Wikipedia talk:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight. 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.

Archive 1

Earliest comments

Does someone want to be designated administrator? I'm happy to put my hand up for the role, but would someone like to be my backup administrator (if you want me that is). - Ta bu shi da yu 08:36, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't mind, as you've done most of the work so far, but do we need one? Ambi 08:38, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, someone has to take responsibility for shift around the information into the /History pages, etc. And deal with disputes (I doubt these will happen). - Ta bu shi da yu 08:41, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I finish uni next month. So far no plans, so I reckon I'll have a lot of spare time to help ot with any stuff if you need back up on anything.--ZZ 04:02, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Excellent! Good to see enthusiastic people who are happy to help out :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 04:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not to rain on the parade, but is there really a large enough pool of voters for all this officialdom and redtape to be neccessary? I would have thought a more informal thing kept on the noticeboard page or a subpage would be enough. But seeing as this is here now, and I will reserve judgement, should non-Australians be allowed to vote?, are votes just votes or are they commitments to edit?, etc etc. T.P.K. 06:39, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think we need any rules, as such. It's just helpful to have a page to put forward potential ACOTWs, and perhaps someone to keep things working. Ambi 06:47, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Everyone should be allowed to vote!!!!! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:50, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, we are not elitist scum. Give the people what they want.--ZZ 13:33, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we block non-Australians because I think we are better than anyone else, or anything of the sort, it was only a musing. T.P.K. 13:44, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Templates

I've created Template:Australian COTW candidate to go with Template:Current Australian COTW. The syntax to get the link to the listing here is {{Australian COTW candidate|Thispage=Name of article}} T.P.K. 15:52, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Frogs go ladidada

What do you think of this??

Green and gold, Green and Gold?

Colouring in – any objections if I change the colours of the boxes to a more Oz green or golden? (just an idea - will present actual colour first)--ZayZayEM 14:28, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Looks ok, why not? T.P.K. 03:34, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cool. Its the same colours I'm using for my userpage's DYK box. It does look rather better your way round too.--ZayZayEM 05:43, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

History

I'd like to be able to format the history page in the same way that the main COTW does. Alas, I'm not sure of how to calculate the exact page size in the way that they do. Would anyone be able to do this?

I've also updated the ACOTW. Ambi 07:52, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think the way it's done is to copy the article text to a text editor that does word/character counting, and counting the characters. 1 char = 1 byte I believe. A quick check on Cyclone Tracy gives 15,895 at the end of Oct 2, up from 587 when the COTW template was added (though that's more than a week). That's counting spaces as characters, if you don't, it's 13,718 up from 521. That's also counting everything on the page, including categories, but I guess that's fine. T.P.K. 08:34, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sweet. It'd be nice to format that like the COTW does. Ambi 09:38, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I started it off - I included a wordcount as well as a bytecount (which was all characters, including spaces). The counts (and dates) were from the version immediately prior to the inclusion of the ACOTW banner and the version immediately after its removal. T.P.K. 10:04, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Great. Thanks a bunch! Ambi 10:54, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just to let you know

Hello!

This is a note to let you all know I've used some adapted coding from the Australian COTW to build the Magic Collaboration of the Week. Feel free to ask for credit for the coding. :) I'd like to invite you all to nominate some Australian magician's as the next Collaboration subject. Thanks for your time. (BTW who created most of this page?)

Sincerely, [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 19:33, Oct 3, 2004 (UTC)

I nicked most of this page from WP:COTW :-) You should thank them, not us! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:32, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What's happened to this weeks ACOTW?

Victor Chang seems to have fizzled. I've been kinda busy with the Strathfield article (I want to get this up to scratch), but will do research on it soon. Anyway, I've extended the ACOTW to try to give people someone leeway. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:47, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think extending it was a wise move. With Cyclone Tracy, remember that you and I wrote the bulk of the article, and a lot of other people then chipped in to add bits and pieces. I think it's going to end up having to be the same here, if this is going to work - although it'll be harder seeing that there's less information around. As I just mentioned on the notice board, I'm pretty busy for the next couple of days, but I'll start trying to expand this as much as I possibly can over the weekend. Ambi 08:08, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

~~I'm changing it to Royal Flying Doctor Service of Australia. winner with 5 votes~~ Ok now I f***ing confused with dates here. Are according to /History Victor Chang only started on October 3rd; and Cyclone Tracy is the ACOTW that lasted longer than a single week. If someone wants to sort my mind out, I'll be more than happy to monitor and update this page.--ZayZayEM 00:03, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We're a bit disorganised... I got busy and haven't been updating the page that frequently! If you want to help out, I'm more than happy to get some assistance here :-) It looks like the Victor Chang article didn't really proceed too far (I'm kinda tired and down at the moment so my research is suffering), but I still live in hope. Especially after the fantastic work that people did with Cyclone Tracy. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:51, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll give it till next Sunday anyway. I just think Chang wasn't as well known as he should have (I didn't really know who he was and I'm a pre-med student).--ZayZayEM 01:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just a quick Q – how am I supposed to work out the byte size and word count of the article? Import it to Word (which I feel is going to be innacurate) or is there another way?--ZayZayEM 02:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure myself! You might want to leave a message on Ambi's page. Hey, thanks for your diligence in looking after this page, by the way :-) - Ta bu shi da yu 03:20, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think part of the problem with Dr. Chang was that there simply wasn't that much material out there on the guy. --Robert Merkel 05:39, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

page-operation changes

I'm thinking we might change the pruning policy to remove anything which has not received any votes, except for its nominator (who I didn't think was allowed to vote) after 7 or so days. Anything that was previously being voted for but has not received any votes in the last two weeks will similarly be pruned. Comments?--ZayZayEM 00:22, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No objections here. Ambi 13:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I reverted TPK's change, because it adds unnecessary baggage to voting. Adding #~~~~ adds a number to the list, so it is quite easy to tally up votes. COTW doesn't do it, is there any particular reason why Australians can't count? I'd also like to know if people feel that people nominating should be counted in the votes for what they have nominated, COTW seems to do this, but other voting systems don't.--ZayZayEM 12:57, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I reverted again. It's not a big thing, but it just makes it easier to know which one is winning without having to scroll through all the noms. If you can't be bothered updating, just leave it for someone else to do. Ambi 13:20, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm reverting back. "Discussing" means having a discussion, reaching a conclusion then instigating changes.

The new system is pointless. It is not a "hassle" to look at the exact same number written a few lines down. Additionally it screws up the Template ACOTW-Candidate links.

Please do not make this an edit war.--ZayZayEM 14:59, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

People, I know you both mean well, and are both fully committed to Wikipedia. You are both valued contributors, who are quite mature in their dealing with the 'pedia. Perhaps we could cease reverting temporarily until we can work out what needs to be done here. I'm going to leave a message on both your talk pages. "We shall know peace in our time!" - Ta bu shi da yu 15:21, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's my 2 cents. I don't think it's neccesary to add the total of votes to the heading. They're numbered after all. Just make sure we haven't lost any votes in the reverts...and please, stop reverting unless the person who changed it hasn't shown up to discuss it after, say, 5 days. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|^(talk)]] 19:16, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

I just don't see what the big deal is. Two of us find it helpful, and if you don't, just ignore it! Ambi 04:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It breaks template links. My big issue it was done without any pre-consultation, if it had been this would have been brought up and it could have then been sorted out.--ZayZayEM 07:41, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't think it was so big a deal it needed dicussion first, though I concede I forgot about the templates (which I had created - shows how good my memory is). T.P.K. 08:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here I am, and my god, what controversy over an innocent little change! I made it to make it easier to tell which article was ahead, either from the TOC, or from quickly scanning the list, rather than scrutinizing each nomination. OK, it breaks the template links; for that reason, prehaps it should be changed, but I still would prefer a big total at the top of each nomination. For clarity's sake. I don't think anyone finds it an affront to their numerary skills, except maybe one or two. T.P.K. 06:14, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How do you propose it is instigated for TOC viewing without breaking the template links? Another issue I have is that people may be influenced by highlighting the realtive votes for each article.

It needn't be in the TOC then: I was referring to a number beneath the titles instead of in them. And if you're going to suggest that people may be influenced by seeing the number of votes, I suggest we make it a secret ballot. T.P.K. 08:01, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

We wouldn't be able to count them properly if it was secret. I guess I'd be cool if it was.

===EXAMPLE NOMINEE===

I mean this article should exist because my dog told me... -- User:Bob

'''Votes''' (3)

1. Bob

2. Bob_v2.0

3. Not Bob's sockpuppet

But then its not in the T.O.C and the 3. is just as easy to see--ZayZayEM 08:11, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't serious. T.P.K. 08:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pruning changes

" Nominations will be moved to /Removed if it has not received any votes in the first week (7 days) of being nominated (excluding the person who nominated it). If a nomination has been untouched (unvoted & uncommented) for over two weeks (14 days), it shall be likewise pruned. "

I have no problem with moving unvoted-for nominations, but I'm confused over this explanation. If a nomination recieves no votes within 7 days, it gets removed. If a nomination recieves no votes or comments within 14 days, it also gets removed. How does that work? Shouldn't it be the other way around? T.P.K. 08:16, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

its any period of untouched-ness for 14 days, not just the first two weeks. Maybe I (or you) could word it better?--ZayZayEM 01:40, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pruning:Take 2

This is the text from the bottom of the WP:COTW page. Should we move to a similar system for ease in nomination structure & pruning.

==To nominate an article, please click on "Edit" on the right.==  </nowiki>

if so what should the time frame of votes be?--ZayZayEM 02:56, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking 2 votes per 14 days, or 10 days if that seems to long. If noone comments by Dec 12, its going in (2 per 14days)

A new week begins

Wow. I guess I was a bit preoccupied with exams to do much last week. But hey - my degree (NOW FINISHED) is slightly more important than Wikipedia (don't hate me cos I'm beautiful).

This week appears to have a tie.

I'm going to create a new section and have a 24hr voting period. Users may only cast a single vote. Winner will be worked out tomorrow evening.--ZayZayEM 06:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ACOTW History

Just to make sure all the past ACOTWs are being examined in the same way, I suggest we come up with a specific, standard way of getting word/byte counts and diffs.

Should the word count include everything in the article source, or only what is visible on the page (i.e. excluding URLs or comments)? Should categories be included in the text?
Same with the bytecount, what part of the article should be counted?

I suggest that only the visible part of the article (excluding category links - but including everything else including equalsign titles and image captions) should be wordcounted, but that the entire source should be bytecounted; that the '- x times longer' should be calculated from the wordcount and not the bytecount, and that the diff should be from whatever edit the ACTOW banner was inserted in to whatever edit it was removed. Oh, and the bytecount is the number of characters, including spaces (which also count for a byte each).

I'm a stickler for standards is all. T.P.K. 07:57, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I cut and pasted the visible text into WORD. So all words that are visible in the article (excluding title, sometimes including cats - i now think they should always include cats + URLs). Byte count was on the same text, so pictures don't get counted. I tried saving the page as .html, but the numbers just didn't seem right (I think the non-article stuff just overshadows the article's size).--ZayZayEM 01:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

History of Australia

What would you guys think of using this process as a means of finally fixing our History of Australia articles? I think it'd be nice to pick a smaller timeframe (as we've previously discussed somewhat on the notice board), break it off from the existing two, and do it in depth as an ACOTW. They'd be topics that practically everyone could get involved in, and they shouldn't be too hard to get to featured status. Ambi 15:02, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Policy on candidates

Should stubs be the only candidates for ACOTW?

Support (stubs and pages not created only)

ZayZayEM 05:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose (any Australia-related articles)

Ambi 13:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
T.PK 17:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC) - with conditions, see my comment below.
What they said. Shane King 23:33, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
Martyman 23:58, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ta bu shi da yu 01:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Stubs, schmubs. Oska 08:18, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
Longhair | Talk 04:10, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments

I hope this generates some useful discussion. Alphax (talk) 13:03, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)
They should simply be Australian articles that aren't massively long, are seriously in need of lots and lots of work, leave plenty of room for expansion, could be made into a good featured article, and are open to being worked on by many people. It's silly to rule out articles that need help because someone added an extra two paragraphs while the page was on ACOTW. Ambi 13:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I assume that 'stubs only' includes pages that haven't been created yet? (Just to clarify). I personally think that 'only articles with scope for expansion' would be better - that would include nonexistant/stub articles, as well as longer articles which would not generally be called a stub, but still clearly could have much more work done. I voted 'oppose' for that reason - I don't think that articles with little room for expansion should be considered, even if they are on Australian topics. T.PK 17:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- See above. Australian articles with scope for expansion would be the perfect criteria. Alphax (talk) 03:45, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
  - It is just too vague. I am up for an "exceptions may be accepted" clause, but not for wholesale acceptance of non-stubs. COTWs should be about creating something great out of practically nothing. COTW counts stubs as "Two paragraphs or less of information or fewer than 1,000 characters". I think this is excellent criteria

- Articles with little room for expansion will be weeded out through lack of voting. They also will probably not fit because the wider community will not be able to contribute.
non stubs also appear to have a lack of clear direction. Part of the article is already set, and editors appear hesitant to tamper with that. With stubs, direction is created from scratch.Stubs I feel will simply be more successful--ZayZayEM 11:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I don't feel articles mostly comprising of Lists count as non-stubs.--ZayZayEM 11:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well I lost out big time on THAT...--ZayZayEM 12:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

End date

The next winner will be selected on Sunday, October 16, 18:00 (AEST). Really? :) What date does the next one finish.. I may not be able to make it to Port Arthur this weekend - maybe the weekend after. -- Chuq 05:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

errr.. sorry I haven't noticed that part of the text. Hopefully Port Arthur will finish somewhere between November 21 and 22 (Sunday/Monday). But that doesn't mean you should stop editing.--ZayZayEM 09:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Score Board

Just letting you all know that we are now listed on the collaborations of the week scoreboard. Martyman 00:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

how do they work out the tally of members, should we take a census?--ZayZayEM 12:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the case of the Irish COTW it seems to be the number of members of the Irish notice board (not a very accurate way of judging ICOTW involvement). Martyman 23:01, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

co-op article

(Discussion moved from Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal/Australia.)

Seems like Darwin has had a very long fortnight! I know there is supposed to be a voting scheme, but it doesn't seem to be happening, so seeing as Darwin has been up for about 6 weeks, I picked a new topic more-or-less at random and switched it over. Tannin 01:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

It probably would have been wiser to choose the leading candidate from the Wikipedia:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, which is Snowtown murders. Uncanny coincidence that they both contain "snow"... I'm happy for Snowy Mountains scheme to become the collaboration, but you should probably nominate it first. I'm just happy that the project is attracting new interest. Oh, and discussion about this should take place at the project's talkpage. --Cyberjunkie 07:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

No worries Cyberjunkie. Snowy Mountains Scheme was just a random choice - I was just tired of seeing Darwin all the time and thought it was time for a fresh one. I'm happy with whatever choice you, or the community more broadly, want to make. Change it by all means if you think best. My Wikipedia contributions these days are mostly minor copyedits and vandalism reverts (both by way of a busman's holiday when I run out of steam on a major project elsewhere, and need a break) but I'll try to do a little bit. (Well, not to the Snowtown murders - crime is a terribly boring topic - but somewhere along the line.) Tannin 08:27, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Good idea, Tannin. The COTF did inspire me to do a full day of research into Darwin-related topics a few weeks ago, so I'll probably rewrite large sections of the article soon (thus having the COTF will have actually helped things). There hasn't been much happening lately on the article, so it makes sense to keep things moving. Has it been changed on Wikipedia:Goings-on? Ambi 09:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh. I didn't think of that. Done. Tannin 10:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC).

Whilst we're on the topic of selection, would somebody be able to clarify what the proceedure actually is? I would have changed it over a while ago, but did not know how it is decided. Is it actually just changed by selecting the leading candidate?--Cyberjunkie 10:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Re-invigoration

Any ideas on how to re-invigoration of the ACOTF? Since Snowy Mountains Scheme was installed as the COTF, it has seen very little attention. Perhaps we need to change the nomination process or rid ourselves of a time period altogether and covert the collaboration into a focus on important articles or those that don't come under any WikiProjects. Is the ACOTF truly dead? There's little, if any active interest. Notwithstanding this, the premise of the ACOTF does remain attractive. -- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 28 June 2005 05:02 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that in this form, it is dead. I actually did do a lot of research for Darwin, and still intend to expand that when I get around to it, but it was a bit disconcerting that there was so little interest. Snowy Mountains Scheme, while a very worthy topic, really needed people who were prepared and ready to write on it - which it didn't have this time around. However, as we've seen with Australia - when people do agree to collaborate on an article, they can turn out some pretty amazing results. The COTW effect was the same - just over a longer period. I think it would be better to make this an indefinite collaboration - working on something until its either featured or people agree to change it. I also think it would be good to keep this in mind when selecting topics - Australia was perfect, but also obvious - we'd need to find ones in the same vein. Ambi 28 June 2005 10:34 (UTC)

Perhaps some Australians don't enjoy being coralled into a particular activity. I have contributed to the Snowy Mountains Scheme article in the past (before the tag was added) and will probably do so again. My husband worked on the Snowy scheme (as did his father and brother). We have driven through the mountains a number of times and the pictures illustrating the article are mine. I just don't easily contribute to order - contributing to the Wiki for me is a break from work. I like the idea of extended collaborations. Thus if one doesn't have one's own ideas about missing information and what one could contribute then fine go for the suggestions and priorities of others. In which case perhaps we need to have several suggestions. This of course is the function of the To do page. Perhaps this page needs to highlight articles which we are trying to get to featured article status as a subset of "To improve or expand" and give such suggested collaborations higher prominence.--AYArktos 28 June 2005 11:26 (UTC)

I, too, intend(ed?) to contribute to Snowy Mountains at some stage, but haven't gotten a round tuit yet. I have a book about it somewhere, so can add that as a reference, and perhaps some facts and info about the construction, but haven't found the opportunity to find the book, research something to add, and added it yet. Just not pushed hard enough by a COTWF, I guess. --ScottDavis 28 June 2005 12:01 (UTC)

Tie breaker process

The present tie breaking process is documented as a supplementary 24-hour voting period. I'd like to propose that the tie is resolved in favour of the earliest-nominated article, instead. Any thoughts? How did the 24-hour period work last year when it was invoked? --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:58, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

24-hour period works for me; it's probably easier now that this page doesn't attract as much attention as it did in its heyday. Ambi 14:03, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

break into 2

The history part of this (number of edits, when it was acotf) should be broken up into a separate article from the nominations, like how the history at Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/History doesnt show the nominations. Astrokey44 11:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

tie braker

It looks like there is a tie for eight votes each for the next ACOTF. According to the rules there will be a special voting round for the next 24 hours. Please vote for which one you prefer ---- Astrokey44|talk 13:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC):

Sydney Olympic Park

---- Astrokey44|talk 13:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC) the upcoming fortnight ends between christmas & boxing day (when the sydney to hobart yacht race starts), so perhaps the yacht race would be good for the next collaboration.
Alexxx1 Voting for the park--Alexxx1 01:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Harro5 04:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race

Agnte 13:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
cj | talk 13:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC) Given this is an upcoming event, it would be nice to have a decent article on it in time.
pfctdayelise 14:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
It would be good to have a reasonable article ready for when the race starts. If possible, it would be good to have a Sydney Wikipedian take a picture of the start and a Hobart Wikipedian take a picture of the finish. Capitalistroadster 17:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
A Y Arktos 19:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 22:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Although I would prefer to do the SOP article, I think the timing of the race means this one should goes first! -- Chuq 23:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race is the winner ---- Astrokey44|talk 13:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Promoting collaborations

Should we be nominating the longer articles for featured article status? I was going over the history and if eg. Waterfall Gully can be successfully nominated then I would think that some of these other articles (or future ones) would stand a reasonable chance. - Diceman 18:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Please click here to start a new topic

The current code for adding a new topic for collaboration is:

'''[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Australian_Collaboration_of_the_Fortnight&action=edit&section=12 Click here to add a new nomination]'''

It isn't working totally properly. I think because of the bit of code that says &action=edit&section=12. Why section = 12? I suggest replacing with the following code:

'''[{{SERVER}}{{localurl:{{NAMESPACE}}:{{PAGENAME}}|action=edit&section=new}} Please click here to start a new topic]

Any objections? The ssue might be that the heading level would be level 2 rather than level 3. Maybe it isn't broken currently, it is just my edit using the link didn't have the desired result, either heading level wise or placement. I think one cannot create a new level three heading with this method. One can however, put the new topic at the end. If level 3 headings are what we want then perhaps we should remove the code altogether.--A Y Arktos 10:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Is this the best place to suggest a new topic? I have been learning my way around by working on the To Do lists and came accross an international gay festival page that was well written. I looked at the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras page for comparison and found it to be woefully short on detail. I thought I would add it to the list for future collaboration. I have no vested interest, but the page seems worthy of attention. Cheers. Jen Powell-Psmith 10:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Just add your article suggestion to the main collaboration page (click on the project page link above). As you just voted for several articles I assume you're familar with the page as such. Add your article to those already listed and the votes will follow if your nomination has support. -- Longhair 10:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Australian Football Hall of Fame

This was put up as a collaboration about a month or so ago and received only 3 votes, and fair enough it was pruned recently. However, I was wondering why no-one posted any thoughts disapproving of the collab? Surely in the long time it was up there someone would have said something about it, saying why it was not suitable, but nothing was said...R o gerthat ^Talk 11:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

still no feedback at all...R o gerthat ^Talk 10:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe nobody disapproved, they just preferred other choices. The current Collab (It's Time) is proof that even before it gets selected, there can be a significant amount of work done if the idea tickles somebody's fancy. Others used to sit selected for weeks with no edits at all. The idea of pruning articles that don't get enough interest is to keep interesting onces rolling through, without getting bogged down. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Cyclone Tracy

I was looking over a featured article included as a feature for this Collaboration of the Fortnight and noted that it possibly isn't up to the standard of today's FA status. Should it be put up for delisted, I have a feeling it might succeed. Does anyone want to have a look at it and comment? -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

List of botanical gardens

I just noticed that quite a few Australian botanitcal gardens on this list are without articles - any one of them could make a good collaboration of the fortnight. ρ¡ρρµ δ→θ∑ - (waarom? jus'b'coz!) 03:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight

There may be the occasional thing people here would want to contribute to on Wikipedia:New Zealand Collaboration of the Fortnight. I was thinking that at some time we should have a joint collaboration, maybe something around ANZAC?

WikiProject Biography

Let us know if you happen to pick an article on a person and we'll alert our members! plange 05:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Broken process

The ACOTF process is a little broken in places. I've just removed about 15 ACOTF candidate templates from articles talk pages that were not listed for consideration on the main ACOTF page itself, some posted as far back as 2004. I briefly mentioned to User:ScottDavis (who usually keeps the ACOTF up to date for our benefit) a few weeks back about overhauling the ACOTF process and suggested a merge into the WikiProject Australia banner system. The WPAUS banner works fine and already supports the ACOTF. I'll see what I can do tonight to make the ACOTF more intuitive and easier to manage for all concerned. If you have any questions regarding my edits, feel free to ask. I'm open to new ideas. -- Longhair\^talk 10:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been travelling (and will be again next week), so apologise for having let things slip a bit. My only redeeming claim is that I've added a bunch of new photos to articles from my travels. I updated the expiry dates for nominations to allow for my slackness. I like the idea of using the {{WP Australia}} template with | collaboration-candidate=yes instead of {{Australian COTW candidate}}. It still requires us to notice if somebody adds the parameter but doesn't post the entry here or vice versa, and monitor for cleanup, but there is no way to automatically tally the votes and voter comments via the category. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)