Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)