Wikipedia talk:Irish Wikipedians' notice board/ICOTW

From WP:IWNB:

We need to decide how to pick an aticle for next week. I'd suggest that we select something from the todo list. As I proposed this week's article, maybe someone else could pick a juicy one from the list and pop it here:

Then if we have consensus by Friday Sunday (propose that silence = assent), lets go with it. If anyone objects to the choice, let them propose an alternative. Filiocht 07:43, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, perhaps seeing as we only really started on Monday, we should stick to switching on Sunday as usual. I agree that we just make suggestions, see if there's consensus (silence = no opposition!). P.S. I hope I haven't opened a can of worms on WP:COTW :-) zoney ♣ talk 08:41, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If so, I think it was a can of worms worth opening. So many COTWs have turned out really quite disappointingly. Filiocht 08:45, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Taking stock

I think it's time to consider what we want to do with this idea. So far, none of our COTWs has made it to WP:FAC. I think Culture of Ireland and, especially, Geography of Ireland could with a bit more work. I doubt that Junior Cert ever will, but it certainly has grown as a result of being ICOTW this week. My feeling is that it was too narrow a subject to do much more with, and this is also why I have struck Fleadh Ceoil from the nominations: on reflection, I don't think it will make FAC status.

So here are some questions/comments:

• Are we using ICOTW just to improve articles or to get them to FAC?
• If the latter, how can we pick the best candidates?
• Is it a good idea to limit the time spent to one week? (I think not)
• Should we return to the two earlier articles and try to get them to FAC?

Any responses? Filiocht 07:40, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I really never even consider FAC to be a target, though it's a nice bonus if it happens. I think ICOTW is really just a way to say "Other people will be working on this article this week, so feel free to join in." I don't think we should limit ourselves to articles that copuld eventually be featured, but I do think we should pick articles that any Irish person should know something about. That's why CoI and GoI worked. —Rory ☺ 09:00, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

I think the main intent is collaboration, resulting in an improved article (FA status or not). To do this, the subject areas need to be reasonably broad. Out of the ICOTWs so far, the only one I wouldn't pick again, is Junior Cert (for the reasons Filiocht mentioned). I think Ireland, and Belfast, will be suitably broad. zoney ♣ talk 09:58, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In principle I agree, in practice I think it's a good idea to use FAC as something to shoot for. What does anyone think of the idea of extending the period to longer than a week? I note that this seems to be done on some of the other sub COTWs. Filiocht 15:00, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think Rorys comment that the ICOTW is just a notice to say Other people will be working on this article this week, so feel free to join in is spot on. It is a great way to focus everybodys ability on a specific article. I also agree that the Junior Cert article is unlikely to ever be a Featured Article - its too norrow of a topic - it did benifit from being ICOTW - but not in the same way Geography of Ireland benifited - so ICOTW should be for broader subjects for the moment - articles such as the Junior Cert should be restricted to the notice board. As regards limiting it to one week, its obvious a week is too short to 'finish' an article - but in truth no article will every be finished; not even after a year of hard work - so I feel a the week is enough - otherwise we would never move on. CGorman 19:25, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Pruning

Do we need to prune? If so, how? JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 10:33, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

... Fine, be like that, ignore me... JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 20:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Considering there's only a few of us, and not so many votes or candidates (page is not ridiculously long), how about we begin with a conservative approach. I suggest removing candidates not seconded by anyone within two weeks (or one week, but I think we can afford to be generous). zoney ♣ talk 11:28, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. I don't like the main COTWs style of only the very fittest surviving, because lots of good nominations (like my ones Signature and K'nex :-) don't make it. Not seconded within 2 weeks sounds fine to me. Too relaxed is better than too strict. JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 22:17, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A palpable hit

Geography of Ireland is now on WP:FA! Filiocht 07:37, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Way to go! JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 20:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

PS -anyone know if it has or when it will be featured on the main page?

Ireland as a ICOTW

I propose, that seeing as we aren't weighed down by bureaucracy, we extend Ireland for another week. There is MOUNTAINS of work to be done still! We perhaps need a plan / better to do list. I don't know about ye, but I would like to see this as a really good article even if not FA.

So, anyone else in favour of working on Ireland next week too? zoney ♣ talk 20:38, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ya, why not, it seems like a good idea. Ireland is the kind of article that needs to be a FA, so I'm all for it. IMHO its not too far away from FA, though. Whatever mountains of work there are to be done, they're the Wicklows, not the Himalayas :) JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 20:58, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, but we must make this a serious article - it must represent Ireland, history and culture in a coherent sense - the best of Irish and what "Modern Ireland" is - those photographs have to be presented in a way that makes this article look like an encyplopedia entry and not a glossy brochure of a fair way land (in which it never rains, nor is cloudy) Djegan 21:13, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, I kind of suggested this in Taking stock above. Filiocht 07:26, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

Removing failed nominations

When should failed nominations be removed? Cairn, An Post and Roddy Doyle have been up for quite a while - and really don't look like becoming the ICOTW any time soon. I think that after 2 weeks - if a nomination has not got 3 (or more votes) it should be removed. Another little point would be that a failed nomination must be listed in removed for at least 4 months (or some long period) before it can be nominated again.

Any opinions (or backlash from Mgm or John Collision for asking to remove their nominations!)? CGorman 20:48, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'd go for automatic pruning after 3 weeks. Filiocht 08:57, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

Like I Zoney and I agreed above, IMO any nomination not seconded within two weeks (or possibly three because this page isn't too long) should be pruned. Before being nominated again? ... A month has to pass after pruning? JOHN COLLISON [ Ludraman] 10:30, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rivers of Ireland

Please comment on my River Shannon map.

Test map of Shannon

Seabhcán 00:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)