Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week/Archive 2

< Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

This page contains old talk from 20 July to 12 August 2004, archived from Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week, then known as Wikipedia talk:Article of the week.

Classifying Weeks

Little Rock Crisis, which I nominated two days ago, is now in Week 2. This seems pretty unfair - if I'd nominated it a day later, it would've had an extra week to gain votes, and would've had a much better chance of survival. Shouldn't this take into account nomination dates? Ambivalenthysteria 10:31, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should, as the same thing happened to diplomacy which I just nominated. The weekly window needs to be a "sliding window" based on date of nomination like VfD. --Lexor|Talk 10:37, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'll check - it has been a sliding window for the past week or so, when I have had a chance to update it. I think the "Week 1" marker was edited to "Week 2" by User:Pjamescowie removed when he edited to select Cairo. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The "Week x" caption is not very useful for the pruning system we use at the moment. I second Lexor's idea. --Conti|✉ 14:57, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. There has been some discussion (see #Pruning Policy above) about whether the pruning window should slide or whether pruning should be done only once per week. I think the consensus was that the window should slide; this is what I have been doing when I have had the chance to update the page, and I think this is what AOTW says at the moment (A nominated page will be pruned after 7 (14, 21, etc.) days on the list if it has not received 4 (8, 12, etc.) votes. See the talk page for discussion of the pruning policy.).
Are there any candidates at the moment that you think should be pruned, or recent prunings that you object to? Or should AOTW be more explicit? Or are you saying that you don't think the weekly classification helps? I think is does, since, when updating, you only need to check whether the articles at the top of each "week" heading have gone past another 7 days. -- ALoan (Talk) 18:05, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I was going to propose the use of a "Month Day" caption instead of "Week x", but now the latter one seems much better to me.. I don't really know what I thought as I wrote my comment above, so simply ignore it ;-) --Conti|✉ 18:30, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
On reflection, a "Month Day" heading could work just as well. Would it be more consistent with how things work elsewhere (such as VfD)? -- ALoan (Talk) 23:34, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I have put in the dates of each week. Hope this helps. Medieval warfare is now in Week 5, but I am calling it Week 4 for now. I am thinking of mentioning the number of votes needed to 'graduate' to the following week. Is it '4 x N' votes to get to the Nth week ? (assuming the first week is Week 0.) Do we count half weeks and extrapolate ? Right now, it's not a good idea to nominate articles on a Friday or Saturday ....
Yes, i think there are candidates to prune: Haute couture would be the first to go. Saint Thomas, United States Virgin Islands and Esoteric knowledge would probably be next, due to the lack of votes.[Obviously, I can't count ... :-( ... -- PFHLai 20:41, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)] What is the best way to move them to the archive ? Any bots to remove the {{AOTW}} tag from the respective talk pages ? -- PFHLai 22:25, 2004 Jul 19 (UTC)
Thanks, but see the discusion above in #Pruning Policy - I'm not sure that adding dates for the weeks is the right way to go. Pruning is (presently) done on the basis of a sliding 7-, 14-, 21- (etc.) day window to avoid the problems with nominations at the end of a week having less time to get votes than nominations at the beginning of the week, and the "week 0" thing. But yes, this has been done recently on the basis of needing 4 votes after 7 days, 8 votes after 14, etc. As Conti suggests, it may be better to add headings for the day on which an article was nominated instead of the "week" anyway, to avoid this confusion. I move them to the archive by cutting pasting (see discussion of #Weekly updates below) but please let me know if there is a better way. No bots as far as I am aware. I have no idea how you would even start doing that. -- ALoan (Talk) 23:34, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ooops. Is the 7-day window fixed or floating ? I thought the 7-day period is fixed, beginning and ending at 18 h UTC on Sundays. If floating, there is some housekeeping to do every day ? How about this: No pruning of any nominations after their first week (week 0). All candidates, no matter what day of the week it was nominated, survive and graduate to Week 1 on Sunday. At the end of Week 1, i.e. after a minimum of 7 days and a maximum of 13 days, those not getting 4 votes will be pruned. Fair or not fair, 7 to 13 days gotta be long enough to determine a candidate's worthiness. Surviving candidates graduate to Week 2, and will need 8 votes (2 weeks times 4 votes per week) to graduate from Week 2 to Week 3, and so on. This way, all housekeeping gets done on one day. And no one, hopefully, would complain his or her nomination did not get enough time to garner support. And I think this is simpler than checking the day of nomination of each candidate each day, which, to me, is a little too much work. (I am lazy .... but I ain't doing the pruning, why should I complain ? ... )
Never mind about the bots. Some things gotta be done manually .... -- PFHLai 05:04, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)
That was what I had suggested above, but on reflection I think it is fairer to have a floating 7-day window. I'll edit to put in the day of nomination as a heading, and see how it looks. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:05, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Nice work - I think it looks (and works) much better now. I also think it's fairer to have the floating 7-day window. Otherwise some articles could end up with six more days to collect votes than others. Ambivalenthysteria 10:57, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a lot clearer now. Good formating. I hope someone is updating this every day.
The fixed 7-day window only applies to pruning, right ? As the votes are tallied only on Sundays to determine the weekly winner, some candidates will still have up to 6 more days to collect votes than others nominated in the same week. We will never be completely fair. -- PFHLai 20:41, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)
Thanks. Re: updating - well, lots of people look at it every day, and everyone is an editor, right? I update it when I can, but so can you, and so can anyone else. That is the Wikipedia way, no? ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 09:28, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes, ... This lazy Wikipedian confesses: I sometimes look the other way when a revision or an update on screen is staring at me ..... :< ... BTW, on the page where we vote to give out for adminship, the number of votes needed by a certain date for each candidate is mentioned prominently. I wonder if we can/should do the same, instead of just showing "Week N". -- PFHLai 04:56, 2004 Jul 23 (UTC)

I'd not seen that before, but it looks like a pretty good idea. My only concern is that it might clutter up the headings a bit. If I have time, I might try it out (please feel free to give it a go yourself, of course). -- ALoan (Talk) 10:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nicely done, ALoan. :-) I think the added info may prompt/urge people to vote earlier...
I thought about your "clutter up the headings" problem. I considered putting the info (1) next to "Support" and above the votes, (2) as the first "Comment", but couldn't make up my mind. It looks fine now. The clutter in the TOC box isn't that bad, I suppose. -- PFHLai 12:54, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)

Weekly updates of AOTW

I thought it would be useful to explain what needs doing when a new Article of the Week is selected. The new AOTW is selected at 18:00UT on Sunday. The following steps should be taken:

  1. Update AOTW: delete the votes for the new selected article, replace the reference to the previous AOTW at top of the page, and update the date when the next AOTW is selected.
  2. Delete {{AOTW}} from the top of the talk page of the new AOTW and add {{Current_AOTW}} to the top of the article for the new AOTW itself.
  3. Update the AOTW entry in Template:Opentask
  4. Update /History by adding the new AOTW and the number of votes that it received.

I may have forgotten something, so please remind me! -- ALoan (Talk) 11:14, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't forget updating the AOTW section of the Community Portal! :) Tom- 21:24, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oh - I didn't know about that one - thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:23, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

AOTW no longer at Template:Opentask

Please note that the AOTW entry in Template:Opentask has been deleted by User:Jiang earlier today. I disagree with the removal. I did bring up the issue that the template has grown too big, the AOTW line has never been the line I wanted to take off. If you feel strongly that the AOTW should be back on the Template:Opentask, please consider posting your comments at Template talk:Opentask. -- PFHLai 02:00, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

Naming

Am I the only one who thinks that Article of the week is not a very good name? Wouldn't something like "Challenge of the week" be a better name? Ausir 18:53, 27 Jul 2004

Yes. I got it completely backwards first time I saw the page too - David Gerard 20:57, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I think that's a much better name. People like a challenge. Article of the week makes you think is is an special article or almost synonymous with featured article. The only reason its called article of the week is you, Ausir, weren't there to suggest a better name when we were thinking up this idea of having an article a week to focus on. I'd support a change to challenge of the week. - Taxman 23:54, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
I was also confused by the AotW name. Thue | talk 22:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I quite like "challenge of the week" (it's a lot less confusing than "article of the week"), but are there any alternatives? — Matt 01:01, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
How about Sponsored article of the week? --Phil | Talk 09:02, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
Nah, some newbies might think we're being sponsored by someone. Ausir 09:59, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If people are finding the current name confusing then I agree that a change of name would be a good idea, although it seems that Wikipedias in other languages call similar inititives "Article of the Week" though - see the comment by Angela near the top. Not that this should stop us changing the name if we want to. -- ALoan (Talk) 09:56, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Not all languages - it's "Quality offensive" in German. Ausir 09:58, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oh please, can you imagine what some could make of that? <TROLL>Hey, the guidelines say it's OK to be offensive!</TROLL> ;-)) --Phil | Talk 11:00, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, AotW is an extremely confusing name. Challenge of the Week is a good start, but it's sort of corny. Johnleemk | Talk 12:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about Collaboration of the Week ? -- PFHLai 12:44, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)
Or Makeover of the Week ? Of course, I'm joking ..... :-) -- PFHLai 21:26, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC)
Just noticed the {{expansion}} tag - Article expansion of the week? (I quite like Collaboration, actually.) -- ALoan (Talk) 13:42, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Project of the week sound good? The name gives it a certain importance. —siroχo 00:07, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, yes, Project of the week is just right. Excellent idea. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:22, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Would the word Project get us mixed up with WikiProjects ? -- PFHLai 12:59, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

I personally "This Week's Editing Drive" or "Weekly Article Barn-Raising." (Though like "Challenge of the Week" sound fine, too. Neutrality 05:30, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd support a name change, too. I was confused by the name as a newbie, myself. How about a vote? I've put together a vote section, to be moved to the main talk page if everyone's okay with it. —Benc (talk)[[]] 04:21, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
As no one's objected to my call for a vote, I went ahead and added it to the talk page, and listed the vote on Wikipedia:Current surveys. I also added a second question to it, about tie-breaking. Might as well kill two birds with one stone. —Benc (talk)[[]] 04:41, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Charity case of the week would be the obvious name choice. But anything similar to that would be better than "Article of the week", which appears as if the article is being honored due to its merit for some reason. --mav 07:07, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I personally think Makeover of the Week was the best of the ones so far suggested. Ambi 04:13, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Haha... Thank you.... I meant that as a joke. :-) The word Makeover may be passé within a year or so. But if you really like it, please vote in the "Votes" section below. Thanks. -- PFHLai 08:53, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

Archiving

As the page was over 46k, I have moved old (pre-June) comments to Wikipedia talk:Article of the week/Archive 1. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:42, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Up to 42k so trimmed again. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:39, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Remove restriction?

Should we remove the rule that states articles must be a stub or non-existent? People keep nominating articles which merely aren't good enough. I would be a bit worried that we'd be flooded by nominations, the current list of proposed articles is already rather longand unwieldy. Tom- 21:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep it, if only because it keeps nominations down a bit! If a nomination is clearly non-stub then is can be deleted from the list quickly (although this has not happened for a while - I think Dick Cheney was the last). Perhaps we need to be a bit more ruthless.
On the whole, I think the articles that have been selected so far have been about right and have turned out reasonably well too. -- ALoan (Talk)

Baghdad and Renaissance are tied. What is the tie-breaker ?

Right now, Baghdad and Renaissance are tied at 21 votes. What is the tie-breaker ?
I can even vote for Livestock to get a three-way tie ! What shall we do ?
-- PFHLai 19:25, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

Hmm, Renaissance gathered the same amount of votes in a shorter time period.. --Conti|✉ 19:42, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)
I know, but does seniority count ? Baghdad was nominated earlier. -- PFHLai 19:46, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
I would say go with the older one. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 19:48, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
Agreed. Tom- 19:51, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For the record (unfortunately I was away over the weekend) and as Sverdrup points out below, the AotW page has for a long time stated that the first one nominated wins in the case of a tie. This would have been Baghdad. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ouch .... I didn't see that sentence till now -- I must be blind or something. :-( -- PFHLai 02:19, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)


Without counting myself, we have:

  • one (1) vote for Vote-Collecting Efficiency
  • two (2) votes for Seniority

I think we need more votes here. I'll post a note at the Wikipedia:Village pump.

BTW, perhaps we should establish some policy here today for future tie-breaking, using today's event as precedence. -- PFHLai 22:32, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

Yes! -- ALoan (Talk) 21:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Renaissance has received a 22nd vote after the Sunday 8 August, 18:00 (UTC) deadline. Baghdad still has 21. Should we count this late vote, or should we take this as the tie-breaker ? -- PFHLai 23:00, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

I've also added my vote to Renaissance - I thought I already had, but I must have overlooked it. I think we should count the late votes - and do this in future as well. Ambi 23:28, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I think a deadline must be just that, and votes after the deadling should not be counted. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'll say something I know will be controversial, but we should get someone to investigate IPs, Juwel may be a sock-puppet vote for Baghdad, since he has but 3 edits to his name, all aug 8, including the vote. —siroχo 02:38, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

Hmmm... this is indeed suspicious .... Good detective work, Siroχo !  :-)
The votes keep coming in. Now, Renaissance leads Baghdad, 26 to 21, User:Juwel included, to give him/her the benefit of the doubt. I guess I'll wait a couple of hours.

I don't have the authority to do this, but let's set an arbitrary cut-off at Aug 9, 2004, 06:00(UTC). Whichever page that has more votes at that time wins. If it's a tie again (unlikely), I'll pick the older nominee, i.e. Baghdad, based on the 2:1 voting above. Please feel free to further comment here on this talk page. -- PFHLai 03:58, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. Sometimes you just gotta take action. For future ties, though, we should vote on a tiebreaker policy (see below). —Benc (talk)[[]] 04:35, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Time's up. Renaissance beats Baghdad, 26 to 21. -- PFHLai 06:09, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
Well, such is life. Baghdad should have won, but Renaissance is a worthy winner and Baghdad stands a decent chance next week, although Livestock and Space race may give it a run for its money. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:45, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Apologies

I would like to apologize to everyone who had voted for Baghdad, and I would like to thank all those who helped out last night/this morning. I hope Baghdad wins this coming Sunday.

As self-punishment, I'm banning myself for the rest of the month (effective after I handle a small request sitting on my talk page).

Bye. Happy editing, everyone.

-- PFHLai 02:19, 2004 Aug 10 (UTC)

Oh! Please tell me that you are kidding, or going on holiday anyway or something - these things happen and I wouldn't want you to take any of it personally. Being bold is our watchword, and that means getting the odd thing or six wrong. I sure have :) -- ALoan (Talk) 02:31, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)


I'm still around..... I'd spent more time on the unnecessary tiebreaker than doing real work that night, so I figured I'd better shut myself down for a short while. -- PFHLai 12:44, 2004 Aug 20 (UTC)

Vote

This vote addresses two separate issues that have cropped up lately on Article of the week. The vote ends on 23:59, 18 August 2004 (UTC) (Wednesday).

Issue 1: Renaming

Background: some Wikipedians feel that "Article of the week" is a potentially misleading name. The wording may lead new Wikipedians to erroneously assume that the AotW page is another way of showing off featured articles to readers, similar to "Today's featured article". In fact, it's quite the opposite! The AotW page exists so that article editors may collaborate on one article per week, bringing it from stubhood to featured article-quality.

Question: what should this page's name be? Please vote for your favorite name(s), and/or add your own suggestion.

Votes

  • Maintain the status quo. (Article of the week)
  • Article expansion of the week
  1. ALoan (Talk) 14:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Challenge of the week
  1. • Benc • 05:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Sean Curtin 05:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. ALoan (Talk) 14:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Zoney 17:18, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Acegikmo1 23:53, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 20:49, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)
  • Charity case of the week
  • Collaboration of the week
  1. • Benc • 05:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:20, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  3. PFHLai 06:42, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC) (Gotta support my own suggestion, eh !)
  4. Johnleemk | Talk 07:33, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Conti|✉ 14:22, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  6. ALoan (Talk) 14:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  7. Radagast 18:21, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC) - This seems to peg its purpose exactly.
  8. Sayeth 22:02, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  9. — Matt 02:05, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. Joyous 01:07, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  11. mav 19:06, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  12. Angela (This is my first choice) 20:46, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  13. Kokiri 10:30, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  14. Mpolo 10:42, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)
  15. Sam [Spade] 20:13, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Makeover of the week
  1. PFHLai 06:42, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC) (Gotta support my own suggestion, eh !)
  2. Acegikmo1 23:53, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. Ambi 00:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Angela (This is my second choice) 20:46, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
  • Project of the week
  1. Sean Curtin 05:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. —siroχo 08:16, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  3. ALoan (Talk) 14:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Michael Snow 18:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Dmn 12:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. Jao 10:43, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC) (if confusion with WikiProjects isn't an issue, and I think it isn't)
  7. Acegikmo1 23:53, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Ambi 00:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  9. Lyellin 11:28, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  10. Goobergunch 00:23, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Quality offensive
  • Sponsored article of the week
  • This week's editing drive
  1. EuropracBHIT
  2. Neutrality
  3. Ambi 00:47, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  4. Lyellin 11:28, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)
  • Weekly article barn-raising

Comments

  • I would avoid the word Project, as we are not a WikiProject -- PFHLai 06:42, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
    • I like the symmetry with WikiProjects actually, it sticks to wikipedias idea of taking things on as projects, the article of the week or project of the week is like a temporary project then —siroχo 08:17, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • We're just a WikiProject with a really short attention sp... (wanders off) • Benc • 19:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • "Collaboration of the Week" perfectly captures the essence of Wikipedia in miniature. Working together is what it's all about here, right? Joyous 01:12, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Issue 2: Tie-breaking

Background: recently, the AotW had its first tie (between Baghdad and Renaissance, 21 votes each). The AotW page states that "The one nominated first wins in case of a tie.", although a tie has not happened before. While ties may be a rare occurance, it is a good idea to have a clear policy in place for breaking them.

Question: what should be the policy for tiebreakers? Please vote for your favorite option(s), and/or add your own suggestion.

Votes

  • Allow ties: let there be two articles of the week concurrently
  • Extension: give a one-day extension to the vote; if still tied, use seniority
  1. Sean Curtin 05:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. PFHLai 06:48, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC) -- Six hours may be enough ?
  3. —siroχo 08:16, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC) Agree with 6/8/12/24 hours of extension. Also suggest: tiebreak seniorty, with a secondary tiebreak of "Whichever gained the most votes in the past week", and a tertiary tiebreak of referee
  4. Conti|✉ 14:21, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC) - With a six hours extension and asking for more wikipedians (Village Pump?) to vote.
  5. ALoan (Talk) 14:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) - for fixed period of 24 hours, then seniority decides.
  6. • Benc • 20:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) - Support 6|8|12|24 hours + Village Pump post + seniority tiebreaker. 24h is too long, imho.
  7. Sayeth 22:02, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
  8. Jao 10:45, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC) – I don't like 6 or 8 hours, though – as much as I like to think that it wouldn't matter whether it was the American, the European or the Australian Wikipedians who were asleep during the vote, I wouldn't count on it.
  9. Acegikmo1 23:53, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. Ambi 00:46, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. Stormie 00:53, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC) - although my preferred option is for a Referee to make a judgment call, this option is also perfectly acceptable
  • Referee: appoint an active AotW user to act as a referee for all ties; this user would be trusted to flip a coin to decide randomly
  1. • Benc • 05:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Stormie 06:06, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC) - but the referee should look at the comments and make a judgment call, not toss a coin!!
  3. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 06:26, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC) (plus Stormie's amendment)
  4. Acegikmo1 23:53, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  5. Ambi 00:46, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Seniority: pick whichever article was nominated first (i.e. maintain the status quo)
  1. • Benc • 05:03, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  2. Sean Curtin 05:12, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  3. PFHLai 06:48, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
  4. Isomorphic 07:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) If it's an issue, this would be my choice.
  5. Johnleemk | Talk 07:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  6. ALoan (Talk) 14:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC) either with or without a 24-hour voting extension first.
  7. Tom- 15:32, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  8. Neutrality
  9. Zoney 17:28, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  10. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 22:14, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  11. dcljr 01:34, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  12. Donar Reiskoffer 11:31, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  13. Tothebarricades.tk 23:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Vote-collecting efficiency: pick whichever article has gained the most votes within the past week
  1. EuropracBHIT 05:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Comments

  • Just a quick comment - however this turns out, I wouldn't put too much worry into resolving ties. After all, an article that ties one week will almost certainly be the AOTW later if not now. Isomorphic 06:07, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • This pessimist is already worrying about a three-way tie next week, with Livestock, Baghdad and Space race possibly getting the same number of votes. ;-) -- PFHLai 06:55, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
  • IMO, the Referee option has some potential for disputes. I'd like to avoid this, if possible. -- PFHLai 06:59, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
  • I would like to ask for a clarification on the Vote-collecting efficiency option, please. I would interpret this as "pick whichever article has gained the same number of winning votes within the shortest time", i.e. the opposite of Seniority, rather than "pick whichever article has gained the most votes within the past week". If we indeed change this, we may need to ask User:EuropracBHIT to re-vote. -- PFHLai 07:06, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
    • Ah, but that's ambiguous, I think. How many winning votes? If we don't specify either the number of votes to be considered or the timeframe, then we're screwed. It will probably be possible to declare either article the winner by considering different numbers of winning votes. (i.e., if we use the last 1 vote, then whichever article received the last vote wins. If we use all of the votes, then this is the same as seniority. Or some number in between.) This is why I don't really like this option, bleh. • Benc • 20:05, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
      • Sorry. I've just crossed out the word 'winning' that shouldn't be there. Here's my feeble attempt to {{disambig}}:
- I don't think pick(ing) whichever article has gained the most votes within the past week is Vote-collecting efficiency. I dunno what to call this, but I don't like this idea. My preference is to treat all votes equal, regardless of when they are cast.
- I thought high Vote-collecting efficiency means getting the same number of votes in less time to tie the leader, say, Renaissance collecting 21 votes in 4 weeks to tie Baghdad, a 5 weeks old nomination, coming from behind to catch up. This was what happened yesterday.
-- PFHLai 21:00, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
  • I would like to propose the following tie-breaking procedures:
Step One: Extension by 6 hours. Asking for more participation (at the Village Pump, maybe) seems to be the Wikipedian way for doing things. There may be wikipedians who had intended to vote but have yet to do so. Six hours is a small sacriface of efficiency.
Step Two: Pick by Seniority. If there is still a tie after the extension/overtime, the nominee that was nominated earlier gets picked. The only way to still have a tie is that both nominations were posted by the same user in the same edit.
Step Three: Nominator gets to pick. (very unlikely to be necessary, but I hope the nominator will be available. Actually, if this really happens, please leave a message on my talk page and remind me to buy a lottery ticket. Thanks.)
-- PFHLai 07:39, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
How about this, PFHLai (and others), extension: 6 hour extension, tiebreak: seniority, secondary tiebreak: whichever picked up most votes in most recent week, tertiary tiebreak: PFHLai's "nominator idea" —siroχo 08:16, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
My preference is to treat all votes equal, regardless of when they are cast. -- PFHLai 08:29, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
k, I was thinking along the lines of people being more excited about it being article of the week (since they just voted), and contributing. —siroχo 08:44, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
I understand the rationale. I don't dislike the idea that much. But I don't want to ignore those with foresight and voted early. Without those early votes, the nomination may not have survived the first two, three weeks. Just my 2 cents... -- PFHLai 09:08, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
I like this option, especially the part about posting on the Village Pump and the reduced 6-hour extension. About your step three, though. In the unlikely event that one Wikipedian decides to nominate two articles in the same edit, and they both end up tied, we can simply pick whichever article comes first on the page. Presumably the nominator would have typed that one in first. • Benc • 20:05, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If the nominator copied-&-pasted from the nomination template, the nomination on top is not neccessarily the first one typed in. But we can set up the arbitrary rule now to select the one on top, if this really happens. Anyway, it's unlikely to happen. The more important part in step 3 is to buy a lottery ticket. I'd use the numbers in the nominator's IP. :-) -- PFHLai 21:11, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
  • Suggestion: How about, in the event of a tie, whichever one gets has more links to it becomes the article of the week? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 13:26, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
    • I like the idea of picking the one that is more "wanted". But, this may be hard to be fair. Sometimes, a nominee is a red link or a page that is currently a redirect. Such pages naturally don't get as many internal links. -- PFHLai 21:00, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)
  • Publicising on Village Pump and extending for, say, 6 or 12 or 24 hours extra is a good idea (I would prefer 24 to aviod preferring any particular time zones) but I have grave reservations about any final method for determining ties other than seniority: seniority is clear and simple and leaves no room for argument. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Actually, we've never really had a tie situation; the instructions have always included the sentence "The one nominated first wins in case of a tie." [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 21:21, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Ah - of course we have - I meant to mention this earlier today - so the seniority option is effectively "no change" :) -- ALoan (Talk) 21:36, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Something I just thought of: If we keep the status quo of breaking ties by selecting the article nominated first, then we're automatically allowing the less "efficient" vote-getter to win! (Because the one nominated first has received the same number of votes, but over a longer period of time.) Despite this, I'm voting for the status quo option. BTW, if voting were to be extended, I'd say 24 hours is the only fair period of time to use. - dcljr 01:31, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
    • Yes, I see what you mean: I think the rationale is that there is a second article that has not been on the list as long, so is less likley to be pruned and stands a very good chance of being the selected article for the next week. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:10, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Collaboration_of_the_week/Archive_2&oldid=1136423999"