Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DanielCD (talk | contribs) at 15:18, 3 February 2006 (→Archiving). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football/Article improvement drive/February1

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)

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)

Yeah, just the "first nominated", without 24 extra hours of voting, seems easier to have. -- Elisson • Talk 14:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added this version to the project page. Conscious 08:38, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Where was the debate? -- Elisson • Talk 23:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Eh? I only found this:

• Does it really need a separate article? Punkmorten 17:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, I think so. See for example Arsenal L.F.C.. -- Elisson • Talk 18:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

The articles that are taken off from the vote are listed at Misplaced Pages: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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Implement. -- Elisson • Talk 09:43, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. 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" 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)

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)