Wikipedia talk:Collaboration of the week/History

Without a doubt, all CotW articles have improved drastically, but not all of them have reached featured-standard yet. To help improve past CotW articles so they can be featured, please help fix the items listed on the to-do lists of each article.

A listing of the to-do lists for all non-featured CotW articles is available at: Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/To do.

Easy way to find out statistics?

This may be a stupid question, but is there an easy way to find out the statistics (how many edits and unique editors, and file sizes)? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:10, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nope- there isn't. I have used manual counting of edits, but in the case of Siege, I used command line tools like uniq and sort to do it for me. File size counting is done by pasting the source into a text editor of choice and using a character count. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 23:09, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removed from page

This is my official "doh" moment. I recently learned about the phenomenon of m:instruction creep, and now I'm fixing the places where I'm guilty of it. (Luckily, I only made four of these faux pas.)

What I removed was: (x votes over y days) and also the note about how Renaissance and Baghdad were tied. I had added both of these factoids mainly for my personal reference, but in doing so, I had created more work for the tireless maintainers of this page. Really, the vote info doesn't tell anyone how the article improved, so I think the page is actually better without it, even discounting the instruction creep issue.

Of course, if the maintainers as a whole really want to keep the extra info, they're free to revert. (Last edit before my removal in page history: [1].) I'd recommend keeping this page simple and easy to update, though.

Apologies for any extra work I caused anyone through my careless edits. Now that I know about instruction creep, I'm opposed to it in all forms. • Benc • 15:19, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It's okay. I thought those were simply 'how-to' suggestions for anyone interested in doing the same things. :-) -- PFHLai 23:19, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)

I've restored the (x votes over y days) info, as they may be useful in future, perhaps when a policy change is being considered. How come the losers get better documentation (at Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week/Removed) than the winners ? Rather odd .... -- PFHLai 02:20, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that my additions were desired by the majority, after all. :-) I'm still against instruction creep, though. • Benc • 17:18, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Updating

Would it be possible for someone with the appropriate know-how to update the size increases for the last month or so? Ambi 06:48, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

--bing [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 09:19, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! Ambi 09:23, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Attila the Hun

Since this page seems to be the page noting the success of COTW, it seems fitting to me to note that as of 9-29-04, Attila the Hun, a former COTW candidate that did not win since it was saved from its stubbiness while being voted on became a featured article. I know it doesn't fit this page exactly, but it fits the spirit of it. - Taxman 01:44, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Have any other failed COTW candidates become featured? Even if not, perhaps we could should a separate section for them. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:43, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am nearly positive that no other failed candidates have even been nominated as FAC. It is also unlikely that any other failed candidate will reach FA status soon after they are on COTW. I think if it happened again it would be several months after failing COTW. So I think this is unusual enough to not make a special provision for it except for noting it in the proper spot in the timeline. - Taxman 20:27, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Incorrect numbers

The recent numbers do not seem to be correct. Congo Civil War is far smaller than 40,000 bytes and NAACP is not nearly 33,725. - SimonP 17:22, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

It seems User:PlasmaDragon is miscounting characters -- he added very large sizes for Space Race, which I corrected. ✏ Sverdrup 00:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about the inaccurate numbers; I had used the file->properties option in my browser instead of copying the source into a text editor and doing the counting there; in retrospect, I see how my method caused an inaccurate count. I have added the numbers for ancient warfare with the right method, so they should be accurate.-PlasmaDragon 16:15, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Statistics

Since the statistics (how many edits, how many contributors...) have to be done manually, I suggest a method: edits should be counted from the day they have been a collaboration of the week, to the day before the next collaboration. And also when counting contributors, Logged on users and anonymous users should be separated. I'll start soon by completing the statistics column, and corecting older ones (eg: the article Dinosaur, has had 26 edits, not 19). Regarding the article size, Could you tell me how is it done (is there another way than saving the page on your computer, and check its size?). I'll start as soon as I get some responses to this message. 500LL 14:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the rule was to count edits and compare sizes from 18:00UTC on the Sunday when the new COTW is chosen until 18:00UTC the following week, when the new article is chosen (although you could also look at when {{Current-COTW}} was added, or when {{CurrentCOTW}} was amended, but that is likely to be off by a bit).

Re determining size, I asked how this was done before: the answer was that saving offline and checking the size is the only way.

But if you are going to fill in the statistics (please be my guest, if you have the time) then I think you should set the rules ;) -- ALoan (Talk) 16:21, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, and by the way I thought about comparing the number of words rather than the size, by saving the page a .txt, copying the content to Microsoft Word, then click on "word count". 500LL 17:15, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

After editing some statistics, I realised that the number of users (editors) beside the number of edits should be deleted, first because it is not relevant, and second because it takes a lot of time. So what do you think? 500LL 22:04, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

reasons

I've bin sniffin around, and wondered if theres a page around here which gives the reason for the nominations for the pages that got COTW status? the COTW/Removed has it for the not-so-lucky ones, and i'm curious to know who is the most prolific COTW nominator (i.e. who has nominated the most articles that have got to COTW status?) --Thewayforward 09:15, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)