Wikipedia talk:Article Creation and Improvement Drive/Archive 6

Nomination page updates

There appears to be a problem with updating the nomination page. Very often previous week's winner is still listed as the current project more than 24 hours after a new article should have been selected. Same problem also occurs with removing nominations with insufficient number of votes. Can anyone make these changes, or is it a job for the administrators? If anyone can make the updates, it could be a good idea to include a check list for things to be done somewhere. --Chino 06:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger: WP:AID and WP:COTW

WP:AID split off months ago from WP:COTW, as WP:COTW was focused only on filling in major gaps in Wikipedia. Being that the English project has very few major topic stub/missing articles, it appears that WP:COTW has fulfilled its mission and made itself unneeded. Case in point - the dwindling of nominations and participants of WP:COTW. Finally, I have stepped up and volunteered to maintain WP:COTW for the past few months, but am heading-into a forced Wikibreak due to law School starting back up. It seems the time has come to congratulate COTW for a job well done and and send it off into the WP Archives, allowing the participants of COTW and AID join together in a single project once again. - Davodd 18:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support that. I initially proposed that what ultimately became the AID be simply a modification of the COTW - that it would simply be a change in scope. But now, yes, I think a merger is in order. We could call it: ARCAID -the Article Creation and Improvement Drive. How does that sound? We could just overhaul everything. -Litefantastic 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Ammendment: if we want to keep both projects from collapsing, we need to do this now. COTW is very nearly dead, and the AID is in the middle of slow times... I think it's now or never. ARCAID (stop me if you think of a better name) can reuse most of the infrastructure (templates and userbase) from the AID... is there anything else we're missing? -Litefantastic 19:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About the name -- I guess it's too late now, but I would have kept the simpler "COTW". Maurreen 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the merger is a good idea. Thanks for doing it. Maurreen 08:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Sorry you don't favor the name, but I figure I've been here long enough that I had a major unilateral descision coming my way :) -Litefantastic 15:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. :) Maurreen 06:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout

The merger between AID and COTW is largely complete. It's a sad testiment to the complexity of all this that the chief trouble comes not from meshing the ideologies of the two projects, but their templates.

I've reset most of the AID (and the even older IDRIVE) templates for the ARCAID. I haven't had time to tinker with the COTW stuff yet. Most of the old redirects need to be reset, and the page subpages from the Talk: pages need to be inlinked from here. I'll be back on this tomorrow. -Litefantastic 01:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and one more thing: there will be two articles this week - the endgame winners from the AID and the COTW. This is a quick fix; starting next week there will be only one article per week again. -Litefantastic 01:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So that's why an article was selected today and not the usual (for AID) Sunday? Oh. -Fsotrain09 03:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just finished the rollover and notified everyone who voted for French Revolution, I'm not sure where the votes for Lee Smith (baseball) are. Someone please check this and notify everyone with {{subst:AIDvoter}}. --Draicone ^(talk) 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COTW VOTES usually went to the article talk page. - Davodd 19:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

Some of the templates still need to be brought in line. We're now working from three legacy sets of templates - the IDRIVE, AID and COTW versions - which need to be integrated or replaced. It would help if we had a full list to work from, so we could prune. -Litefantastic 15:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stylistic Thoughts

I had a thought (as shown in my nom for the DuMont Television Network): If applicable, why not add a small, unobtrusive picture next to each nomination, just as a little eye-catcher. My only thoughts contrary are 1) would this make things too cluttered, and, 2) is this a violation of Fair Use? -Litefantastic 00:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)h[reply]

Renomination

Can an article that has been removed be renominated? Is there a set amount of time that it has to sit out? I feel like some issues get more exposure at certain times then others (Such as FLCL being the co-article this week, when it might not have made it 6 months from now), but that just because some issues don't get enough exposure to avoid the removal list, doesn't mean they shouldn't be reconsidered at a later date. -TransNique 01:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the archives. GreenReaper 02:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointin me there. I wasn't sure where to look for an answer. TransNique 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To date, no article ever successful as the AID did so twice, though History of the Balkans came very, very close about a year ago, during the time the AID was called the TWID. That same article, incidentally, had previously been the COTW. -Litefantastic 20:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are a few articles that ought to get a second chance sometime, but I'll wait til it seems right. TransNique 06:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New template!

Hello, in an attempt to help collaborate across COTW projects, I've made a template that displays the current picks of each. I've made a template for you to be able to add the name of the current article {{IDRIVEtopic article}}, which you can also use to transclude in your other templates so you don't have to update those manually. You'd only need to update this new one to populate the others on rollover. The new template that will display your current pick is {{COTWCurrentPicks}}. plange 03:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming policy

The nominator of Queen's University, Speedystickd (talk · contribs), has spammed over 90 user talk pages over the past two days in an effort to raise support for his nominee. He is a very new editor and clearly meant no harm, but this is a potentially disruptive precedent to set. My questions are as follows: first, is there a precedent for how to handle this nomination, and second, if not, then should we consider disqualification of the article? – Clockwork Soul 01:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I would hate to call it spamming. I think, as you said, he clearly means no harm, and the use of the word spamming could be considered uncivil. Second, I don't really have a problem with it, as long as the receiving editors don't have a problem with it. I think this situation occurred previously, and no action was taken then. Any votes resulting from his action should therefore be counted as normal votes, and the article certainly should not be disqualified. Errabee 07:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He "spammed" my talk page...I didn't really care, but I'm not going to sign it because he begged. --andrew 08:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found an earlier discussion with a vote about prohibiting sollicitation for support. 7 people supported prohibition, 9 did not. See here. Errabee 09:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's it I am sick and tired of dealing with these people on Wikipedia! I am withdrawing the nomination, so I hope your happy. Do you people have anything else to do?! I though Wikipedia was supposed to be a forum to further people's knowledge around the world. A free encyclopedia if you will. In my short time here on Wikipedia all I have run into is falsification on articles, false articles, biased information, righteous admins. clinging to this online bureaucracy. So why don't you guys stop messing around on this site and maybe make a valuable contribution to the world, like volunteer or something. Anyway I never am again going to contribute to this site. Again I hope your happy! Speedystickd 20:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my mind I will contribute to this site. BUT I do not appreciate being bullied by other editors because I did something they did not like. Speedystickd 21:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Nominations

How many nominations may one put up? Speedystickd 20:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there's a limit, but please don't overdo it. I'd say three is about a good number for max nominations. Its good that you're enthusaistic enough to find appropriate articles, but at the end of the day there's only one or two collaborations at a time, and all it does is waste time if the article fails. --Draicone ^(talk) 12:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AID twice

If an article has already been an AID collaboration, can it be so again? Green caterpillar 23:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This also goes for the COTW. -Litefantastic 16:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote: conditional allowing of solicitation

In May 2006, some uproar was caused by a mass solicitation for votes. A vote followed (see here), with the following proposal: To disallow individuals from soliciting votes from other users interested in a page. This proposal was rejected 7-9, not exactly a clear majority.

Recently, another mass solicitation led to another uproar with even suggestions of disqualifying the nomination. I hope nobody will object to this new vote so soon after the previous vote, but I feel this proposal is a consensus between the support votes and the oppose votes of May 2006, and has a better chance of reaching a decision supported by a large majority. Errabee 10:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considerations

The main goal of WP:ARCAID is to get editors interested in improving an article, preferably to FA status.
Mass solicitation for one article could lead to mass solicitation of other articles; this disruptive situation is to be prevented at all costs.
Mass solicitation could lead to irritation of the targeted editors.
Most articles are part of the terrain of one or more project and/or portals.
Solicitation via relevant portals and/or projects is an effective way of targeting potentially interested editors. It is probably more effective than random mass solicitation.

New proposal

Solicitation on individual user talk pages is not allowed
It is allowed to post an announcement on a relevant portal or project (in the appropriate place, like talk pages or announcements).
This announcement should be something like [[Article]] is nominated for the [[WP:ARCAID#Article header|Article Improvement Drive]].

Support

Errabee 10:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Argos'Dad 15:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Clockwork Soul 15:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Litefantastic 16:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC) - I actually voted for the original proposal you're trying to overrride, but I have since found that solicitation doesn't actually bother anyone (inasmuch as I contacted thirty+ people, and the only complaint I got was from an unrelated admin who blocked me for 24 hours for "spamming").[reply]
Draicone ^(talk) 12:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firsfron of Ronchester 18:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments

This seems eminently reasonable and follows the usual convention for notices on article developmentArgos'Dad 15:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an excellent proposal, and would certainly help avoid the issues we've experienced in the past. Is it possible this can be clarified, though? Preferably even restricted to people using a particular template that is agreed on by all to avoid disputes over the content of announcements. --Draicone ^(talk) 12:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, we could try the slick little plan that got me in trouble. In order to raise support for FLCL, I had to find all the FLCL fans. In order to do that, however, all I had to do was look at the "Linked to" toolbox item for Template:User FLCL, which gave me a nice list. I believe it would not be unreasonable to restrict solicitations to the group of people using a given userbox - what say you? -Litefantastic 01:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd say no to that. FLCL is a part of the WikiProject Manga, and you could use that WikiProject to get people to notice your nomination. Errabee 01:26, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - How? I left a message on its talk page; it didn't work. This did. -Litefantastic 11:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two collaborations

I think it would be a good idea to have two collaborations in the same week. This would be helpful because of the AID/COTW merge, and because we are now having 30 or more candidates at a time. Any objections? Green caterpillar 22:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC) I'm all for it. It would provide an opportunity for more articles to get attention. --andrew 13:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bad idea. You don't have to take my word for it - just look at the /History page. The AID was originally conceived under a very different rule system than the one it operates under now (I believe I may be the last active founding member here) and it was conceived under a two-a-week policy. This was later revoked. I championed its return, which lasted two weeks, and was frankly glad to see it leave after that. I repeat: This is a bad idea. It just splits the available number of people. -Litefantastic 16:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you put it that way, it does make better sense to have one project. I withdraw my support for the idea.--andrew 17:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, back then, you would have two AID collabs and one COTW collaboration, therefore having 3 collaborations total in this area, and I agree that was too much. Later, there was only one AID collab and one COTW collab, making two, a good amount. However, because AID and COTW were merged, we only have one in this area. And I think that's too little. Green caterpillar 14:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason the two projects merged was because the AID was hobbling and the COTW was probably a week away from dead. The ideology of the COTW carried over, but by then they didn't have much of a work force to contribute. If you put two pies in two ovens, they'll cook. But when the element in one of the ovens burns out, you can't just throw that pie into the second oven and have enough heat to go around. And that's what you're proposing. -Litefantastic 15:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

voting question

Hello there, in the voting instructions, it says to update the vote count in the subheader, and then to change some items in the "Nominated" line, including the deadline date and the number of votes needed by that deadline.

Is my understanding correct, or is there some missing text? If everyone who votes changes the paramaters of the deadline, won't that make it so that none of the articles are ever successfully voted on? It seems to me as if only the first person voting within a week should be changing the deadline parameters.

Please clarify this, as I would like to vote on some articles. Thank you. --Tachikom a 14:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone should update the header of the section, so that this reflects the current amount of votes cast for that nomination. Every fourth voter for a nomination should also update the Nominated line, by increasing the stay until date by one week, and increasing the required number of votes by 4. The current procedure is correct; there is no text missing. Errabee 15:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that I must have misread the instructions. Many thanks for your clarification. --Tachikom a 15:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of WP:ACID to Wikipedia:Goings-on collaborations section

Please note the new template {{Template:Collab-ACID}}, which I have created for use with the Wikipedia:Goings-on page. The template needs to be updated whenever the current article changes; I suggest that be added to procedure somewhere. Hoping this is found helpful, –Outʀiggʀ 23:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the new template - {{Template:IDRIVEtopic article}} is already being used for this purpose. However, WP:ACID remains newly listed on Goings-on. –Outʀiggʀ 00:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reformating of this page

I messed a bit with source code of this page so that AIDbot can parse it easier. If anybody thinks that was a bad idea, we can revert it, but I just don't see why that would be a bad idea... --Dijxtra 15:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polar exploration

FYI, as part of an experiment, ACID folks might be interested in Polar exploration, as a Daily Telegraph reporter will be using it as a case study of how an article can go from a stub to something useful in two weeks. Edit away! -- Fuzheado | Talk 08:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Output

Has anyone ever done a study (in the informal Wiki sense) of how successful this drive is at actually improving articles? Marskell 16:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A brief look at the history section Wikipedia:Article_Creation_and_Improvement_Drive/History brings me to the diagnosis of: "pretty successful, for the most part". Starghost (talk | contribs) 17:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw the diffs there which so significant changes. I would be curious to see by how much the total volume of edits and number of contributors stopping by increases. Marskell 08:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement Drive of semi protected articles

I was just wondering, what is the purpose of having articles in improvement drive semi protected? This is current situation of Pluto article. Maybe it is an ommision because Pluto article was not marked as protected (but it is, try to log out). --Jan Smolik 10:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto was semiprotected because it was downgraded from planet to dwarf planet, which attracted a lot of anonymous vandalism. Established users can still edit the article, though, so there is no reason for semiprotected articles not to be on WP:AID. Errabee 11:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Automagic

As I think it's difficult for some people to understand how to recalculate the dates and needed votes, I have made a template {{acid}}, and have made the nom Death a test-nomination. I also made the title static (no vote counts in the title). _→AzaToth 15:29, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If no one complains, I'll update the other nominees later. _→AzaToth 17:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I really like this template. Jeltz talk 19:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What needs doing

I'm very busy with university work at the moment and don't have much time to edit Wikipedia. I want the time I do have to be used well which means contributing to articles which the community have flagged up for improvement. I was just taking a look at the current article in the Article Creation and Improvement Drive (coffee) and am stuck for what to do without spending more time than I have planning the article out and comparing it to similar articles which have featured article status. Could I suggest we either encourage those who nominate an article to propose a plan for what needs to be done to take the article from its current state to featured articlehood, or get volunteers to collaborate on such a plan? If a specific road map were available telling me which pictures/diagrams need to be found/created, which sections need to be written and which improved, I could quickly and effectively get to work. I would bet that such roadmaps would, by giving the Drive aims and endpoints, allow us to produce many more FAs than we currently do. --Oldak Quill 13:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar thought but from a different angle. I know that I personally have a hard time contributing to many articles when I don't have any references (the general articles are particularly difficult). But many of the articles that get chosen her really just need some really healthy peer review to create a To Do list with specific tasks which could be done to improve the article (e.g., move refs to the right side of all periods, reword the opening sentence, alphabetize See Also, get ISBNs, etc). A really great way to contribute to ACID would be to just read the article and list the improvements that COULD be made. Other ACID members can fix those tasks, or add to the list. When the collaboration moves on, at least the article's regular editors are left with some direction on where to go, and it splits the time suck that all of us have by needing to read through an entire article, put together a coherent plan of action, and then fix those problems. Could we get an ACID To Do list that gets placed on the Talk page of the chosen article which people can add to or cross off as we go?--Will.i.am 10:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change

Did someone forget to change the current collaboration? I thought Islam was last week's article. --Gray Porpo ise 20:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It needs to be updated, but it was supposed to be done automatically 1 or 2 days ago. Atomic1609 20:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no automation, it's only a manual update. As it went to many days this time, I'll decide that we waint uitil next week for next one (probably cactus). _→AzaToth 17:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, did someone forget to change? Universe has been there...way too long. --Winterus 15:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I updated it this morning. Diez2 01:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts

I'd like to reduce the number of shortcuts listed on the project page. They won't stop working; they just won't be advertised as shortcuts.

Current shortcuts and number of links:

WP:ACID - 24 uses
WP:AOTW - 12 uses
WP:AID - many uses
WP:ARCAID - 12 uses
WP:COTW - many uses
WP:IDRIVE - many uses
WP:TWID - 3 uses

Note that there are 2 uses for all of the above just in the shortcut listing itself, so WP:TWID really only has 1 use. I appreciate that the current situation is a result of mergers of WikiProjects. I suggest to only advertise WP:ACID and WP:AID as they make the most sense given the current project name. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-18 10:04Z

Question

Does anyone know where i can go if i need help expanding an article i've created? I cannot seem to get past the first sentences. Simply south 12:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to change rollover date

As it seems that no one is available to roll on sundays, I propose that we change it to wednesday to thursday instead. _→AzaToth 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if it isn't changing at all now. Has the person who normally does the roll-over gone on vacation? — RJH (talk) 17:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of change of article and new nominations?

Is there some sort of notification system that I can subscribe to, similar to the Signpost Spamlist, that lets me know when the drive article has been changed, as well as the latest articles that have been put up for nomination? Mike Peel 00:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Series of Unfortunate Events

This was removed without the counter being updated. more to come, busy right now. <3 Clamster 12:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Okay, this was removed with the counter reading 35 votes, although there were 36 votes listed. One was an anon, but the vote was not removed or crossed out from the list. On this basis, I have restored the nomination. I will cross out the anon vote, and it seems that since I have restored the nom roughly an hour ago, another user has put in a vote for it. <3 Clamster 14:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? If you look at the history more closely, you'll see that I first updated the vote count to 36 (see [1]). Then I saw the anonymous vote which had to be subtracted. Due to this invalid vote, it became overdue again, so I immediately removed it (see [2] with edit summary -/- anonymous vote; overdue; removed. What would you have me do? First remove the anonymous vote and update the vote count, then hit save, then edit again to remove the nomination? We have a guideline known as WP:SNOW, maybe you've heard of it? Now I don't care that the nomination is restored (although I don't think you had any right to do so), but you should definitely be more careful in your analysis, before you start accusing someone of undue process. Er rab ee 14:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, further analysis showed that one vote was made by someone who didn't have any other edit than this vote; after removal of this vote, the vote count was back at 35, so I've removed it again as being overdue. Er rab ee 15:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected Foul Play

I am beginning to suspect that someone is going around removing votes from certain articles. For example, 2 votes from Cattle drives in the United States were removed (1 of them being mine). This could be happening on other articles as well. I suggest that nominators check their nominations regularly in order to make sure that no foul play is going on with their article. Diez2 18:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you supply a diff to support this assertion? I have looked through the history, and every version I have checked since you voted has 4, including yours. I also don't see in your contribution history that you replaced the vote, either through a reversion or voting again, so I am confused. Jeffpw 19:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you do?

I'm a little surprised that the project page doesn't mention how ACID plans to improve articles. There is hardly any literature at all about ACID or its members or supporters. Nearly all of the text is about voting procedure, but it doesn't really make certain what exactly people are even voting for. --Brandon Dilbeck 00:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lamest collaboration yet

As of now, a massive 5 edits have been made to the Anatomy article since Monday. Where are all the people who voted for it? Hmm... :-) — RJH (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article was chosen on Wednesday, so almost a full week remains. No need to be cynical. Er rab ee 20:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me I saw it up on the Community page by Monday. No matter. — RJH (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the users that voted for it have not been informed as they used to be, see the diff [3]. User:Ehjort voted but there is not a note for Anatomy on his talk page.

the bot that informs users wasn't tun that week, but it is being run now for this week. GameKeeper 23:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, sometimes I forgot, please poke on me if I forget in the future :) _→AzaToth 23:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

During the past week a total of eight (8) people have made edits to the ACID atmosphere article. That's much lower than the total number of votes, IIRC. I did receive the notice on my talk page, so I can only assume that most of the voters didn't really want to contribute. RJH (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A thought, this needs to be explained better. As I first found this section, I thought a number of people good at editing were seeking which sites to concentrate on. I promoted this on my user page to vote for what should be done. Any-one at generally any time can make changes, so it did not seem a requirement to be the actual person (or one of several making changes) At the level I have done this I contributed some comments on the voting page, and if I knew of such later on added at the page was voting on suggested changes, and even commented someplace one time that it is not said anywhere to be a requirement to be voted page of the week to make changes. I know a few people have been very good at editing a page to be more readable, I don't claim to be one of them, I make changes I find references for, don't work on any timetable other than spare time or when I think of something I saw and find it again while at the computer. *One problem on many pages is references, which tend to be hard to find something seen on TV or newspaper reading in the past when needed. Older pages are formated with only general references for the page, and how many reference links should there be, at times a whole section or reference could be cited for much of the subject across a whole subject.Kidsheaven 17:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if many people vote but few or none of the voters bother to edit the nominated page, then this is a pointless exercise. — RJH (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject's COTM banners on main article.

Is this a WP:SELF problem? See Wikipedia talk:Avoid self-references#Wikiproject's Collaberation of the Month/Week. Can you discuss there. GameKeeper 22:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The votehacking script

Have update the script I'm using to grab the people who have voted, it will also find and report duplicates. Sadly it can't find non-linked votes (people only having their nick without a link to user page or user talk page):

#!/usr/bin/perl -w

use strict;
use Array::Uniq;
use File::Slurp;

my $data = read_file( 'spam_data' );
$data =~ s/^\-\s*//mg;
$data =~ s/^[^#].*//mg;
my ( @user_data ) = ( $data =~ /(?:^\s*#.*?)\[\[([Uu]ser(?:\stalk)?:.*?)(?:\||\]\])/mg ) ;
@user_data = map { s/\/.*//g; $_ } @user_data ;
@user_data = map{ s/\'/\\\'/g ; $_ } @user_data;
@user_data = map{ ucfirst( ( split /:\s*/,$_ , 2 )[1] ) } @user_data;
my $total_users = $#user_data;
my @dups = dups sort @user_data;
@user_data = uniq sort @user_data;

@user_data = map{ $_ = '\'User talk:' . $_ . '\'' } @user_data;

my ( $result ) = "users = [\n\t" . join( ",\n\t" , @user_data ) . "\n]\n";

write_file( 'spam_users.py' , $result );

printf "Total number of votes: %d\nValid votes: %d%s\nRemember to check spam_users.py for correctness before running ./spam.py\n",  $total_users + 1, $#user_data + 1, ( scalar @dups > 0 ? "\n" . scalar @dups  . " duplicate voter(s): " . join( ', ', @dups ): '');

Example output:

[0:0][azatoth@azabox pywikipedia]$ ./spam.pl
Total number of votes: 29
Valid votes: 28
1 duplicate voter(s): Amphytrite
Remember to check spam_users.py for correctness before running ./spam.py

_→AzaToth 00:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non-specific version

Have made a version now, for the purpose to check all the votes on the page, not for my specific behavior:

#!/usr/bin/perl -w

use strict;
use Array::Uniq;
use LWP::UserAgent;

my $ua = new LWP::UserAgent();
$ua->timeout(10);
$ua->env_proxy;

my $response = $ua->get("http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Article_Creation_and_Improvement_Drive&action=raw&ctype=text/css");
if ($response->is_success) {

	my @tasks = split /^===(.*?)===\s*$/m, $response->content;
	shift @tasks;
	while(@tasks) {
		my $key = shift @tasks;
		$key =~ s/(?:\{\{la\||\[\[)(.*?)(?:\}\}|\]\])/$1/g;
		my $value = shift @tasks;
		print "\n$key\n";
		&parse($value);
	}
}
else {
	die $response->status_line;
}

sub parse {

	my $data = $_[0];
	$data =~ s/^\-\s*//mg; # remove possible dash and space in the begining of the line, if the data cames from a diff page.
	$data =~ s/^[^#].*//mg; #lines not starting with a hash sign.
	$data =~ s/<s>.*//mg; #Striked votes, remove whole line.

	my ( @user_data ) = ( $data =~ /(?:^\s*#.*?)\[\[([Uu]ser(?:\stalk)?:.*?)(?:\||\]\])/mg ) ;
	@user_data = map { s/\/.*//g; $_ } @user_data ; #[[User:Foo/Subpage]] remove all subpages
	@user_data = map{ ucfirst( ( split /:\s*/,$_ , 2 )[1] ) } @user_data; # Take the string after the first colon (User:Foo to Foo), and uppercase first letter
	my $total_users = $#user_data; #Statistic, total user found
	my @dups = dups sort @user_data; #statistic, duplicate voters
	@user_data = uniq sort @user_data; #remove duplicates

# print statistic
	printf "Total number of votes: %d; Valid votes: %d%s\n",  $total_users + 1, $#user_data + 1, ( scalar @dups > 0 ? "; " . scalar @dups  . " duplicate voter(s): " . join( ', ', @dups ): '');

}
#END
undef;

With the result as following:

[0:0][azatoth@azabox pywikipedia]$ perl ACIDCheck.pl

Black hole
Total number of votes: 48; Valid votes: 48

Atmosphere
Total number of votes: 42; Valid votes: 42

Art
Total number of votes: 27; Valid votes: 27

Sputnik 1
Total number of votes: 27; Valid votes: 27

Vladimir Lenin
Total number of votes: 30; Valid votes: 29; 1 duplicate voter(s): Daniel5127

Drink
Total number of votes: 20; Valid votes: 20

Castle
Total number of votes: 16; Valid votes: 16

Magnetic field
Total number of votes: 15; Valid votes: 15

Winston Churchill
Total number of votes: 27; Valid votes: 27

Ludwig van Beethoven
Total number of votes: 21; Valid votes: 21

Encyclopedia | The Sum of all Human Knowledge
Total number of votes: 12; Valid votes: 12

1979 Energy Crisis
Total number of votes: 8; Valid votes: 8

Psychedelic music
Total number of votes: 7; Valid votes: 7

Anna Nicole Smith
Total number of votes: 10; Valid votes: 10

Rainforest
Total number of votes: 12; Valid votes: 12

Electronic sports
Total number of votes: 9; Valid votes: 9

Dry season
Total number of votes: 5; Valid votes: 5

Louis XVI of France
Total number of votes: 10; Valid votes: 10

Bay of Pigs Invasion
Total number of votes: 6; Valid votes: 6

Jury trial
Total number of votes: 5; Valid votes: 5

Les Misérables
Total number of votes: 4; Valid votes: 4

Justice
Total number of votes: 6; Valid votes: 6

History of the United States House of Representatives
Total number of votes: 4; Valid votes: 4

Vitamin C
Total number of votes: 7; Valid votes: 7

Occam's razor
Total number of votes: 7; Valid votes: 7

Auction Chant
Total number of votes: 1; Valid votes: 1

Comic book
Total number of votes: 2; Valid votes: 2

Vladimir Vysotsky
Total number of votes: 1; Valid votes: 1

Government
Total number of votes: 1; Valid votes: 1

_→AzaToth 17:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improve high-traffic articles

Please see Top 100 articles by traffic. We should improve articles that are viewed by many. The popularity of some of these articles is temporary, e.g. Zodiac Killer is #8 right now for obvious reasons - the recently released film Zodiac (film). So in this sense the toplist useful as a sign of the times, like Google Zeitgeist. Others are likely permanently important articles. For example, Wiki is the #1 most-viewed article and isn't even a good article. We have already worked on some of these, like Pokémon last month. Sexual intercourse is #23 and needs a lot of improvement. I will start by nominating a number of these for ACID. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-03-04 06:32Z

I love this tool, and it's moments like this that it becomes clear how useful it is. I wholeheartedly support your idea, as we're gonna wanna look our best for our audience! Although, as this is a wiki, perhaps displaying a few high-profile, easily-fixed flaws is our main source of user recruitment? Jack · talk · 05:46, Monday, 5 March 2007

Off-topic side question Why are there so many articles about sex in this list? It just seems sad. Diez2 02:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the point of life is essentially to reproduce itself that doesn't surprise me — Jack · talk · 06:22, Tuesday, 6 March 2007

Think bored high-school kids with nothing better to do – Qxz 17:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't you ever looked up dirt words in the dictionary? It's the same principle. EamonnPKeane 20:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Error in this week's ACID?

Sorry if I'm being really thick here, but it would seem to me that when the scores were looked at to decide this week's winner, Winston Churchill was beating Lenin by 3 votes, no? --Fbv65e del / ☑t / ☛c || 02:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be correct. At Midnight, Churchill still had more votes than Lenin. Technically, Winston Churchill should be the winner. anyone care to explain? Ixistant 17:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a ACID Director?

Raul is a WP:FAC director, a person who does all the maintenance work for FAs. Is there a similar person in this Project? I mean a person who says, "OK, Article A has been a COTW for 1 week, now I am going to choose the next most voted article to be the current COTW."

I mean Churchill has been a COTW since March 28, last time I checked COTW=Collaboration Of The Week (not a Month).

The very first sentence says: The Article Creation and Improvement Drive is a weekly collaboration to improve articles to featured article status.

If there isn't any (director), one has to be chosen. --Crzy cheetah 06:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isnt one, IIRC, because it is maintained by the community. ffm ✎talk 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, Azatoth updates it when he comes around, but usually, he comes extremely late. Keep in mind he most likely does have a life outside of Wikipedia. I've been taking a long Wikibreak, and now I am ready to come back, if only to update the ACID once a week. Diez2 13:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BOLD in mind. I did the maintenance for this last Wednesday as soon as I read your comment. Wikipedia is run by collaboration, we don't need an official director for each page that requires maintenance. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 20:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was updated a couple of days later than usual, I wouldn't have a problem. But...it was not updated for a month or so. Regarding the WP:BOLD, I decided to make that post above first to learn the reason why it wasn't updated for a month, then do it. Anyway, thank you Pious7 for your work. --Crzy cheetah 18:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of the project

Would anyone support the renaming of this collaboration to be "Article Improvement Drive"? In at least the past 2 years, we never have used this collaboration to actually create an article. Sooooo, why is it named so? Any comments or "votes" are welcome. Diez2 16:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive" so the acronym "ACID" and shortcut stay? — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 19:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree to Pious7's idea, it's a lot better to keep the current acronym. Is there any formal way to vote for a name change? --Razor ICE 01:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, finally! I'd been thinking of suggesting this for ages. The current name is inaccurate, and leads to the current ridiculous acronym instead of the perfectly suited AID. It's almost like the perfect name was leaping off the page but someone chose not to use it anyway. I'd vote for changing the name to "Article Improvement Drive" which would be more accurate, and the acronym "AID". --Daniel11 04:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to Pious7's solution. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:32, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to Pious7's solution. You're right, the current acronym should stay. Diez2 17:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This poll is being moved to Wikipedia talk:Article Creation and Improvement Drive/votes, where you can formally vote on this. Diez2 17:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do most people here just vote?

I can see 30 people vote here but it doesn't seem they actually help with the article. How is that? --Aminz 11:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we need to make it a rule that people should only vote if they plan on contributing? Otherwise, being an ACID article doesn't really do anything. — Pious7_Talk^Contribs 22:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the best option is to ask people to make at least 4 edits to the articles they vote for. If each of 30 editors make at least 4 edits, we will have 120 edits. --Aminz 22:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd have to agree. I mean, how much are we achieving towards our goal of FA's in a week? I think we should set up special areas of expertise to be covered by certain users. bibliomaniac 1 5 20:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Careful, if we force people for a specific quantity of edits, that forgets the quality factor of it. The four edits could be minor edits, unconstructive edits, or even vandalism, and there's no way to really enforce that quota. — Pious7_Talk ^Contribs 23:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think a specific number of edits will do the trick at all. It's putting the edits themselves before the quality of the edits. How about strong encouragement:

"When voting on or nominating a article, you should be prepared to contribute to that article." Gutworth 21:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about people vote by the number of edits they will commit to? So one person would say that they are willing to do 5 good-faith edits to a page and therefore they recieve five votes. This would mean that the article that won the vote was the one that people had promised to do the most editing to instead of an article that they would just like to see revised. Remember 12:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I remove nominations?

If a nomination is overdue, may I, or any other user, just remove it from the nominations and delete the tags on the article's talk page? Or does it have to be done by the ACID director (if that exists)? Thanks! Gutworth 02:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can do it, but you have to add the entry to the archive of removed nominations in the proper category. — Pious 7 10:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standing lists at Wikiprojects

To facilitate throughput to GA and FA, I'm trialling this; I've listed Standing Lists of large articles with substantial content which may be within striking distance of GA with varying amounts of work WRT formatting and copyediting. Some are already being worked on but I'm seeing if this increases collaboration. So far I've done this on WP mammals talk page and WP Birds collab pages. Be interesting to see if more of these come through cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 01:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current article

Who updates the current article, is it done automatically by a bot? It seems that the current one has not been updated. Max Naylor 10:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who updates this page?

I know it might seem an impertinent question, but does anyone know who currently updates the page. Lots of nominations are overdue, and the current collaboration hasn't been selected yet, despite it's being supposed to have been selected yesterday. John Carter 18:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Anyone can update the page, but the COTW doesn't receive as much traffic as it used to. CloudNine 19:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

See my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Article Creation and Improvement Drive/Header(think this needs to be moved 2 new name), thanks--Andersmusician VOTE 00:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

If I can get on a computer tomorrow (July 4th) I will do the rollover. If you beat me to it, that's cool too. Looks like CO2 is up! --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 20:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done it except for the history update page, wasn't quite sure how to do that. Spamsara 22:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 00:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so this was updated already? I had assumed CO₂ was the last of the old articles because there was nothing on the history page. Sorry for the delay, Diez2 messaged me on my talk page to take over for him, but I was a day late due to me being busy today. I'll revert my edits. — Pious 7 05:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CO2 is the article for this week. So yes, it has been updated. --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 16:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Selection process

I am confused by the selection process. On July 4th carbon dioxide was archived as being successfully accepted. The next week rolled by and the selected article remained carbon dioxide. Now another week has rolled by and the selection date has been pushed out to:

The next project article is to be selected next Wednesday, 00:00:00, July 25, 2007 (UTC)

yet carbon dioxide still remains the selected article. Whats going on? Is this entire project dead? Are nominations simply a waste of time? I am a new editor, so I do not understand the history, but it sure does not make any sense to me. Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The selection process is a MANUAL process, it is not done by an automated bot. Carbon Dioxide has remained due to nobody rolling over the selection. There is still a lot of collaboration and improvements being done on CO₂, but the instructions are in the /maintinence page if you care to roll over the selection. I will likely do a rollover next week if it has not been done. --BsayUSD [Talk] [contribs] 17:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I will see if I can learn more about the process. As I said, being new, there is a huge about of material to learn and apply, such as the manual process of updating the votes. It seems that most new users, including myself, tend to miss that point the first time, even though it is clearly documented, it is not always clearly understood. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly puzzled

Why do different articles need different numbers of votes? For example, North Sea needs 28 votes, but Anarchist's Cookbook only needs 8. How is this decided? Totnesmartin 14:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Basically, by the end of a given week, any article to remain on the list needs to have recived (# of weeks on the list X 4) votes to remain on the list. Any article which has been on the list longer would thus need more total votes to remain active. The article with the greatest numerical total of votes is the one that ultimately becomes the next collaboration. So, the one that was nominated first would have to have a greater numerical total to remain active than a more recent nominee. I doubt that's particularly clear, but I hope it makes a little sense. John Carter 14:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does make a little sense. I thought the situation was that someone would announce "this week's winner is North Sea" (or whatever), and we'd all troop off there to edit it, after which it would come off the list. I see how it works now, thanks. Totnesmartin 15:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monthly instead of weekly?

Having observed the recent update process, it seems this is a de facto monthly project. :-D Why don't we officially have it as monthly? Just one week is often insufficient for any significant improvement anyway, in my opinion. --BorgQueen 22:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually very few articles have been selected for a whole month. Fortnightly might be a better choice. Dbiel ^(Talk) 02:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dbiel's fortnight proposal. --Shark face 217 19:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Sea/Heart Disease?

On the community portal, it shows both Heart disease and North Sea. Is this a fluke? --Freiberg, Let's talk!, contribs 01:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newbie friendly

I've been wondering whether the goals of the phrase,

To vote or nominate you have to be a registered user with at least one contribution that is not a vote

could be achieved in any way that allows more participation and is more open. It's not entirely clear to me what the purpose of the restriction is. If repeat voting is the concern, surely it's obvious enough that you can register several usernames, do a few edits with each, and then move to vote. Also, such incidents by either IPs or registered users are usually easy to spot. IP edits have the added benefit of immediate verification through geolocation. So why restrict them? Surely it's up to each person to choose a level of privacy that they feel comfortable with, and we don't need to ram this down their throats (in which case, they may not bother and just leave - ask yourselves what purpose A(C)ID serves in the community, and how to maintain the purity of this purpose).

If the restriction exists for some other reason, please enlighten me. I can't think what a registration and single edit would say about a user. We have many IP editors who make valuable contributions; some of them register, some haven't yet, and some edit for months or years using just their IP. Hence, there are IP users who have made much more formidable contributions than most registered users with a single edit. But please, do explain it to me.

Regards,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modified per above concern. 199.125.109.50 16:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An IP address has no right to give IPs a vote. Zginder 22:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a silly restriction. Take it off yourself. 199.125.109.50 19:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. Otherwise, one person could potentially move from IP to IP and give his/her favorite article as many votes as they wanted, which should not be permitted. John Carter 19:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that would be what you call using sockpuppets, which applies equally to IP users and registered users. There is also the opposite situation, where multiple people are using the same IP address, and wouldn't be able to vote unless they like added a note saying something like, not the same as the above. In practice most people do register a username, but it would be especially good to welcome everyone to help improve articles, not just the registered users. I remember seeing a registered user voting at AFD, 10 minutes after they registered, and that vote was the only edit they ever made. How likely is that? 199.125.109.72 05:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a constructive solution is possible. Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still Active?

Is this collaboration still active. There hasn't been a new selection in a few weeks. By now, both atom and geo of nj should have won and been worked on. --ZeWrestler ^Talk 13:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination ideas

FYI, Category:Start-Class Vital articles is an excellent place to find nominations for this page, or to find articles of high importance to the encyclopedia which need work and might be of interest to you personally. -- Beland 16:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great suggestion, however if the purpose of the project is to promote articles to feature status, going from start to feature in one week might be a stretch. Is there a category for former feature articles, or good articles that are vital articles? Those might be easier to work on and actually get them to become feature articles. The project could use more visibility as well. I don't see anyone working on this weeks selected article. 199.125.109.72 00:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre nominations removal

However the system for nominations selection is set up, it is not working sensibly. I notice that Seed was removed from the list, despite having the most nominations. The second runner-up Abuse will expire before the date set for the next selection, unless it gets 3 more votes for some unspecifed reason. I think I know why more people don't participate in the ACI Drive. They get discourgared by the bizarre selection process when articles they voted for are removed for no discernable reason other than the fact that a mysterious red "Expired" has appeared with no explanation of where it has come from. --EncycloPetey 02:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The system is not bizarre; it is quite logical. The problem is nominators do not plan as to when the best time to nominate is. Zginder 12:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the system requires strategic timing of nominations is bizarre. It is more competitive strategy than "collaboration". --EncycloPetey 22:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. The article for this week got selected with only 4 votes. It is nonsensical that other nominations with far more votes didn't make it. We need to change the system. --BorgQueen 06:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason old nominations are removed is so that new nominations have a chance. If they are not removed then an article with 50 votes will win, but it will take six months for a nomination to win. Zginder 19:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it takes six months or sixteen months, if more people will work on this project, then we have every reason to change the system. I have been participating in this project for quite a while now but I've never seen anything like this. Do you seriously think the project is going well? --BorgQueen 19:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reforming the process does not have to mean leaving articles indefinitely. The concern is that a nomination can be removed because it's received "only" seven votes in a two week period, leaving a nomination with only 3 or 4 votes as the default winner because it's only been a nomination for one week. That's a silly way to pick a winner. --EncycloPetey 22:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could have a rule like x votes per week if there are more than x nominations. Y votes per week if there are more than y nominations etc. Zginder 22:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now I would suggest a requirement of 2 votes per week to stay on the list. This can be adjusted whenever needed. More complicated rules are not needed. 199.125.109.72 05:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple nominations

8 of the 10 current nominations were nominated by the same nominator. Only one or two are likely to be chosen. I recommend that one parson can have only one nomination that they started at a time. Zginder 22:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That will severely limit the number of nominations we will have. Please note that only a small number of editors participate in this project now. --BorgQueen 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It will greatly increase the approval percentage, and reduce the rate at which nominations are removed. Zginder 00:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not certain what you mean by "approval percentage". One registered account can vote for as many nominations as they want. The advantage of having multiple nominations is diversity; the likelihood of getting approval votes is higher since each person has a different criteria about what type of article should be chosen for the project. --BorgQueen 00:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The chance that an article will be worked on is slimmer the more nominations. Zginder 19:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That conclusion doesn't follow. --EncycloPetey 22:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense whatsoever...surely it would get more attention the longer it remains here? WeBuriedOurSecretsInTheGarden (talk) 21:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only one article is chosen a week, so how can nominating 6 articles have all of them chosen? Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 23:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters how many articles are nominated by the same person, as long as they make at least one edit to the currently selected article for each nomination they make. The purpose of the project is to improve the articles. Just nominating and voting does nothing if no edits are made. 199.125.109.72 (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IP nomination

Why can IPs not nominate? 129.215.149.98 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETS}_INTHEGARDEN 21:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]