Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball/Collaboration of the Month

Welcome to the College Basketball Collaboration of the Month! The collaboration seeks to identify articles within the area of college basketball that require improvement. Every month, a single article will be selected for collaboration, and everyone will try to work on it as much as possible.

Nominating articles
To nominate an article, add

This should be added at the bottom of the list of candidates, filling in the name of the article and the nomination text (which should indicate why the article would benefit from a collaboration and what needs to be improved).

To be come the monthly collaboration, articles may be voted on and nominated for a period of up to a week. Votes and nominations may be cast towards the last week of the month, until a clear majority is decided. If there is a tie, the article deemed higher on the importance scale than the other will be used as the collaboration.

North Carolina Tar Heels men's basketball
The largest enemy of Duke in the ACC, I believe it of most importance to create the basketball article to the Tar Heels at the soonest possible time. With one of the top ranked teams in the country right now, the article will surely be a hot-spot of visitors if made. Nomader Talk 04:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Support


 * 1)  Nomader Talk 04:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Daveahern 16:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments


 * Agreed. The current men's basketball content at North Carolina Tar Heels is a bit thin.  Moving to its own page and focusing on improving it is a good thing.  Will also give me a chance to inject my pro-Duke, anti-UNC bias.  Haha, just kidding.  -- Daveahern 16:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, actually, one of our project goals is to create seperate basketball pages for each Division-1 team, much like WikiProject College Football has done. And I actually nominated it because I'm Pro-Duke - they should have their main rival's page there too. -- Nomader Talk 20:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Candidates for Next Collaboration
Should we be looking at another collaboration? I don't know how successful the last one was, since the article still needs a lot of work. Perhaps we should scrap this entirely - it's definitely been more than a month. matt91486 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)