Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/COTM

Do we no longer do this?

This hasn't been updated in forever. Hazillow (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to correct page

I just noticed that I had set this whole page up in it's own discussion page, rather than on the template page. As a result, there was no page to discuss changes... Damn, now I will need to re-work the links. Banno 20:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight

Two of the changed rules refer to midnight - Who's midnight? Bet mine comes before yours! We simply don;t need that level of regulation, since there are only a few votes cast each month. Banno 21:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Default

See rule 4. Setting the philosophy portal as default when no article wins is pointless, since by definition there will not be sufficient people interested to work on it. Banno 20:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the month

The voters aren't pledging to work on whichever project wins?

Why not?

Go for it! 07:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why? And how could you possible enforce it? And why would I want to work on Innate idea if it possibly won? If folk want to work on a collaboration, they will; if they don;t they won;t, and that's just how Wiki works. Banno 20:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True, but we are talking about a sentence that uses the word "implies". If, after knowing the rules, a participant breaks them, that will reflect upon the participant. That's all the enforcement you need. But any participant who honors the policy is one more person to help out. Besides, it makes the voting more exciting. The prospect of getting everyone to work on your project is a strong incentive to nominate it. Go for it! 03:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should we "wipe the slate clean" at the beginning of a month?

Or should we keep votes from last month, to keep the ball rolling? Banno 20:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, scratch the votes, but keep the list of proposed article that didn't win as candidates for next month (unless someone notices they have been substantially improved). -Seth Mahoney 20:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Seth. --Michael ^(talk) 21:18, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Seth. It doesn't matter if an item has no vote. What matters is that there is a good variety of choices available. Go for it! 03:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But this results in items with no vote - A suggestion should have at least one vote! Banno 20:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We could just keep the original nominator's vote in place. But, I dunno. Why should a suggestion have at least one vote? -Seth Mahoney 20:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nomination should be independent of the vote. Why stifle the idea generation process? Go for it! 03:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simply as a way of removing extraneous nominations. Banno

I guess what I'm asking is, should we do that? Or should we just keep all the proposed articles and remove them only as they get cleaned up? Or maybe keep all the proposed articles and remove them only if they either get cleaned up or if they get zero votes during the last month (actually, I think I like that one better). That way, we would remove the votes every month, but keep the articles (unless they get cleaned up or get no votes). It should keep the list fairly manageable, and still give us something to work with each month. -Seth Mahoney 20:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's the question. Banno

We don't need to remove nominations. If the list gets cluttered with nominations that haven't been voted on in six months, we can talk about that six months from now. Go for it! 03:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Combine all voting areas into one?

For efficiency and convenience, maybe we should combine our voting areas, such as the collaboration voting page and the Star of Sophia voting page. We could name the new voting area the Town Hall. Combining would encourage more participation in the Star of Sophia program, and give it greater visibility at the same time. And if we came up with any other voting programs, we would have a centralized place to add them. Go for it! 03:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought of something: we could include it via tranclusion, and provide a purge button. That way we don't even have to get rid of the original page. I'm going to try it and see if anyone gives birth to a cow. Go for it! 04:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Make it ALL easily understood but still go in to detail n explain all big ass words! PCE

Tie breaker

I added a tie-breaker policy to the instructions, but there may be better ways of breaking a tie. Any ideas? Go for it! 21:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The candidate collaborations for February and/or March

Is it not time to declare a winner for January? If we merge the two last nominations, Baudrillard is after all one philosophical biography, this merged suggestion is a clear winner. But this seems to me to be a fairly large undertaking, should we give ourselves February as well for the completion of this task? --Thorsen 13:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see no reason that a topic cannot be re-nominated, even if it has already been a collaboration. So if someone wanted to, they could re-nominate the biographies for February, or [[Ethics} or Philosophy. Banno 19:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion for the next task is ethics. Some of the articles in this category, for instance virtue ethics and deontological ethics, should be made to conform to a higher standard. --Thorsen 13:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I vote for philosophical biographies for February Dbuckner 16:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]