Wikipedia talk:Unusual Collaboration of the fortnight

Primary discussions

Name

I first adopted the name Unusual Collaboration, then I've chosen Unusual Collaboration of the fortnight. But I think that an unusual collaboration needs an unusual name, so I'm open for suggestions.

Selection

I've chosen to make this collaboration forthnightly, but it's not the final policy. Please add your opinion about making it weekly, forthnightly, monthly, yearly? (every April fool's day), or more original every 13 days?...

I think stick with fortnightly for now, if it gets enough interest (and I reckon it could) I'd certainly like to see it become weekly. Although basing it on the Discordian calendar would be suitably unusual... the wub "?/!" 08:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pruning

What about the removal of nominations, should they stay forever? Or remove after how many weeks? Check the different collaborations for the different policies and comment here.

Template

Please could you post your proposals of templates displaying the nomination and the winners, They must be rather unusual and weird

What is an unusual article

Could you post your suggestions on the definition of an unusual article, to make nominations clearer?

Thank you.CG 06:37, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Unusual articles for a description and list of unusual articles. bbx 18:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should compile a list of those which are stubs, and also search are brains for any other weird and unusual articles. -- Joolz 01:40, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Scope?

I like this idea, in fact I had thought of doing something similar but got distracted by other things. One question, is this a COTW to work on non-existent and stub articles, or to work on fairly good unusual articles we already have to get them to FA status? Or perhaps a bit of both? the wub "?/!" 08:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of both. CG 10:03, August 25, 2005 (UTC)