Wikipedia talk:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTM/Archive 1

Allow non-stub articles on this collaboration
I suggest including non-stub articles in this collaborations. Four US-topics have been nominated on WP:IDRIVE since this collaboration was reactivated, which may be a sign that people are looking for stubs to nominate and don't find any. Also, the number of votes should be lowered to two for a start. Does anyone know if there are voter- and nomination-templates for this? --Fenice 15:31, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Weekly or biweekly?
According to the introduction to this page, Every two weeks, a United States topic stub or nonexistent article is picked to be the U.S. Collaboration of the Week.. But in the template, it's listed as weekly. Zoe 22:59, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, my vote is that we make it biweekly. Unless a sufficient level of interest is generated and makes every week feasible. --Jacob 00:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jacob, and I changed the template.--Fenice 05:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Is this page still alive?
I was going to nominate the article on Jim Brown, but it doesn't look like anything has happened here since September. -- Mwalcoff 04:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Likewise, I'd like to nominate Music of the United States. Anyone out there? Durova 06:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm watching this page and willing to help out on a COTW. Maybe if we get some activity on this page it could attract more participants. Cmadler 12:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I've added the USCOTW notice to the Wikiproject Florida page to try to engender interest there. If anyone can add it elsewhere, it may wake up again. Its a worthy concept. KillerChihuahua?!? 00:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I now pronounce this page alive! I have added the two nominations above to the main page, and renominated all the articles that were listed (blanked the votes and comments). All these articles are nominated as of today! Even if we start with just a few people working on these, if we can keep some activity going on this page I think more people will come! Cmadler 12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Since it is beginning to look like this page is coming back to life, perhaps we should start by furthering the USCOTW by modeling it slightly after similiar COTWs, namely the Indian COTW. One of the notable features of the Indian COTW is that it shows how each article was improved: seeNotice_board_for_India-related_topics/INCOTW/History. Perhaps it would be smart to start something similar on a page like Wikipedia talk:U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW/History also, such that a record of changes and achievements is available. AndyZ 02:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it. I thought about doing this yesterday but just didn't have the energy. Cmadler 13:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting process
I am wondering if we should reconsider the voting process for this page. Currently it says we choose a collaboration each week (I updated the next decision date to Monday January 2), and articles need 2 votes a week to remain in consideration. Perhaps we should change both of these to biweekly (choose an article every two weeks, nominations need 2 votes a fortnight). I am not going to make such a change unless other people support it. Cmadler 12:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC) I'm very confused by the dates assigned to the nominated articles. Some of them have dates more than a month hence, and others have dates of less than 7 days. Aren't all the dates supposed to be 7 days from the date of nomination, or, if we're going biweekly, 2 weeks from the date of nomination? Thesmothete 22:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It is already biweekly (says so in the text beneath the box on top) I just never adjusted the name of the page and I am not sure if that is necessary. And I agree with the change in the voting system (2 votes per two weeks). Once the collaboration gets going we can always go back to weekly. --Fenice 12:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * More than once, an user was denied the right to vote on the USCOTW because the user had only one edit or so. Can that be explained under the "How to Vote" section, which only discusses anonymous IP votes? AndyZ 20:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have done this (though I was not first) in the interest of ensuring that only counts by bona fide users are counted. In every case in which I have done this, it was not an issue of a new user with a small edit count, but of a user whose ONLY edit was that vote (appearance of sock puppetry). This is similar to the AfD policy "Your opinion will be given the most weight if you are logged in with an account that already existed when the nomination was made. Unregistered and new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)." I'm not sure how to properly translate this from the consensus-seeking AfD to a voting system. Cmadler 00:13, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I have added some criterion to the voting instructions part for logged-in users, which should limit sock puppetry. Thanks, AndyZ t 01:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Another thing, seeing how difficult it is to consistently update the numbers for the tallying of the votes on USCOTW, wouldn't be easier to simply mass update everything every two weeks? That would pretty much achieve the same purpose. AndyZ 22:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe you are talking about Arlington County, Virginia (seeing as you voted for it). After every 2 votes (possibly 3 in the future, see below), the removal date of a nomination is pushed back a week - so for 10 votes the article stays on this page for 5 weeks. Unfortunately, since I don't have enough time to immediately update the page with every single vote, I often neglect to update the removal dates (though I just did that right now) - and asking voters to do that seems to create some confusion, as several dates before were incorrectly updated. Thanks, AndyZ t 22:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Topic selected
Congratulations!

We have selected the first USCOTW in many months: History of New Jersey. I have moved the nomination to the archive, added the USCOTW notice to the article, and otherwise updated our USCOTW page. Let's make this a great article! Cmadler 13:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cmadler for all your help on the article and to everyone else who helped to improve the article. I have now put History of New Jersey up on Peer Review, hopefully then placing it up for FAC. AndyZ 20:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

New Template for old USCOTW
Seeing that the general COTW has a Template:Past cotw, I think that it would be a good idea to create something similar for old USCOTWs to put on the talk pages. Being that this is my 1st try at creating a template, what do you think about this Template:USold to place on old USCOTWs (the inputs being the date and the year)? AndyZ 02:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it. Cmadler 13:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Added Template:USold to the template list on project page. Cmadler 14:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

3 votes per week?
Seems to me that the USCOTW is getting a lot more attention the last few weeks! To deal with the extra entries that are here, maybe we should require three votes per week instead of the two to try to keep from being bogged down by too many entries. PDXblazers 04:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... 10 nominations is quite a lot (though nothing compared to WP:AID). Since there has been an increase in the number of voters, changing it to 3 votes could be the way to go- let's see if anybody else supports this idea. AndyZ t 23:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm going to try it; if too many nominations are removed though, I might have to switch it back to 2 votes per week again. AndyZ t 14:06, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. Are we applying the 3-votes per week only prospectively?  So articles that already earned extensions under the two-vote-per-week rule get those, but now need 3 for additional weeks?  If so, then the cutoff indicators are not accurate.  For example:  Andrew Jackson has four votes and states: "Nominated April 30; needs 6 votes by May 21 (minimum 3 votes per week)"  Wouldn't it need 7 votes by May 21, then? Thesmothete 14:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My fault... maybe I should learn to add before I edit the Wikipedia ;). The rule will apply now, so existing nominations will have the benefit of haven stayed longer on the nomination page. It looks like you have already fixed everything; thanks a lot for doing that. AndyZ t 00:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm changing it back to 2 votes per week because there is a sudden lack in candidates. AndyZ t 00:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Template on Article or Talk page?
Oleg Alexandrov has raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:Collaborations of whether the template for the current winner of a collaboration should go on the article or the talk page. You might be interested in taking part. Pruneau 00:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

United States article on featured candidate nominations list
Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 t 22:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nominate articles for Portal:United States
I've worked for the past month to update Portal:United States and keep it better maintained. Though, I think the portal would be even better with broader participation. One way to do that is instead of choosing the "selected article" myself each week, if others would nominate articles and help make decisions. (same goes for pictures, though these are stocked up through July 29) The portal is intended to cover all topics relating to the United States, from culture (literature, music, ...) to politics, geography, economics, etc. If you would like to nominate or weigh in on what should be featured, please visit the portal. Thanks. -Aude ( talk contribs ) 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Beer & brewery notability criteria discusion document
A discussion document has been opened up. WikiProject Beer/Notability Criteria. Please put in your views either on the main page or on the attached talk page. SilkTork 17:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)