Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive/Archive/January31

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've copied this from WP:AID and made the following changes (and possibly others I've forgotten):

  • Any article with two votes stays on (to be changed when we get a few more articles on there)
  • Stubs can be nominated (the project probably isn't big enough yet to support multiple collaborations)

CTOAGN 10:04, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Contents

Templates

If anyone's looking for something to do, we could do with football versions of the AID templates to put on the talk pages of nominated articles.

CTOAGN 10:05, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Decisions, decisions

There are a few things I didn't think of when I set this up, so could I have a few opinions on the following please?

  • Whose votes should be counted? Everyone's/only users with logins/only project members/etc?
  • What should we do when there's a tie?
  • Should we ask people to strike out their votes when they feel an article no longer needs to be here or switch to a minimum N votes per week system like on WP:AID?
  • Any logged in username, I reckon - project members only would be too exclusive IMHO.
  • How about do the first one that was nominated, but automatically set up the second one as the next collaboration?
  • Not quite sure what you mean - can you expand? Qwghlm 17:22, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, could have made that clearer. The idea of using this system was to allow articles to stay as the COTW for as many weeks as necessary, to solve the problem of not knowing whether to make it weekly, fortnightly or monthly. We'll need some way of deciding that an article has been nominated for too long and it's time to get rid of it. On the main AID they remove nominations when the number of votes they've had is less than 3 times the number of weeks they've been on, so they need to keep getting votes to stay on. That would obviously be too much for this one; maybe one vote per week might be okay though? Alternatively, we could just keep the same article on the Football AID until we feel ready to put it through peer review, or come up with some other system. I don't have a strong preference myself so I'd be interested to see what everyone else thinks we should do and see if there are any other ideas. CTOAGN 20:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Brazil

Following the votes, I've taken the Brazil national football team and made it this week's collaboration - so please join in and contribute! Qwghlm 10:00, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

I feel quite bad for not having contributed to this weeks AID after nominating it, but I'm temporarily without internet access at home. I should be able to get involved next week.

Also, thanks to whoever did the banners. CTOAGN 20:43, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Various updates

The page seemed to be stagnating, with nobody updating the current article, and pruning, so I've taken the liberty to move Bobby Charlton to the current improvement drive. I also updated the format of the page quite substantially. I hope people like it better like this. Seems clearer to me. Jacoplane 13:23, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Restarting the drive

I'm restarting the drive as per discussion on the Project talk page. The first nomination is being made today, though it is Tuesday. But we'll end the voting next Sunday (January 1, 2006), like always. -Aabha (talk) 09:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty of moving FIFA to the Removed Nominations page. Please renominate it if you feel it should be taken up. -Aabha (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Selection system

As far as I understand the article nomination and selection system at WP:AID and WP:COTW, it's that:

  • an article can be nominated at any time,
  • every Sunday an article with the most support votes is selected,
  • an article must gain 3 votes per week to stay in the list

If the same system is meant to be used here (with the correction of 2 votes per week due to lower expected popularity), I think something needs to be corrected.

  1. One week from December 27 is January 3, so, for exapmle, Bobby Charlton needs 2 votes by January 3.
  2. I don't understand the meaning of links to dates in the header (next to articles' names).
  3. As articles gain support, numbers of needed votes are increased and the deadlines are extended.

For example, it's safe to assume that Football World Cup will be selected on January 1. It will be moved from the list, but other articles will stay at least until January 3, when those with less than 2 votes will be removed. But if another article suddenly gains more support than Football World Cup by January 1, it will be selected, and Football World Cup will stay in the list. With (now) 11 votes of support, it has warranted its presence it the list for long if not selected (needs 2 votes by January 3 can be changed to needs 12 votes by February 7 - +10 votes, +5 weeks. Is that OK? Conscious 07:17, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty much how we do things over at WP:GCOTW. When pruning (removing articles), they should be added to the Removed page. Previous collaborations should go on the History page. Though that history page might be better looking more like the GCOTW History page. I don't understand those dates next to the article names either, we don't have that on the GCOTW either. Jacoplane 10:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I've redone the History page in the way the GCOTW one is done. Anybody has any ideas about what to do with the details for Bobby Charlton? It had the Football COTW template on it from the time it was selected (on September 15) till I changed it to the Nomination one on December 27, so I'm not sure what all edits to take into consideration. -Aabha (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
I originally set it up, so I'll tell you what I had in mind at the time. We can, of course, change any of the details:
WikiProject Football was still quite small at the time (probably <10 people) so we couldn't decide whether a weekly, fortnightly or monthly project would be best. I decided to use the voting system from AID as it means the amount of time that an article stays selected varies depending on how popular it is. AID requires 3 votes a week, which would have been far too many with so few participants, so I set the bar as low as possible by requiring 2 votes to stay on. The idea was to increase it to 1 vote/week when we had enough articles/interest in the collaboration but it didn't really get that far.
I'd suggest requiring one vote a week for now, going up to 2/week when we get too many articles staying on with no chance of being selected and taking it from there. As for Bobby Charlton, if no-one else votes for the article, it can just drop off the list, same as any other article that doesn't get enough support. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Can we please see the response for the first week and then decide if we need to change the "staying on the list" criterion and whether the AID should be weekly/fortnightly? I understand the concerns that it might not turn out to be very popular, and hence more liberal rules, but lets get to that point first. About Bobby Charlton, what I meant was its details in the AID History page. We need to put in things like, how many edits in how many days, and I don't know what all edits to consider since it still had the Football COTW template on its page when I renominated it on December 27. -Aabha (talk) 18:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean 2 votes during the first week, and 1 vote dunring any of the following? That's also OK with me, but maybe a bit loose. FAID seems to become fairly popular, with no less than 20 people voting during the past four days (thank you Aabha). Conscious 18:43, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Voter template

This is an idea:

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote.

[[]] has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Any improvements/changes/comments? -Aabha (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Is this for users who have voted for this article, or for all who have voted? If former (I think it should be so), may be "[[]], the article you have voted for, has been selected..."? Conscious 11:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

This is for all those who have voted. I don't think we should thank only those users who vote for the article that is chosen, but everyone who has voted that week. Whatever the chosen article, the point is participation. And everyone who wants to is going to work on the chosen article, not just who vote for it, isn't it? -Aabha (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, and I think that people who voted for a chosen article should be notified even if they voted several weeks ago, not just the last week. Conscious 14:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Football World Cup

As per the voting (17 votes), Football World Cup has been made this week's collaboration. So lets get working! -Aabha (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Tie

We've had a tie this week between Bobby Charlton and List of football (soccer) clubs. I wasn't sure what to do in this case as this is the first we've come across. I've followed what Gaming Collaboration of the week does, that is

In case of a tie, voting will be extended for 24 hours. If there is still a tie, the candidate that was nominated first wins. During the extended voting period the old collaboration should still be active. In the case of extended voting, the collaboration period will be reduced to 6 days.

Should we follow this? Does everybody agree on the fairness of the process? -Aabha (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

No objections. Though "In case of a tie, the candidate that was nominated first wins" would be a simpler rule. Conscious 12:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, just the "first nominated", without 24 extra hours of voting, seems easier to have. -- Elisson • Talk 14:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I went ahead and added this version to the project page. Conscious 08:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Leaving articles on for a fortnight

It's great to see so many people getting involved in the AID, but I've noticed that the articles that are chosen aren't having that much done to them (I know, sofixit). One way round this would be to make the project fortnightly but I think too many articles are being nominated for that. So I suggest that we leave articles on for a fortnight and continue to vote weekly, giving us two articles at a time. That will give us time to get more work done on the articles that are nominated and also increases the chance of each person in the project having at least one AID that interests them. Thoughts? Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, specially after the response to Bobby Charlton :( -Aabha (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I quite like this idea. We get more time to work on articles, and there is a new article every week to sustain interest as well. What does everyone else think about it? -Aabha (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Renominating articles

Bayern Munich (womens' section), which had a total of one vote, has been renominated a few hours after being removed for lack of interest. This is ridiculous. I'd like to suggest a rule that failed nominations be left for at least month before being re-listed, otherwise we'll end up with loads of articles with 1 or 2 votes clogging up the list. The whole point of removing failed nominations is to prevent this. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It was on the verge of more votes when it was deleted. The deadline needs to be extended to maybe 10 days or a couple weeks. Kingjeff 19:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Was it? Why then has no one more than you voted now? The deadline is just fine, the meaning, as CTOAGN says, isn't to have 1-2 vote articles filling the page. One month before renomination seems fine. -- Elisson • Talk 19:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

There was discussion on the previous nomination which indicated that there could have been more votes given an extra week. Kingjeff 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Still, a nomination that needs two weeks to collect two votes is not popular enough to become a FAID, in my opinion. -- Elisson • Talk 20:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you going to let the discussion surrounding a nomination go for nothing? The point is let the discussion come full circle before deleting the nomination. Kingjeff 20:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand what you mean? The first nomination was removed because it didn't fulfill the criteria to remain nominated. Is that hard to understand? Then renominating the same article is not good manner. Can you also direct me to the "discussion on the previous nomination which indicated that there could have been more votes given an extra week"? -- Elisson • Talk 22:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
If you mean that we should archive old discussions from here, it wouldn't be a bad idea. I can't remember if we already do that or not, if not we can set up an /archive page or something. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The point is is that if it's being debated why take it off? In the case of Bayern Munichs' womens' squad it was 1 vote plus being debated. There was potential for more votes. If there was no disscussion going on then you would be absolutely right. Kingjeff 23:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Where was the debate? -- Elisson • Talk 23:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Under comments. In the 1st nomination. Kingjeff 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Eh? I only found this:
Where does anyone state that they might vote for the nomination? Punkmorten seems to be somewhat against the nominee even having a separate article, and the other person involved in the "discussion" is me, and I had no thought whatsoever on voting for the nomination, I just wanted to say that I think the women's team deserve its own article. I consider this discussion finished. -- Elisson • Talk 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course not. Or they would have voted. The discussion was obviously debating both point of views and I would have added given more time. Kingjeff 03:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I still can't see where this debate was that you mention. There was nothing here, there's nothing on your talk page and the article doesn't have one. The requirement for an article to stay on for a second week is for it to receive one vote other than the nominator's in its first week. Given the number of votes that are being cast, that's not much to ask is it? Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The articles that are taken off from the vote are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive/Removed, alogwith the votes they have received, and any discussion that might have taken place under their nomination.
Kingjeff, nobody is stopping you from nominating articles again, but its only fair that there be a time-gap between renominations. If the article failed to receive enough votes in a week, its highly unlikely that it will do so the very next week. -Aabha (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

That's under the assumption that no disscussion has happened on that paticular article. Kingjeff 15:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. I know very well what discussion you're referring to. But unfortunately, "discussion" does not equal "votes". Can you please clearly state what your argument is? The comments under nominations are not for deciding whether an article should be nominated, or if it should stay on the list. If it gets the votes, it stays. If it doesn't get the votes, it goes. Its that simple.
How can we assume that the discussion that you're talking about would have led to more votes. There is just no logic behind that. -Aabha (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I never said disscussion = votes. But the thing is that discussions should be complete before deleting nominations. I never said that discussion would lead to votes. I said that it could.Kingjeff 17:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion in question roughly went: "I don't think this should even have an article", "I think it should but I'm not voting for it." That was it. No part of that discussion suggests that people were suddenly going to start voting for the article after ignoring it for a week. If hardly any votes had been cast all week I could see a case for making an exception but there were loads of votes last week. As far as I could see, the discussion looked complete anyway. I don't see a real problem with leaving it on seeing as it's just one article and there was no rule in place about renoms at the time, but the idea of renominating an article immediately after it's kicked off is silly, especially when the only way it could have done any worse is if you'd forgotten to vote when nominating it. It might be worth working on it and seeing if people want to join in later on when there's a bit more content though. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

New Users

I just noticed that User:Hargreavesfan has only made edits to pages with votes in progress. There is nothing to suggest this isn't allowed, but perhaps it is something we should think about. Oldelpaso 22:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It's only made votes to pages Kingjeff has voted on. I wonder what the odds of that are. Image:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
And (s)he's only ever made any "contribution" to pages which Kingjeff has "contributed" to. I'd say do not count those votes unless User:Hargreavesfan has a good reason for us to do so. -- Elisson • Talk 23:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't voted for La Liga. Hargreavesfan hasn't voted Galatasarayand F.C. United of Manchester. Even though all of you are wrong I still love the attention. Kingjeff 01:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that as Hargreavesfan (talk • contribs) only contibutions so far are votes, we should discount all of them. Conscious 13:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Football_Article_improvement_drive_Archive_January31_8ffd.html"