Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kingjeff (talk | contribs) at 04:04, 26 February 2006 (→Recklessly nominating articles). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive1

Tie

We've had a tie this week between Bobby Charlton and List of football (soccer) clubs. I wasn't sure what to do in this case as this is the first we've come across. I've followed what Gaming Collaboration of the week does, that is

In case of a tie, voting will be extended for 24 hours. If there is still a tie, the candidate that was nominated first wins. During the extended voting period the old collaboration should still be active. In the case of extended voting, the collaboration period will be reduced to 6 days.

Should we follow this? Does everybody agree on the fairness of the process? -Aabha (talk) 09:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No objections. Though "In case of a tie, the candidate that was nominated first wins" would be a simpler rule. Conscious 12:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, just the "first nominated", without 24 extra hours of voting, seems easier to have. -- Elisson • Talk 14:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added this version to the project page. Conscious 08:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving articles on for a fortnight

It's great to see so many people getting involved in the AID, but I've noticed that the articles that are chosen aren't having that much done to them (I know, sofixit). One way round this would be to make the project fortnightly but I think too many articles are being nominated for that. So I suggest that we leave articles on for a fortnight and continue to vote weekly, giving us two articles at a time. That will give us time to get more work done on the articles that are nominated and also increases the chance of each person in the project having at least one AID that interests them. Thoughts? File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a great idea, specially after the response to Bobby Charlton :( -Aabha (talk) 04:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like this idea. We get more time to work on articles, and there is a new article every week to sustain interest as well. What does everyone else think about it? -Aabha (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renominating articles

Bayern Munich (womens' section), which had a total of one vote, has been renominated a few hours after being removed for lack of interest. This is ridiculous. I'd like to suggest a rule that failed nominations be left for at least month before being re-listed, otherwise we'll end up with loads of articles with 1 or 2 votes clogging up the list. The whole point of removing failed nominations is to prevent this. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was on the verge of more votes when it was deleted. The deadline needs to be extended to maybe 10 days or a couple weeks. Kingjeff 19:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was it? Why then has no one more than you voted now? The deadline is just fine, the meaning, as CTOAGN says, isn't to have 1-2 vote articles filling the page. One month before renomination seems fine. -- Elisson • Talk 19:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was discussion on the previous nomination which indicated that there could have been more votes given an extra week. Kingjeff 19:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, a nomination that needs two weeks to collect two votes is not popular enough to become a FAID, in my opinion. -- Elisson • Talk 20:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to let the discussion surrounding a nomination go for nothing? The point is let the discussion come full circle before deleting the nomination. Kingjeff 20:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand what you mean? The first nomination was removed because it didn't fulfill the criteria to remain nominated. Is that hard to understand? Then renominating the same article is not good manner. Can you also direct me to the "discussion on the previous nomination which indicated that there could have been more votes given an extra week"? -- Elisson • Talk 22:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean that we should archive old discussions from here, it wouldn't be a bad idea. I can't remember if we already do that or not, if not we can set up an /archive page or something. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The point is is that if it's being debated why take it off? In the case of Bayern Munichs' womens' squad it was 1 vote plus being debated. There was potential for more votes. If there was no disscussion going on then you would be absolutely right. Kingjeff 23:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where was the debate? -- Elisson • Talk 23:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under comments. In the 1st nomination. Kingjeff 00:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I only found this:
Where does anyone state that they might vote for the nomination? Punkmorten seems to be somewhat against the nominee even having a separate article, and the other person involved in the "discussion" is me, and I had no thought whatsoever on voting for the nomination, I just wanted to say that I think the women's team deserve its own article. I consider this discussion finished. -- Elisson • Talk 00:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. Or they would have voted. The discussion was obviously debating both point of views and I would have added given more time. Kingjeff 03:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't see where this debate was that you mention. There was nothing here, there's nothing on your talk page and the article doesn't have one. The requirement for an article to stay on for a second week is for it to receive one vote other than the nominator's in its first week. Given the number of votes that are being cast, that's not much to ask is it? File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 07:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The articles that are taken off from the vote are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive/Removed, alogwith the votes they have received, and any discussion that might have taken place under their nomination.
Kingjeff, nobody is stopping you from nominating articles again, but its only fair that there be a time-gap between renominations. If the article failed to receive enough votes in a week, its highly unlikely that it will do so the very next week. -Aabha (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's under the assumption that no disscussion has happened on that paticular article. Kingjeff 15:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. I know very well what discussion you're referring to. But unfortunately, "discussion" does not equal "votes". Can you please clearly state what your argument is? The comments under nominations are not for deciding whether an article should be nominated, or if it should stay on the list. If it gets the votes, it stays. If it doesn't get the votes, it goes. Its that simple.
How can we assume that the discussion that you're talking about would have led to more votes. There is just no logic behind that. -Aabha (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said disscussion = votes. But the thing is that discussions should be complete before deleting nominations. I never said that discussion would lead to votes. I said that it could.Kingjeff 17:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion in question roughly went: "I don't think this should even have an article", "I think it should but I'm not voting for it." That was it. No part of that discussion suggests that people were suddenly going to start voting for the article after ignoring it for a week. If hardly any votes had been cast all week I could see a case for making an exception but there were loads of votes last week. As far as I could see, the discussion looked complete anyway. I don't see a real problem with leaving it on seeing as it's just one article and there was no rule in place about renoms at the time, but the idea of renominating an article immediately after it's kicked off is silly, especially when the only way it could have done any worse is if you'd forgotten to vote when nominating it. It might be worth working on it and seeing if people want to join in later on when there's a bit more content though. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Users

I just noticed that User:Hargreavesfan has only made edits to pages with votes in progress. There is nothing to suggest this isn't allowed, but perhaps it is something we should think about. Oldelpaso 22:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's only made votes to pages Kingjeff has voted on. I wonder what the odds of that are. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And (s)he's only ever made any "contribution" to pages which Kingjeff has "contributed" to. I'd say do not count those votes unless User:Hargreavesfan has a good reason for us to do so. -- Elisson • Talk 23:59, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't voted for La Liga. Hargreavesfan hasn't voted Galatasarayand F.C. United of Manchester. Even though all of you are wrong I still love the attention. Kingjeff 01:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that as Hargreavesfan (talk · contribs) only contibutions so far are votes, we should discount all of them. Conscious 13:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with that. As it's unlikely that a genuine new user would turn up on a project page and start voting without editing anything, it's reasonable to ignore the votes of anyone who hasn't made a few article edits. Anyone disagree or can we implement this straight away? CTOAGN (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Implement. -- Elisson • Talk 09:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the vote counts and dates after discounting votes of User:Hargreavesfan and User:Jack O Lantern (who seems to have no edits at all, funnily). What about User:Gail Wynand? -Aabha (talk) 13:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at User:Kaiser23 too, and a stated rule for a fixed number of edits before voting would be the easiest way to go. Poulsen 14:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


It doesn't matter what's on this page. It only matter what is on the main page. If you want people to know about some little voting rule at least put it where everyone is more likely to see it. Hargreavesfan 16:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, we need to have a rule in place. Whats a reasonable number? 50 edits in the Main namespace? -Aabha (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say Hargreavesfan votes count untill the situation is sorted out. Kingjeff 17:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say his votes shouldn't count as the situation is sorted out. Four people agree that his votes should not count. -- Elisson • Talk 17:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I say lets have a vote on it. Kingjeff 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the current rules on voting he's allowed to vote counted. But there was an agreement to have a change in rule for 50 edits. The situation is not sorted out untill the rule actually changed. Kingjeff 17:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Kingjeff, do not be such a pain in the ass. There has been a discussion here, and at least four people were in favor of discounting the votes (and no one was against, until now, after a decision had been made), and thus we decided to discount his votes. There is nothing more to it, so let's just keep this simple, otherwise we would need to have votes for everything, which is not the way Wikipedia works (m:Don't vote on everything, m:Polls are evil, Wikipedia:Straw polls). -- Elisson • Talk 17:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But the discussion should be about the specific rule under nomination and voting. It's insulting when you talk about specific users. A rule was proposed of a minimum of 50 edits and thats what the discussion should be about. I think an apology is required to Hargreavesfan, User:Kaiser23 and User:Jack O Lantern all deserves apologies. So, the issue is very simple. Either we all accept the rule about 50 votes or we don't accept the rule about 50 votes. Kingjeff 20:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so a minimum rule is in action. Then why do these users need apologies? For what? Could you care to explain that? Additionally, please read guidelines before starting polls, especially Wikipedia:Straw polls, which says: "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process." Kingjeff, you are doing way to much on way to short time. -- Elisson • Talk 20:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cause we were making them look evil when we should have been talking about the ruling. The nomination and voting section said "registered user" which means that their votes are technically valid. Kingjeff 22:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining things to you feels like explaining them to a wall, so I've decided not to engage in discussions with you anymore. -- Elisson • Talk 10:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Since when is archiving vandalism? If you think any topic is current why not just bring that discussion out?Kingjeff 21:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To satify everyone, I left the ones from the last week or so.

The archiving itself I did not consider vandalism, but being reverted because of a perfectly good reason (some discussions still being active), and then re-doing the action, I consider vandalism. -- Elisson • Talk 22:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why couldn't you pull them out then and repost them? It's an insult to me when you falsely accuse me of that when you, me and everyone else knows that it isn't vandalism.Kingjeff 22:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VAND include blanking of pages. When the article approaches the 30kb limit, the finished topics should be archived, not an indiscriminate archiving of all topics at 20kb. Poulsen 22:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't blank pages. The talk page was still too long at 20 kb. Kingjeff 14:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what your vandalism page says about this situation. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. So, when you can reasonably assume that something is a well-intentioned error, correct it without just reverting it or labeling it as vandalism. When you disagree with someone, remember that they probably believe that they are helping the project. Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same. This can avoid misunderstandings and prevent problems from escalating." Kingjeff 14:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your archiving was reverted once without anyone yelling "vandalism". Then you did the same thing again. That is not what I call a "good-faith effort". -- Elisson • Talk 16:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good faith effort since I believed on both occasions that I was right. Kingjeff 22:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving current discussions is not right, nor is it good faith, no matter what you think. -- Elisson • Talk 23:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you're right about everything and everyone else is wrong about everything?Kingjeff 00:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For better for worse, the material is archived. What's done is done; it's not a big deal if no active discussions are taking place. You should wait until the page is full (30kb), but hey, consider it lesson learned. Was any material deleted? --DanielCD 01:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely no material was deleted. I didn't blank anything, I didn't do anything but achive the discussions. Kingjeff 01:09, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I said, for better or worse, it's done. Just leave it. I don't see anything to get concerned about here. BTW, how do you "delete" archiving without deleting the page that was created for the archiving? If someone left a blank page there, that's kinda lame. But still no big deal. Leave the crap archived and let's everyone find something more interesting to do. --DanielCD 01:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we are leaving the page archived, but the proper archiving was done by Kingjeff after he had been reverted twice for archiving the whole talk page leaving this page empty. But yeah, let's leave it at this, as long as Kingjeff realizes that if he is reverted with the edit summary: "rv archiving - some of these discussions are still current", then maybe he should read that and follow it, instead of doing the same thing again. -- Elisson • Talk 09:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, where do I begin?

  • This is a project with 30+ people on it, not a userpage. If you think the talk page should be archived early, it's not asking a lot for you to put a message on it suggesting it and then doing it a day or two later. It wouldn't be a big deal, except to someone more cynical than myself it would look like you'd started an argument, lost it and were trying to hide the discussion, as you have previously done something like that on your user page.[1] Wouldn't it be easier just to discuss your disagreements politely in the first place?
  • I'm trying to avoid replying to your posts as much as possible as I see it as a waste of time, but I can't let your behaviour regarding Elisson go unmentioned. He explained his reasons for reverting you in the edit summary and politely asked you to stop. If you'd had a problem with that you could have just discussed it with him here or on his talk page like most of us would have. Going to an admin, giving him your side of the story and asking him to "deal with"[2] Elisson instead of discussing it yourself wasn't really adult behaviour.
  • One sentence answers like "So, you're right about everything and everyone else is wrong about everything?" don't really help to advance a discussion. If you'd explained why you thought the page needed archiving and why you thought you were being treated unfairly the discussion would have gone a lot more smoothly.

CTOAGN (talk) 09:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's learned a bit here. He made a mistake and got a little ego bruised, that's all. And like many of us, is not real savvy at dealing with people we can't see. It's really a skill that takes time to develop (for those who have the adaptability and patience to hang around long enough to develop it). I recommend just reading the issues here and learning from them, and take as that: a learning experience. Terse words were crossed, which isn't right by any means, but perhaps next time, because of this, fewer will be. ;-) --DanielCD 15:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are we in agreement that this discusion is over? Kingjeff 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's mostly over, but would you please not archive it right now? This page was archived just 3 days ago, and is still quite short. Conscious 09:05, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting for rule change

There have been issues about certain members only using their accounts to vote. Aabha R suggested 50 posts should be the minimum.

Support

Oppose

Discussion

    • changing typo, change pictures size isn't a bad thing. The issue with sockpuppetry is not how long it can take to do 50 posts. The issue with that is can sockpuppetry be detected in 50 posts. If not how many would it take? Kingjeff 18:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dont say anything about "changing typo, change pictures size" is bad thing. I show it as an example because of their easiness. I say if someone want to achieve minimum requirements. Change his ip address, and edit min. required pages and then vote. So it is really complicated. As i posted before Such "bad faith" opinions include those being made by sock puppets, being made anonymously, or being made using a new userid whose only edits are to the article in question and the voting on that article. (this is written in Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus) --Ugur Basak 21:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving articles on for a fortnight (again)

I suggested this above, but only got one reply. A couple more comments would be helpful, otherwise I'll be bold and implement it next week. CTOAGN (talk) 12:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, gives us more time to really do some real work on the article, but I suggest keeping the "need x votes by x" on a weekly basis, to quickly sort out nominations that aren't very popular. -- Elisson • Talk 12:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree as well, as stated in the earlier dicussion. More time to work, and interest is sustained. -Aabha (talk) 12:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why wasn't this continue at under the old topic Kingjeff 18:32, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see how you can leave pages on longer without letting the voting go on longer. Kingjeff 21:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought CTOAGN had explained his argument just fine. Anyways, well, the whole point behind this is that we have two articles to work on per week, with each article getting a fortnight. Now its very simple - we can only do this if we vote on a weekly basis and choose fortnightly. -Aabha (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how it could be left on without leaving voting open for the same length. Kingjeff 15:39, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its logic. -Aabha (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1st week: voting allowed 2nd week: voting not allowed 3rd week: voting allowed 4th week: voting not allowed

Is this how we're going to do it? Kingjeff 17:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Voting would be just as it is now, but when an article "wins", it is listed for two weeks at a time so we have two articles on AID at a time. For its first week it will be on AID with the article the from week before and for the second week it will be on with the article from the week after. CTOAGN (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it might get confusing that way? Kingjeff 17:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. CTOAGN (talk) 18:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But not everyone is as briliant as Johan Elisson. So I see that there could be confusion. Kingjeff 18:07, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though not a member of the project, I have some thoughts. I think that it wouldn't help much. Consider the people who help with the FAID. There's a certain amount of work they dedicate to it. If one article is selected each week, the average amount of improvement per article will be the same, no matter whether articles are left for another week or not. (The argument is not too strict, but you get the idea :)
Just add "You can still help with the last week's article, Foo Bar" to the template to get the same effect. Or if you want a real improvement the drive can be switched to fortnightly (truly fortnightly, I mean). What's proposed will just improve the statistics.
Don't be disappointed with the results. Some articles will inevitably get less edits just because they are so good (I mean Bobby Charlton), others have much to be improved.
On a side note, thanks to everyone who helped with the List of football (soccer) clubs. That was cool :) Conscious 18:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way I suggested would work better, because there seems to be a psychological effect when an article is selected - people seem to stop working on an article once its week is up so keeping it on longer might help. It won't add any weekly administrative effort as all that's needed is to change the templates from "This week's FAID is..." to "This week's FAIDs are..." or similar. CTOAGN (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also believe that the purpose of collaborations is to concentrate on one article. Having two articles at a time looks like a step to having no collaboration. Conscious 11:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Kingjeff. As for you, you need not worry, as you do voting the exact same way as before. And you seem to know how to do that, possibly even from several accounts. Now please stop being a dick. -- Elisson • Talk 18:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingjeff: a polite request

I think it would be best if you avoided editing talk and project pages for a while, and concentrated on editing articles. You've caused a fair amount of friction over the past couple of weeks, and if things continue that way we'll end up opening an RFC against you. I'd rather avoid that. I suggest you leave it a couple of months or so before getting involved in the project discussion again and see if you get more of a feel for how things are done on Wikipedia. Obviously I've got no authority to tell you to do that, this being Wikipedia, but I think it would prevent a lot of conflict and wasted time.

I've put this here instead of on your talk page as it's relevant to the other people who've discussed things with you recently. CTOAGN (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet check

I've requested a check at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser to see if we can find out whether any of our voters are 'linked'. I can't help noticing that Poulsen asked Kingjeff a question about an entry that he had nominated and Hargreavesfan answered it, even though he hasn't voted on it (yet).[3] Even if they're using different IPs, I'm past the point of assuming good faith on this, and think we should probably ignore votes from both of them. CTOAGN (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Count votes?

Contentious topic, but what are we doing about votes from "new" users, with most of the contribs as votes? -Aabha (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discount the votes, as discussed above I guess. I too noticed a few "new" users casting votes, but I was not sure that any of them qualified to be discounted as they had contributed a little. -- Elisson • Talk 19:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wait and see what happens with the Checkuser first. Oldelpaso 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What Aabha is talking about is not the suspected sockpuppets of User:Kingjeff but rather TwilaStar (talk · contribs), SpandX (talk · contribs) and Uapatriot (talk · contribs), I think. -- Elisson • Talk 19:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do imply the latter. -Aabha (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TwilaStar was already on the CheckUser list (very similar contributions to Jhollernwhatever) and I've added Spandx. I don't see a problem with Uapatriot (at least, nothing different to the rest of the Kyiv pile-on) - they've only voted for one article and have already started working on it. CTOAGN (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of waiting for the CheckUser, but unfortunately they can take a while. Sadly, it's clear that we can't run the project on WP:AGF and common sense at the moment, so we need to nail down a load of rules (or a load of users). I can't see any reason why a user who has more poll votes (AFD votes etc would be different) should be counted, nor any reason why someone who has never edited a football article should be allowed to vote in the poll. CTOAGN (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A combination of registration date, total contributions and contributions to football related articles in the last 100 edits (or similar) maybe? That would sort out most "suspicious" votes I guess. -- Elisson • Talk 21:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say we decide on a rule before we start discounting votes, lest it dissuade somebody honestly interested. -Aabha (talk) 17:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recklessly nominating articles

Kingjeff, could you please stop nominating articles almost every day? The point of the FAID is not that every article that need something done should be nominated (for example, why not add the club career and international career of Beckenbauer yourself?), but a mean of improving an article you think really deserves featured status, and that you can not (or hardly can) complete on your own. So please, keep your nomination tendencies down to maybe one article every or every two weeks. -- Elisson • Talk 21:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want them on then don't vote for them. Kingjeff 21:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingjeff, PLEASE be a little more cooperative. -- Elisson • Talk 21:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite honest, I think I can't find anymore articles to put on anyways. Kingjeff 21:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good then, and please refrain from nominating any more articles in a few weeks, as you've filled your quota for this month... -- Elisson • Talk 21:14, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the quota rule? Kingjeff 21:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for guidelines to be explicitly written everywhere Kingjeff, use some common sense once in a while. Read WP:CIV, WP:EQ and WP:POINT, cool down, return here, try to understand what I tell you. -- Elisson • Talk 21:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does everyone think about increasing the number of minimum votes needed per week? -Aabha (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Three votes per week is ok, that would still mean that popular nominations stay on long while not so popular are removed. -- Elisson • Talk 18:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, three is a reasonable number. Oldelpaso 19:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The improvement drive has become very popular, and now there are about a dozen articles on the table, so yes, it makes sense. Conscious 20:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As there seems to be consensus on this, I will be bold and implement this right away. -- Elisson • Talk 21:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to set a limit on articles, why not how an actual limit on how many can be nominated at anyone time?Kingjeff 20:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just use the common sense you must have hidden somewhere? -- Elisson • Talk 20:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


We should try to have 6 or 7 nominations on at any 1 time. It seems like a reasonable number. Kingjeff 04:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More discounted votes

I have discounted some votes that according to this were a heap of sockpuppets. I've left one of their votes on each nomination, like we should leave Kingjeff's votes on even if he used a sockpuppet (Hargreavesfan). -- Elisson • Talk 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go step further and block those votes as well. They've caused a lot of inconvenience by doing this and I think we should ignore them all permanently. And while Jhohenzollern etc. are on a different IP to Hargreavesfan and Kingjeff, the chance of another German-Canadians Bayern Munich fan wanting to edit the FC United at the same time as jeff seems too much of a coincidence to me. What does everyone else think? CTOAGN (talk) 13:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the last votes as well is ok with me. -- Elisson • Talk 13:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait and get as many opinions as possible. Dynamo Kyiv is going to go through with any system we use, so we might as well wait a week before making any decision. CTOAGN (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just the fact that someone used sockpuppets to influence voting is reason enough to discount their votes, I think. Though I don't mind Kingjeff joining back after his ban, provided he doesn't indulge in this again. -Aabha (talk) 12:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, after giving it a bit of thought, I don't think I have any opinion on this at this time. -Aabha (talk) 01:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

La Liga

I see La Liga is about to become archived today. But it's the leading vote getter. Should we extend the deadline to sunday or archive it? Or any other ideas on how to deal with it? Kingjeff 15:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be removed, unless someone votes today. Conscious 15:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the fact that it's a leading vote getter doesn't influence that decision? Kingjeff 19:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does feel a little weird to remove a nomination with that many votes, and I think this should be discussed further how to handle the situation. Maybe some kind of rule that a vote leader stays at least until the next article is chosen? -- Elisson • Talk 21:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for letting it on until at least the sunday after when the next article is chosen. It just doesn't seem right that the leading vote getter is removed over a technicallity. Would anyone be opposed if the date was changed to this upcoming sunday? Kingjeff 22:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it, 11 votes in 28 days... Conscious 06:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the article had been improved much even without being the FAID of the week, I guess that's ok. -- Elisson • Talk 11:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I guess thats an acceptable reason. But how about setting a standard for next time it happens. Kingjeff 13:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue that I just remembered with the La Liga article. User:*drew voted on there yesterday. But he put his vote under discounted votes. If we accept his vote then it solves the problem of not enough votes by yesterday. If we don't then we can just leave it where it is. Kingjeff 13:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However he voted one day to late, and as someone noted in the comments, the article has been expanded much already, so I guess we should just let it stay in the removed section. But I still think it is a good idea to have a rule for what to do when a nomination has a lot more votes than all other nominations but will be removed before the next FAID is chosen. -- Elisson • Talk 15:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a way it can be worded.

  1. The leading vote getter is allowed to be on untill the following sunday after the deadline.

or should we be setting a minimum amount of votes for this issue? Kingjeff 15:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something like that seems good. Maybe adding that the nomination in question must have at least 6 votes, or something. Let's wait and see what a few more participants think about this. -- Elisson • Talk 16:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 seems too small. How about 10? Kingjeff 20:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Article_improvement_drive&oldid=41264919"