Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Cricket Collaboration of the Month

The current discussion is ?.

Use of Subpages

I'm not so sure that this is a good idea. If changes are made to the main space article, they will be lost when we shunt the subpage back in. I don't think having lots of {{cn}}s temporarily will matter much, as long as it is clear that work is going on. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

well can we like protect that certain article the collaboration is working on and there could be a saying that if editors wants to edit that page click here(that would take them to the subpage)

Or even without protecting the article, there could be a saying that the collaboration is working on it and it is advised that they edit on the subpage or that their edits might be lost. And even than if they edit there we'll still have the certain article in our watchlists so whatever edits are made we can take them into consideration to add the edit to our version. Does that make sense?--Thugchildz 22:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean, and I understand what you're trying to acheive by doing it. It just seems a bit daft to me that we have two copies of the article open for editing when we can do just fine with one. After all, the whole point of a Wiki is that the article is a work in progress! Just a personal preference, of course. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 23:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Also with subpages the collaborators can experiment with the articles move things around and ask others what they think without messing with the main article. When Nichalp renovated the cricket article back in 2004 i'm pretty sure they used to subpage. because big changes comes with big experiments and for that to happen without messing anything up is to have a subpage. After we're done we can close the subpage.--Thugchildz 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made a mock-protect template. It would look something like this. Is there any admin member in the collaboration right now? Well even if it not(meaning really protecting the article) it would get the editors attention and tell them to edit in the subpage. Feel free to modify the template--Thugchildz 09:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC) {{CCOTMprotected}}

This page is currently under CCOTM and please edit in the ?-subpage; any changes made here may be lost.

The template has been deleted per this, I subst'd the template for this page but please do not use it. Thanks. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:42, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a very bad idea. The idea of collaboration is to encourage more people to edit the article in the normal way, not to edit the article in a separate subpage. Any "big experiments" can be done in subpages of the talk page or people's user pages, and then discussed on the talk page. The article should definitely not be protected or mock protected in the meantime. JPD (talk) 12:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Harbhajan Singh

Can the people that signed up to help out with article please follow through and help out with it. I think people shouldn't nominate/sign up for an article unless they are going follow through to help out on it or the CCOTM will die away like the fortnight one...--Thugchildz 02:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a fair point. I will get on to Singh as soon as I've finished Adam Gilchrist, whose article is proving to be quite a giant... 115 references so far... The Rambling Man 07:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There still seem to a few jobs on the go at the moment, spreading out the efforts. When these are tied up, things should improve. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 10:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think your comments are slightly unfair. It was quite clearly explained that the first task was to complete Collingwood (done), then Gilchrist (not done), then Harbhajan (which Blnguyen's done miracles with). To be fair, there was a lot of collaboration on Colly, TRambling Man has done most of the work on Gilly and Blngyuen's been in solitary confinement on Harb. Gilly's now nearly ready to go to FAC. When that happens, TRM and I will be switching to Harb, going back to Gilly when we get comments at the FAC. --Dweller 11:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I thought Harbhajan was now and Gilly was next but anyways then shouldn't our current collab be Gilly instead on Harb? or just keep it like it is?--Thugchildz 03:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Time to move on

Right, now Harbi's done, we need to move on...Cricket anyone? The Rambling Man 10:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Is Gilly almost done with? Other than that, fine by me. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 10:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm waiting for more supports but yes, on the whole Gilly is done...! The Rambling Man 10:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

is this dead already?

Is this dead after collaboration on only about three articles? I really think we shouldn't let this die though, so can we start on sourcing and rewriting(little bit of it) the cricket article, please? Or are we really going to let this one die too?--ThugChildz 21:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Some changes

I'm going to remove the members section and make a active members section instead. The reason being, old nominations have the support of people who currently might not be active or at least active enough to give them a push. The section will be reset every weekend so whenever a member comes back he/she could sign in again to let the others know. So I'll change that and likewise the nomination will be chosen by only counting the votes or the active members.--THUGCHILDz 18:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)