imported>Meg Taylor |
|
| (12 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ==Temporarily delay Life?== | | {{Archive box|auto=long}} |
| Based on these comments by the editors voting on [[Life]]:
| | <br/><br/><br/><br/><br/> |
| <blockquote> | |
| [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 12:43, 8 August 2007 (CDT) (Subject to the article being reapproved. There are quite a few changes since the last approved version. <s>Also we need to complete the external links and bibliography as part of that process</s>); [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari|Supten Sarbadhikari]] --I would like to wait a week or two to follow-up on Chris and Supten's points. --[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]] 20:02, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| </blockquote> | |
| Do you think we should temporarily disqualify Life from the contest for August 21 because of these comments? Even if none of these editors voted, however, Life would still have 6 votes to Electoral College's (current) 5, and would win anyways, so by that logic Life should still be eligible this week.
| |
|
| |
|
| We probably also should have an overall policy stating that votes are unconditional so we don't need to sort out whether or not to count them in situations like this. What do you guys think, both on what to do about Life this week and about this as a general policy?
| | == Revising score for voting == |
|
| |
|
| :Although I have voted for Life, I have also put a comment on the Draft/Talk page that the English is a hodge-podge of varieties and should be standardized into US English before being made Article of the Week. Can someone do that? --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 22:01, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
| | About 5 days ago, I started a thread on the forums at [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2732.0.html here] in which I suggested reducing the score for voting of "specialist supporters" from 3 to 2. |
| ::I just noticed this. I just thought that so many changes have been made since the last appproval that it needs to be critically proofed. I have not had time to read the changes yet. No one else has responded yet either. Since we had biology so recently I see no harm in holding off if we have other good candiidates. [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]] 22:05, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :::Sounds good. I'll change the page to reflect this. -- [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 23:17, 19 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Procedure for a tie==
| | The following users have commented on my proposal in that thread: Hayford Pierce, Drew Smith, Howard Berkowitz, Daniel Mietchen and Peter Schmitt. Neither they nor anyone else objected to reducing the vote score for "specialist supporters". Some of those commentors also suggested that "specialist supporters" be limited to only 1 vote when voting for an article which they created. |
| One thing I've noticed is that there is no clear procedure for what to do in case there are multiple articles with the same number of votes at the designated time. As written it seems that the first article in alphabetical order would be chosen, but that seems a little unfair. My suggestion is that whoever is moving the article to the front page should be allowed to choose among all the articles with the same number of votes. This would get rid of an alphabetical bias, and give the program administrators something more to do. On the other hand would this be giving the administrator too much power? This situation isn't likely to happen too often, but it is worth thinking about. --[[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 09:53, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :I think to begin with it would be determined by number of specialist supporters. If this fails to break the deadlock, then I suggest number of supporters generally. If all else fails, I recommend picking one - say by alphabetical order - then ''guaranteeing'' that the other is Article of the Week next. So no further voting takes place on that article, and people nominate and support for two weeks later. I don't think deciding by which one was nominated first is a good idea because this says nothing about quality. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 02:49, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ::John, I think this is all sensible--please feel free to write it on the main pages. Unless anyone objects! Well, we just need a clear decision procedure. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 02:53, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
| | Accordingly, I am changing the rules so that "specialist supporters" have a vote score of 1 for articles they created and a vote score of 2 for articles that they did not create. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ::::<strike>Pity the article that starts with Z. I feel that in the event of a tie, the article with the most number of verified references should win. This would encourage editors to use more references in articles.</strike> [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 18:42, 10 March 2008 (CDT) | | :Glad to see some wholesome initiative here! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 20:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
| | ::Thank you for the swift change Milton.[[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 07:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :::::What constitutes verified reference? Footnotes? A huge bibliography? This would also put shorter articles at a disadvantage - and it's quite possible to have a short, quality article that deserves mentioning on the front page. I definitely understand the spirit behind this suggestion, but I don't think it is practical. My understanding of the articles of the week is to not say article X is better than article Y, it's simply a method for choosing and highlighting some of our better articles and new additions. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 19:48, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
| | ==Tie== |
| | As there was a tie this week I assume torture will automatically get AOTW next week?[[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 07:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| ::::::<strike>I understand what you're saying Todd, but in the event of a tie what makes an article starting with A, better than an article starting with Z?</strike> [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 19:52, 10 March 2008 (CDT) | | :It would appear that [[Torture]] will win next week easily now that it has gathered more votes. |
|
| |
|
| Well, to answer your question, absolutely nothing. :) "The Article of the Week is an article chosen by vote among Citizens as exemplifying various qualities we like to see in a Citizendium article." My interpretation is that the voting is simply a mechanism to determine which articles we display - not to be a judgment on article A being better than article Z, or vice versa. Alphabetical order is just a quick, simple process to pick one over the other. Let me ask you this, why is it important that the "better" article be selected first, when both will enjoy their time in the spotlight? --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 20:34, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
| | :As for this current rule: <font color=blue>The remaining winning articles are guaranteed this position in the following weeks, again in alphabetical order. No further voting would take place on these, which remain at the top of the table with notices to that effect. Further nominations and voting take place to determine future winning articles for the following weeks.</font> |
|
| |
|
| :<strike>The process selects only one winner though, besided which wouldn't the better article winning give an incentive for the not so good article to catch up? OTOH, should a not so good article be rewarded on the basis of its title name? I feel uncomfortable with that though I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. :)</strike> [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 21:00, 10 March 2008 (CDT) | | :It is simply too cumbersome and too involved. Especially that bit about no further voting on the article that was tied but didn't win. I am thinking of just removing that rule altogether and letting the votes speak for themselves. That would be much simpler and more straightforward. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 17:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| :: But can an article be judged better simply because it has more citations? Then we might be seeing citations for things like "the sky is blue" and "fire is hot". With the population of CZ being so small, and with an even smaller portion of that participating in the voting, I try to look at it as an honor that someone will notice and nominate something I've been a part of. As we grow larger we will probably need to look into changing how this is done. Just try to think of this as a friendly competition. :)
| | == Approval and acclamation == |
|
| |
|
| :: Of course, these are just my opinions on the matter. It would be interesting to hear what others think. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 21:22, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
| | I'd like to propose a change, which may serve us well until the happy day when masses of articles are being approved. |
|
| |
|
| ==Article of the Week Administrators==
| | When an article, such as [[Led Zeppelin]], is approved, I would like it to become, immediately, the Article of the Week. If there are non-approved articles in the list, their vote becomes deferred for a week. |
| I noticed the little section at the bottom of the page calling for Administrators for the AotW. Since no one else had signed up and I've been looking for a little way to contribute to CZ in adition to authoring I figured I'd jot my name down.
| |
|
| |
|
| It's still quite unclear what, exactly, an AotW administrator's duties are, except for posting the weekly selection on the front page. Maybe I'll be able to play a role in shaping the program, although it looks like the existing guidelines should work fine for now. -- [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 09:21, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| | I have some nominees for AOTW, but I am reluctant to nominate them until I see that the triumph of this article, including Meg's content leadership and Joe's organization, is properly honored. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC) |
| | :Yes, this seems reasonable under certain controlled conditions. I don't think it can be the rule that any approved article if nominated has to become AOTW -- or else that will make it too easy to manipulate. By the way, the correct title of non-approved articles is supposed to be Draft of the Week, but this seems to have been lost in the last year. I suppose some clearer formal rules would help. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 19:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| --
| | :: I was under the impression that "Article/New Draft of the Week" are "sleeping" at the moment. Hardly anyone paid attention. Perhaps it should be "of the Month" until interest increases again? [[User:Peter Schmitt|Peter Schmitt]] 20:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| I'm going to apply to join up for the time being to help it get started - I'll probably hand over the reins come October when College starts and my access to a computer at a certain time cannot be guaranteed :( Only heed my volunteering if it is a more than one man job - I am in a very roundabout way saying 'If no-one else volunteers, pick me!' PS- Carl, sign your posts at the end for clarity purposes :) [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 09:25, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| | == Transclusion doesn't look right on homepage... == |
| : Whoops! Fixed. -- [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 09:48, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Article of the Week==
| | The current transclusion of the lede of articles into the homepage doesn't look at all right, especially on a small screen. Look at the homepage currently with the transclusion of [[cryptography]]. So utterly broken. Instead of transcluding the lede, why not just transclude the rpl-template? It would look nicer, would be more minimal, wouldn't break the layout so much and it'd be quite clear what is going on. Currently, the homepage is just a total mess because of AotW. |
| Larry, Citizendium, etc al,
| |
|
| |
|
| In addition to "holding up an article to the limelight" to show how good it is, can we have basically the opposite? Should we have a "focus article" of the week that we can collaborate on? [[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]] 12:09, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
| | Indeed, I've suggested this before - that we get rid of AotW and just have a rolling log of current good articles - it'd just have 5 or 10 articles - either approved or developed - that have been through a nomination process broadly like that of the Article of the Week. --[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] 10:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC) |
| | |
| :<s>Why not have both? Wikipedia has a Collaboration of the Week for certain WikiProjects; we could have wiki-wide improvement drives. [[User:Sean Allen|Sean Allen]] 12:48, 25 July 2007 (CDT)</s> Whoops, I mis-read your post. I think it'd be a great idea to have a focus article. (: [[User:Sean Allen|Sean Allen]] 12:50, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Well, that's solving a different problem and therefore there might be a better solution. The problem the Article of the Week solves is putting something attractive on the front page and rewarding people for producing our best work. A "Collaboration of the Week" would evidently be aimed at getting people to, well, work on articles. I agree that encouraging, in various creative ways, people to work on articles is the best way to motivate them, but I don't immediately see why choosing just one article for people to work on will actually do much more than get some of them working on that article. So...? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:00, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :''Red links'' in the front page looks rather odd. Can we ensure that at least the portion of the article of the week that is showcased in the Mainpage does not contain those? [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari|Supten]] 23:06, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| They don't bother me so much, because they encourage people to write articles on those subjects. But if you want to remove those links, or if you feel strongly about them, let's remove them. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:29, 25 July 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| = Vote =
| |
| | |
| Notice, dear Citizens, the [[Biology]] article featured on the [[Main Page]]. This illustrates the concept of [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1093.0.html the Article of the Week.] We'd like to find out if there's enough interest in this and also in a Contributors of the Week thingie. Alternatively, consider the [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1093.msg8481.html#msg8481 <s>Creation of the Week</s> New Article of the Week]. Sign with three tildes (<nowiki>~~~</nowiki>) and let us know!
| |
| | |
| == Interested in Article of the Week? ==
| |
| | |
| Please sign below if you are interested in, at the very least, voting on articles of the week.
| |
| | |
| # [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]
| |
| # [[User:Matthew Cornell Woods, Jr.|Matthew Cornell Woods, Jr.]]
| |
| # [[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]]
| |
| # [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]]
| |
| # [[User:Michael Underwood|Michael Underwood]]
| |
| # [[User:Sean Allen|Sean Allen]]
| |
| # [[User:Chris Day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris Day|(talk)]]
| |
| # [[User:David E. Volk|David E. Volk]]
| |
| # [[User:Jochen Wendebaum|Jochen Wendebaum]]
| |
| # [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]]
| |
| # [[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]]
| |
| # [[User:Andrew Fleisher|Andrew Fleisher]]
| |
| # [[User:Ruth Ifcher|Ruth Ifcher]]
| |
| # [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]]
| |
| # [[User:Thomas Mandel|Thomas Mandel]]
| |
| # [[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]]
| |
| # [[User:James F. Perry|James F. Perry]]
| |
| # [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari|Supten]]
| |
| # [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]]
| |
| # [[User:Nereo Preto|Nereo Preto]]
| |
| # [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]]
| |
| # [[User:Stephen Tapril|Stephen Tapril]]
| |
| # [[User:Greg Heuer|Greg Heuer]]
| |
| # [[User:Andrew Staroscik|Andrew Staroscik]]
| |
| # [[User:JeromeDelacroix|JeromeDelacroix]]
| |
| # [[User:Ian Johnson|Ian Johnson]]
| |
| # [[User:Steve Mount|Steve Mount]]
| |
| # [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]]
| |
| # [[User:Robert W King|Robert King]]
| |
| # [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]]
| |
| | |
| == Interested in Contributors of the Week? ==
| |
| | |
| Please sign below if you are interested in, at the very least, nominating a Contributor of the Week or a New Contributor of the Week.
| |
| | |
| # [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]]
| |
| # [[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]]
| |
| # [[User:Matthew Cornell Woods, Jr.|Matthew Cornell Woods, Jr.]]
| |
| # [[User:Jochen Wendebaum|Jochen Wendebaum]]
| |
| # [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]]
| |
| # [[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]]
| |
| # [[User:Supten Sarbadhikari|Supten]]
| |
| # [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]]
| |
| # [[User:JeromeDelacroix|JeromeDelacroix]]
| |
| # [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]]
| |
| # [[user:Robert W King|Robert King]]
| |
| # [[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]]
| |
| | |
| ==New Article of the Week? ==
| |
| I moved this discussion to [[CZ Talk:New Article of the Week]]. [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 09:34, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| = Further comment =
| |
| == Feedback? ==
| |
| | |
| Well, what do you think of the rules here? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 07:13, 30 July 2007 (CDT)
| |
| : Everything appears to have worked well to me. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 14:27, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Its working well - I think this is a good idea, its good to have something like this clearly expressed on the front page. [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 09:10, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Clearing the votes ==
| |
| | |
| I agree with leaving the previous week's nominated, but unselected, articles on the voting template, but perhaps we should remove the votes from them to give people the opportunity to vote for a different article if they choose. I'd do it but don't want to overstep my bounds here. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 14:26, 31 July 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Well, until there's more interest in the Article of the Week concept, we should probably leave the votes there. Otherwise we might find that there are no votes for any nominees! --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 06:49, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Perhaps we should place a link to the voting page near the current Article of the Week on the mainpage? It could be that a lot of people don't realize this is going on. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 08:06, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::Actually, the link is there :-) just click [ "about" ]. [[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] 11:32, 2 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::: I was thinking of something more prominent. I think part of the reason the Write-a-thon was so popular was because there was a big template plastered on the front page. Not that we need something that big, but perhaps a note saying "Vote here by Tuesday for the Article of the Week!" or something similar that will draw attention. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 14:56, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Clarify: ==
| |
| | |
| Can one vote for more than one article of the week? —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 14:53, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :Isn't it clear enough from the "voting" section? [[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] 15:53, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::[[User_talk:Stephen_Ewen#Double_voting|I thought so.]] —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]] 19:43, 7 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::: I see. Interestingly, my double vote has been spoted as "illegal" too (by another Citizendian). So let us make it more explicit. I added a little something but feel free to reword it as you like. [[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] 02:30, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ==Specialist supporters==
| |
| | |
| I'm not sure its fair that an expert gets three votes, mainly because Its unfair to say, have a history expert vote for say, 'The Roman Empire' and get three votes but someone writes an article about 'Gordon Brown' but actually has a better article and loses because no politics expert is there to vote for it. What do you think? [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 11:38, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Well, I fail to see how fairness comes into it, for the simple reason that there is no way to guarantee the slightest bit of fairness here in the first place. A much bigger problem, fairness-wise, than the one you cite is the problem that we do not exhaustively explore all possible candidates. What if someone happens not to notice a better article? That's "unfair," too, and more likely to happen than the situation you describe. But we do know that we want to encourage editors to give us their opinion, and their opinion ''should'' be worth more because they know more about their areas of expertise. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:06, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::Maybe one way we can ensure that one topic doesn't dominate the Article of the Week is through some kind of rule ensuring rotating subject matter. For example we could require that the article of the week must not belong to any of the same Workgroups as the previous week's article. This would take care of Denis's example above by ensuring that even if the History article wins one week another history article won't be eligible the next, so the Politics article stands a better chance. It would also ensure that Biology articles will make up no more than half of the articles of the week. -- [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 12:26, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::: I don't really think we need to worry about which articles are "better" here. They are all good articles, hence their approved/near approved status. The way I view it, atleast, is that this is more of a showcase of what we've produced, and the voting process is just a friendly way of deciding which one gets put up each week. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 12:50, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::: I agree there, Todd. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:00, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::: Not that I have anything against Biology articles, but they seem to have the most active workgroup and I want to make sure articles from all topics gain this exposure. --[[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 14:06, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Thats a good point there Todd, I suppose I was kinda looking from the angle that the 'best' article should go up, but its not really that relevant since all the articles here meet a high standard. [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 14:56, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Empty template ==
| |
| | |
| Okay, I went ahead and commented it out. Sorry, but that extra row with the <nowiki>[[]]</nowiki> just bugs me. Anyone editing the file will still be able to see the empty template. [[User:Greg Woodhouse|Greg Woodhouse]] 18:25, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ==Admin(ship)==
| |
| | |
| Just letting you know that now I'm going back to College I won't be able to commit myself to the job. Todd and Carl will do a great job though :) [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 11:27, 9 September 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| | |
| == Lack of usability of this page ==
| |
| For some reason, it is extremely difficult to add an article to this page. without destroying the formats. I have given up trying to do so. Can someone please fix this problem? --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 18:33, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Well, unfortunately, you have to get the template just right. I've just added a blank template. I'll also put in a pointer saying, "Here's where to add new nominees." --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 18:37, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Thanks, Larry: I got bad-tempered with it...--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 18:44, 14 September 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Needs updating! ==
| |
| | |
| Just wanted to say that... :-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 10:42, 19 September 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::With no apparent effect! Is anyone allowed to update it? --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 20:12, 19 September 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::Done. There was a tie - I decided to nod-through El Tio rather than Shakespeare when I discovered that the William article is apparently still 'developing' (status 2). Someone should change this if they think the article is nearing completion. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 23:28, 20 September 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| ::::The rule for a tie is alphabetical order.--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 04:00, 21 September 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Anyone is allowed to update it. You might want to add your name to the list of admins if you do so. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 11:24, 2 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Nominations ==
| |
| We'd get more nominations and interest in this if we were to announce the winners. May I have a volunteer to post an announcement about all newly chosen articles to Citizendium-L? --11:24, 2 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::As this is so much easier than fiddling with the technicalities of updating the page, I will agree to do it. You want only Article of the Week, or also New Draft of the Week, Larry? --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 12:56, 2 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| Excellent!
| |
| | |
| Why not both, at the same time, like on Thursday? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:22, 2 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| ::Will do. I will email you about subscription lists shortly, which may need a rethink...--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 13:24, 2 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| | |
| == Date of selection ==
| |
| I have changed the selection date back to Thursdays, so that it occurs at the same time as "New Draft of the Week" as it used to be. There seems little point in having two different times for the changeover, but if anyone has a reason for wanting that, change it back to Tuesdays. --[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 06:44, 11 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Darft/Article of the week ==
| |
| | |
| Shouldn't the title on the main page be "Article of the week" instead of "Draft ..." this time? [[User:Alexander Wiebel|Alexander Wiebel]] 17:05, 8 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| :Yes, just change it if you see this problem. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 17:49, 8 February 2008 (CST)
| |
| | |
| ==Non-user-friendly template nonsense==
| |
| I have tried and failed to add an article. Something is wrong with the template instructions, which means that we will not have any nominations and this is now a waste of time. Can someone please fix it so that normal users can easily add articles? [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 07:51, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| : As you can see it worked for me ... can you describe the problem you encountered? [[User:Alexander Wiebel|Alexander Wiebel]] 07:57, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :: If you're willing to change the page format around a bit, so that nominations are at the bottom, you can use a section=new/preload to partially automate adding new entries. See [[CZ:Proposals/New]]. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 11:16, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :::The re-arranged instructions now work, but I think it would be better to follow Noel's suggestion. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 13:51, 22 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Should the status be noted to the article? ==
| |
| | |
| Somewhat randomly finding this page, I was pleasantly to surprised that I had written one, but didn't know it. Should there be a routine note on the talk page, article page, or even a tab?
| |
| | |
| [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 11:45, 30 May 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| | |
| == RULES ==
| |
| Please note that there are rules for the Article of the Week. In particular, note Rule 2: the article must be of status 0 or 1. At this time, there is one article here not of that status. If the article clearly is developed, then you should change its status to 1 before nominating it here. [[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 12:08, 15 July 2008 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == time for a new article of the week ? ==
| |
| | |
| Didn't we have the same article of the week on [[DNA]] for about 2 months? I think, it's time for change we can believe in. ([[User:Chunbum Park|Chunbum Park]] 19:14, 29 August 2008 (CDT))
| |
| | |
| == Winner for March 18, 2009 ==
| |
| | |
| It has come to my attention that I selected the wrong article this week. At the end of last week, there was a tie between [[Battle of the Ia Drang]] and [[Wisconsin v. Yoder]], which according to tiebreaker rules, [[Wisconsin v. Yoder]] should have won this week. Therefore, it has a spot reserved on the mainpage for the week of March 18, 2009. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 12:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :In the event of a tie, the first one alpabetically is chosen, see discussion near the top of the page. [[User:Meg Ireland|Meg Ireland]] 00:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :: This is correct. The rules for a tie also state the following: "The remaining winning articles are guaranteed this position in the following weeks, again in alphabetical order. No further voting would take place on these, which remain at the top of the table with notices to that effect." I interpret this to mean that since there was a tie in the previous week, '''no further voting would take place''' in regards Wisconsin v. Yoder. Since that article ended that week tied for the lead, it should have been placed as the article of the week this week, which I screwed up. Oliver Cromwell was not part of the equation at that time. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 02:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == I'm still baffled by this! ==
| |
| | |
| If this is called Article of the Week, why do we have voting that extends for a flippin' '''month'''? Right now, under Current Nominees, it says that the voting will extend until '''June''' 21st! If that's the case, then how can we choose an article '''each and every week''' between now (May 14th, if my calendar and tired old eyes serve me well) and June 21th?
| |
| | |
| The same thing obtains, I believe at the New Draft of the Week -- the time period of the voting is *always* a month.
| |
| | |
| It sure is a puzzlement to these particular little gray cells! [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 22:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :I think this was not intended. I just changed the date to reflect a one week period. -- [[User:Alexander Wiebel|Alexander Wiebel]] 07:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ==heading in milpa==
| |
| Is maize and beans coming up as a separate heading simply because the others have more paragraphs in the lede? If so, should the display be restricted to the first paragraph or two of lede to avoid such oddities, if such limitation is possible?
| |
| | |
| It's really hard not to accept Milt as the specialist on Miltonia. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 09:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Daniel and I are in the middle of making some fairly major changes to the AOTW and NDOTW systems, which are under discussion at http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2706.0.html.
| |
| :This will hopefully be fixed soon... [[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 09:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :(PS - I agree about Milt/Miltonia!)
| |
| | |
| ::Fixed. [[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 10:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Dates of Votes ==
| |
| | |
| I notice that whilst the rules on both AOTW ant NDOTW state that four tildes should be used to vote, thus giving the date for each vote, this system is only used on AOTW whilst on NDOTW three tildes - name only - is always used.<br />
| |
| I therefore have two questions:
| |
| #Why does the date/time of the vote matter?
| |
| #Why doesn't it matter for NDOTW?
| |
| [[User:Caesar Schinas|Caesar Schinas]] 09:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Transclusion of stuff into places down below by an Administrator ==
| |
| | |
| I hope you ain't looking at '''MOI''' to do any of that stuff! As a character in a fine spy thriller called ''One of Us Works for Them'', says when he is being coerced to help some CIA-types break into a Soviet-run hotel in Germany and then open the Reds' safe deep in a sub-basement patrolled by armed guards, "I'd rather go over Niagara Falls in a gravy boat!" [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 23:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == I revised [[CZ:Article of the Week]]. Provided place for anyone to simply make nominations. Then the program Administrators will do the transclusions. ==
| |
| | |
| I just revised the [[CZ:Article of the Week]] to provide a place (and instructions) for any CZ author or editor to simply add the names of new nominees.
| |
| | |
| '''I did NOT make any revisions to the transcluded versions of the articles that were added by Daniel Mietchen, Caesar Chinas or myself.''' All I did was provide a new section where anyone can simply add new nominees without having to transclude them.
| |
| | |
| I also reworded some section headers (and relocated one section) to make clear that Administrators of the "Article of the Week" initiative would do the transclusions.
| |
| | |
| I did that because I felt many authors and editors would be reluctant to make nominations if they had to do the transclusion themselves.
| |
| | |
| Caesar, would you review what I have done in detail and make any changes you deem necessary? If what I have done is acceptable to everyone, I will also revise "CZ:New Draft of the Week" similarly. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 23:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :I saw the note about [[Ancient Celtic music]] asking a constable to transclude the approved article with the [[Ancient Celtic music/Draft]] being already transcluded. I was just going to copy from the draft to the article, but there were too many changes that were not approved in the draft version so I had to do the transcluding myself... you might want to check it. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 00:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| ::Matt, I don't think that Daniel Mietchen meant to include the Disambiguation box template (at the top) to be included in the transcluded version. Perhaps you should check with him. Other than that, it looks like you did what he wanted done. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 01:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| :::You're right, it wasn't in the Draft so I just took it out. [[User:D. Matt Innis|D. Matt Innis]] 02:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| == Ancient Celtic music not linked from Welcome page ==
| |
| | |
| Also, adding in an image would be nice, and a space before the final onlyinclude. Thanks! --[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 02:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :Daniel, the article does not include its title in the introductory section ... so there really was nothing for me to link from the Welcome page ... and that is why I did not do so. In any event, the ''(read more ...)'' at the bottom of the transcluded material links back to the article.
| |
| | |
| :I really don't undersand why a space is needed before the final onlyinclude.
| |
| | |
| :As for an image, there was none in the transcluded section. It would have meant my selecting one of the images from further down in the article and transcluding it in at some point in the transcluded section. That strikes me as my re-formatting the article without consent/discussion with the author or authors. If you really feel it necessary, please go ahead and do the necessary transclusion.
| |
| | |
| :The amount of work involved in the weekly change of the AOTW and NDOTW is not insignificant by any means. I am beginning to see why you declined doing it on a regular basis. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 03:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ::Since the article is approved, I couldn't do the changes there, and to have a quick solution, I did them [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=User%3ADaniel_Mietchen%2FSandbox%2FAOTW&diff=100516534&oldid=100516520 here] and [http://en.citizendium.org/wiki?title=CZ%3AArticle_of_the_Week&diff=100516528&oldid=100516490 here]. That's just a temporary fix, we need a long-term solution for the approved articles.--[[User:Daniel Mietchen|Daniel Mietchen]] 20:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
| |
