered user. -Scottwiki 04:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• I believe we have a general agreement as of now, at this moment. If you wish me to hurry up and finish the vote, I'll gladly do so. However, I do wish to give a vote 10 days before passing it, and if you go and un-remove the removed nominations before the 10 days, then someone will have to go back and remove the users, which might I add, is quite tedious. --Steven 00:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Don't worry ... don't hurry.  :-) -Scottwiki 03:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, voting has been concluded, the motion has been passed, thankyou for voting folks, and your comments.--Steven 23:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote #5: Reelection

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)

23:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC) - Perhaps we should scrap this. There's no momentum left, there's no framework and 2/1 cannot be called consensus. -Litefantastic 23:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree, we should put in a tied result for this vote, and when Vote #8 is done, lets try a revote on this.--Steven 21:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

1. Litefantastic 20:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
2. (^'-')^ Covington 02:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Steven 20:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC) (Originally supported due to misunderstandings.)

[edit] Comments

• 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)
  • Make me an offer. I think it makes the most sense to only allow reelection to qualify for 'current' articles... but that's my opinion only. -Litefantastic 23:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • What I meant was, all those nominations that didn't make it, the ones that were removed, are they allowed to be renominated? And this is only in terms of the presend. --Steven 14:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a loose consensus for this. Does anyone have specifics to suggest? -Litefantastic 22:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a rule that articles may only be reelected after three months from their last nomination. This way, articles can get a second chance of being worked on (by possibly a different set of people), and there won't be the same articles every week (and therefore room for more articles in the AID). (^'-')^ Covington 04:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• I like the 'incumbent' idea better. My suggestion: if an article gets five additional votes in its week as AID, it can be the article for another week. If it gets ten additional votes during that week, it can go on to the week after that. Then 20, 40, 80, etc. That way an article could get renewed once or twice if people really liked it, but there would be no chance of it becoming a permanent autocrat. -Litefantastic 12:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • After doing so, other candidates might have to wait for a long time which we want to avoid. Shyam ^(T/C) 12:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The problem with Litefantastic's idea however, is that its not a second chance, it's more of an extended first chance.--Steven 14:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay. How do you suggest we reelect? -Litefantastic 14:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I would say, instead of 5 additional votes, candidate should have 8 additional vote at the time of current AID. We should limit the number of votes for a particular user at a time. Means, a voter can vote only three articles in the list at a time. Shyam ^(T/C) 19:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
      • After three-six months, we allow it to become re-nominated, IF someone wants to renominate it. Its not a must, but its allowed. --Steven 19:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Good ideas; I volunteer to split the difference. How about, after six months, an article can be renominated with eight (or whatever number you like) votes, to automatically overtake the leader. If there are more than one renoms, the one with the highest amount of support wins. As for the limit-three-votes idea, I think that should be a totally different vote. -Litefantastic 23:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• Couldn't we instead of having it over take the leader, just put it on as a normal nomination? (However, this might become a bit confusing with the removed page...) --Steven 01:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• You mean you could vote twice. -Litefantastic 12:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• I agree with that idea. --Steven 21:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• I second. (^'-')^ Covington 06:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, as long as everyone can vote twice. Let me make sure I have the rules right:

• Any previous AID or TWID article can be renominated, as long as it's been three months between the original candidacy and the renom;
• You can vote again on the remon, even if you voted for the article the first time around;
• I still don't get the "minimum 8 votes" bit; can we streamline that?

-Litefantastic 23:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Simplifying

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)

• Welcome back. The purpose here is to give old articles an edge in renomination. There's a consensus for that; we're just not sure how we want to go at it. -Litefantastic 23:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

• What you support is what you oppose: renominating after a reasonable wait and counting the earlier votes. -Litefantastic 01:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

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)