Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Collaboration

Use of template
What is the appropriate use of the template? I just come noticed it being added to quite a lot of articles that are not candidates. It seems like clutter on a talk page that has never been a candidate or the subject of a prior collaboration. older ≠ wiser 22:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Who runs this?
There were several articles that were nominated and recieved the needed votes in the time specified. They just sat there with no one updating the USCOTW and then they were all deleted. What gives? How does this work and who is making the changes after the votes? How did Mount Rushmore get up there with 2 votes (1 vote at the time the others were deleted) when North Carolina and Ohio River flood of 1937 had 5, Independence Hall and Liberty Bell had 3. Morphh 19:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In responce to your question, The other nominated articles have expired their time up on the page and have been taken down. As the Mount Rushmore article is the only one still left up there, it is the only choice left. The previous USCOTW has held that position for at least 4 weeks, far too long for a USCOTW. Putting some life back into the page. If you want, you can vote for any new nominations that may come up. (Iuio 05:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC))
 * I guess my point was that most of them recieved the needed nominations and were nominated at different points in time. It was expected by me and I expect others that someone was changing these out every two weeks to the best article.  These other articles had obviously more votes and thus more justification for being on the USCOTW - regardless of the expiration.  You are correct that the other article spent too long on the USCOTW but I don't find your justification acceptable.  It is as if none of these other articles were even nominated.  I have nothing against the Mount Rushmore ariticle - I'll probably even work on it.  However, it seemed like a self-nom / promotion with disregard for the other articles that had more support. Morphh 13:28, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that you've added those noms back and updated the date - this works. Hopefully we can move through them and give them all a chance.  Thanks and sorry for the aggressiveness. Morphh 13:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you mentioned that, I have shortened the amount of time Mount Rushmore will be USCOTW. It has already been USCOTW once before. (Iuio 15:23, 24 September 2006 (UTC))

update
Mwahahaha - four years later and a couple of interlopers have seized control....but seriously, reactivated now and we'll see how it goes. Anyone is welcome to ignore my noms and think of some of their own. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How many votes per what time period should be needed for a suggestion to remain on the list? In the past (when it was a weekly collaborataion) it was 2/week and then 3/week. Since it is monthly and just getting started, I'd suggest 3/month for now. Thoughts? cmadler (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats makes sense. Once it gets going and if we get folks active in submitting and voting we can always change it later. --Kumioko (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to be very bold and update everything based on 3 supports per month required. cmadler (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * My change is here. cmadler (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I do worry that that might result in alot of archiving of nominations (there has not been a huge amount of voting thus far), but I was not intending to be here in the long term, so go for it. I do have a question though, let's say one of the three-vote getters doesn't get nominated, then in the period Feb 1-March 1 only picks up two votes, and at the March choosing has the highest number of votes, yet has only picked up two votes that month - you'd archive that rather than have it nominated? Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Know that you said it that way I think it might be better the way you describe it Casliber. Especially until we get things rolling. Otherwise we are going to be constantly archiving them and recreating the wheel. --Kumioko (talk) 00:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * To answer Casliber's question, take two current nominations: Wall Street and the 19th Amendment. Both were nominated in mid-January and have 3 votes currently. Supposing that they are still tied on 2/1, we take Wall Street since it's older. For 19th Amendment, since it's got 3 votes, it can stay until 3/16. So if on 3/1 it's the highest vote-getter, we chose it. But if it's not the highest vote-getter on 3/1, and then only gets 2 more votes, we toss it on 3/16. cmadler (talk) 11:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should try to work on all the articles nominated regardless of which article "wins", but perhaps give priority to the ones chosen. So even if an article gets only one or two votes, we can improve them. The idea of this nominating process is to signal articles in need of revamping, right?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * About time this collaboration is active again. Will help to contribute when I can. It's good to see it somewhat running again, albeit in a monthly format. I'm sure it can resume its weekly format when more people are active on it. (Iuio (talk) 08:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Iuio I guess it depends what folks want it to be. Given the frequency that articles often erode with anon edits etc, especially high traffic ones, I see the best attribute of GA and FA as being stable points of reference to compare future versions to. Thus I see GA as a great place to aim for. I am not sure that weekly or fortnightly is enough time for concerted work on an article to get it to within striking distance of GAN. However I concede that others may not be aiming for this, but happier with more informal goals. Anyway, it is a learning process. The coordinators might make a decision on the length of the collaboration based on the article chosen. Let's say a future collaboration is a small article, or a nearly-GA large article, then there may be discretion to make that collaboration a fortnight or week instead of a month, or to really go for GA then FA. Anyway, it's all good and we can just see how it plays out over the next few months. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am still leaning towards not requireing 3 votes per month to remain. I think we should stick with the original idea and let the article stay for three months and whichever article has the most votes at the end of the month (even if it took an article the full three months to get enough votes) then we go with that. I would like this to be as low maintenance as possible to maximize participation and I think we are going to be constantly archiving things if we require three votes a month. I also agree with Toms comments above in that we should encourage editors to work on all of them that have been submitted rather than just the one that wins. --Kumioko (talk) 14:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it was just my opinion, I'm fine with it if you want a monthly collaboration and all. As for the votes system, I would recommend archiving only if and when this becomes more high traffic again. Otherwise, three months is good. Heck, when this place started to slow, the archiving rule went down the drain since we werem't getting as many nominations to replace the archived ones. But the way, am I the only one that worked on the original collaboration to still want to work on this new incarnation? Has anyone asked members of the original collaboration if they would be interested in participating in this new version? (Iuio (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
 * Not sure. I didn't (well I left one note yesterday for someone), just check their talkpages, and leave a personal message if none there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:56, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Iuio, I was also on the original collaboration. cmadler (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Scope of this Noticeboard
Should we add to the critera for the nomination and selection of articles that they be nation-wide in scope and not rated as "Top" or "High" importance by another WikiProject? Racepacket (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First I hope its ok but I broke this into a separate section because it was different than the ongoing discussion. No, this is not intended to be a WikiProject United States Noticeboard but a United States Noticeboard. There is, IMO, no need to have separate noticeboards for every project, state or topic area relating to US things. In some cases, maybe, but not in general. If a certain topic seems to get a lot of interest or comment then maybe it could break into its own in the future though but I think we should start as a centralized location as much as possible. --Kumioko (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think folks will often see working on these articles as a Good Thing, howevr I find that being to ambitious often results in little progress. I think the selections thus far are on the whole pretty broad. Racepacket, do you feel the ones nominated thus far are too narrow? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions
First I'm sorry I haven't had time to do much. Hopefully that will change soon. I hope its ok but I wanted to submit a couple suggestions regarding the Collaboration.


 * 1) I would like to Archive the old discussions. Most are from 2004 to 2006 and they are just cluttering the talk page. Does anyone have a problem with me doing this?
 * 2) I recommend we allow any US related WikiProject to use this Noticeboard and Collaboration. My opinion is that we have it up and running (only 1 or 2 of the other US related projects have their own and in my opinion if they wanted one, they would have started it by now). There is no requirement too of course and I really don't expect many to use it but since it is up and running we should allow any US related project to use it. If another project wants to start their own great. But we should not force them away. The articles will still work on a most votes wins basis so if someone submits Geography of South Dakota and it gets the most votes for the collaboration that month. Great.
 * 3) I recommend we go back to the previously established voting method of each article gets three months and it continues to accumulate votes till the end before the article is archived. Whichever article has the most votes at the beginning of each month wins. Wether that article is there for the full 3 months or it gets the most votes in 2 days. If we only give the articles a month to get the most votes before being archived we will for one need to renominate new articles every month and 3 we will be spending a lot of time archiving submissions both of which will cause us more work and make this collaboration require more maintenance and upkeep. I think this will keep it as simple as possible to minimize the amount of effort required to maintain it. --Kumioko (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good idea about archiving. I voted for several articles and this is okay I presume.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks and voting for more than one is totally ok. --Kumioko (talk) 00:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Coding Problem
There's a problem if you nominate something on the 29th, 30th, or 31st of the month if the following month doesn't have 31 days. You apparantly have to code manually  Pur ple  back pack 89    19:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

U.S. topics on other COTWs
It appears the two topics currently listed in this section are outdated. Should they be deleted leaving an empty section? Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just drafting up something about that too. IMO if they aren't being used then we probably shouldn't display them. I think it just makes things more confusing. I would suggest that we drop a note on those projects and ask if they want to use this one. If this starts going again it might renew interest in theirs again as well. --Kumioko (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * They can be commented out. Others have already. See the editing page. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration articles, review and notiications to other related projects
I added a couple of reviews to some of the articles on the list. I will go back later and add some more as time allows and I will start working on the items identified as well. I think it might help to focus efforts for some editors if they now what to look for and what some of the areas of improvement are. I also think that if an article comes up and pertains to another project (like California) we should let that project know so that they can participate if they want too in the developement of the article. I believe this will also help to foster collaboration between projects and remove some of the tensions that have come about in the past few weeks. --Kumioko (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy to see this revived
I'm very happy to see the USCOTM revived and active again. I don't have huge amounts of time, but can focus on a handful of articles at a time and would be happy for the USCOTM to be one of them. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think there's been a bit of a slow start, but suspect we'll see George Washington at GAN or even FAC, so we'll see how that goes. Some side nominations have been buffed nicely too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Housekeeping
Okay, I've clocked it over into March and done some chores. If anyone is keen, they can fill out some blank spaces on U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW/History, like how many edits were done on the last collaboration over February, the diff and word count and maybe a few comments about it. I didn't know much about it so stayed out of it. I'll post on the article talk page too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

minimum 3 votes per month
I know it's ideal that we get 3 votes per month for a topic, but as we are restarting USCOTM, it may take more time to get that level of interest. I suggest we either drop that requirement or at least be a bit flexible for now. It would be good for USCOTM to continue in April. --Aude (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Once it gets rolling good then we can ratchet down but for now I think we need to be a little more flexible. --Kumioko (talk) 02:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I archived California but left Wall Street as I was a bit half-and-half. Anyway, looks like there is another frontrunner. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Housekeeping redux
Okay, I've clocked it over into April and done some chores. If anyone is keen, they can fill out some blank spaces on U.S. Wikipedians' notice board/USCOTW/History, like how many edits were done on the last collaboration over March, the diff and word count and maybe a few comments about it - it looks like ol' George is not too far off GA, but some segments of his life need a real working over....so there is a sort of game plan for GA if anyone wants to go to the library.....?Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
.--Kumioko (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A couple possibles
A few possibles for posting later.
 * Camp David
 * White House
 * The Star-Spangled Banner
 * Space Shuttle program - Collaboration of the Month for August 2011.
 * Charles Lindbergh
 * United States Postal Service
 * Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.--Kumioko (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Great Depression in the United States. --Kumioko (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hope Diamond - Currently a candidate.


 * I like these, they could use work. (Iuio (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2011 (UTC))
 * A couple from the list above were selected as candidates or as the Collab of the Month so I updated the list in case someone tries to resubmit them. --Kumioko (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

September 2011
Now, I've found collaborations often benefit from a real 'driver' who can really coordinate a push to GA or FA. I figured TonytheTiger's interest in all things Chicago might be a help here, so let's see how this goes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

November 2011
Chicago got 154 edits for 15 KB. Not bad for a major metropolis! Good work! I noticed the template hadn't been edited for two months, and the runner-up was the Hope diamond, which is cursed. So I put 99 Percent Declaration up because it's nominated for rescue. Dualus (talk) 20:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * To clarify, 99 Percent Declaration was created by Dualus as a vehicle to house POV-pushing original research that was rejected at the main article on Occupy Wall Street, including substantial material that was unsupported by any editor after Dualus began 7 separate talk page sections and 4 noticeboard threads insisting on inclusion; he's also inserted this material into 3 other articles as a response. Even if this article could be salvaged to have merit and observe policy, editors should be warned that they are being invited into a POV minefield by an editor with a considerable track record of POV-pushing and ignoring consensus among other editors. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS)   (talk)  (contribs) 11:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Eu
eu peço ajuda dum valor 197.218.85.163 (talk) 10:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Eu pesso vos ajudar mim aminha família tão pobre favor favor Tai o meu número 869946032 197.218.85.163 (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2023 (UTC)