Wikipedia talk:UK Wikipedians' notice board/UKCOTW

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject United Kingdom (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Project This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Current featured articles[edit]

This is a selection of current featured articles on UK subjects. Use these as a guide to the standard of article that commonly gets accepted as featured status.

Also several articles on the Royalty, nobility and chivalry. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:50, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I propose that this information gets moved to another Wikipedia page, for example a different page off Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board. Is it really related to UK COTW? Talrias | talk 23:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Ah - forgot this list. There is also a somewhat longer one on the page for the featured article on the Wikipedia:Wikiportal/United Kingdom - Template talk:Wikiportal:United Kingdom/Featured (which reminds me, it is time to change the featured article and image). -- ALoan (Talk) 12:34, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Voting[edit]

How does the voting work? It seems to have a random number of days to run, and a random number of votes required... --NeilTarrant 11:20, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Someone nominates an article and people who support that article being collaboration of the week leave their name in support of it. If you don't support that article don't leave your name, or make a comment on the nomination. At the end of each week the nomination with the most votes, or that was nominated first (in the case of a tie) becomes the collaboration of the week.
To make sure an article is not left hanging around forever waiting for people to place votes on it, it has to obtain at least three votes each week so that it stays listed as a nomination. If it doesn't get these three votes, the nomination is removed. It is, however, convention (at least on the main COTW) that if the article has already received more than three votes the next target is listed: six votes in two weeks' time after the nomination, nine votes after three weeks, etc. I'm going to stop doing this though because it's confusing far too many people. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:39, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually no, if I change it back to the old way it might encourage some users to think that the article doesn't need any more votes because it's already reached its target. I'll explain this voting system as best I can in the main page, somewhere. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:43, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Sounds good - I can deal with complexity if I know where it is coming from! --NeilTarrant 01:30, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've rewritten the voting system. The description looks confusing - maybe the person responsible for choosing the topics to put as UK COTW could run this system? Or better yet, write a less confusing description. Talrias | talk 23:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Highlighting nominees[edit]

I have been putting this alert on nominees which have articles (not, obviously, the ones that don't):

{{UKCOTW nominee}}

It has been reperesented to me that these should go on the discussion pages, not the main articles, "otherwise they appear everywhere and it begins to look messy". What does anyone else think? It seems to me that putting them on the discussion pages is a good way of making sure that only sad wikiholics see him, and so long as there are only ~6 such articles this is hardly significant clutter compared to stubs, NPOVs, cleanups, copyvios ect ect. But I don't want to deviate unnecessarily from custom & practice.--Keith Edkins 20:08, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had already created one to go on the discussion pages of the articles that had been nominated. I do think they should go on the discussion pages for the reason stated. The one I had created was:

{{Possible UK COTW}}

although I think yours looks better... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 20:20, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes - information for editors (rather than readers) should go on the talk page, not in the article itself. This is certainly the rule for candidates for the main Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week, although the message about the current week's selected article goes on the article page. I think I prefer the one with flags too, although it is a bit "in your face" - {{Possible UK COTW}} could be made a redirect to {{UKCOTW nominee}}? -- ALoan (Talk) 10:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
OK I'll go with the flow.--Keith Edkins
I've made a new template for a UK COTW candidate, {{Template:UKCOTWC}}. Thoughts? Talrias | talk 23:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Wot no winner?[edit]

Was it a tie with extra time? Why not a golden goal system?

--Keith Edkins 21:07, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's a tie with extra time, indeed. I'm tempted just to put in the Bill of Rights article anyway but I don't want to get a red card... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 21:18, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'm with Graham, go with Bill of Rights this week and do Canterbury next week (assuming nothing overtakes it in the poll) when CheekyMonkey is around. --Joe D 21:28, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and the Bill has just scored the golden goal.

Last week's winner[edit]

Are there any last minute amendments that any of the editors that took part in last week's UKCOTW Geography of the United Kingdom would like to make before I nominate it for FAC? Incidentally, it tripled in size during the week that it was UKCOTW... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:03, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll write a few stubs/articles to remove redlinks to help its chances. Joe D 22:21, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I applaud your enthusiasm, but I really don't think it is good enough yet. In particular, while geology is quite good (I cribbed it from the excellent Geology of the United Kingdom), there are lots of gaps in the rest of it. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:00, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Would you like to add to the to do list on the talk page what you feel it is lacking as an FA candidate? Or list it here? -- Graham ☺ | Talk 15:57, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I added some "todo"s but Geography of the United Kingdom seems to have stalled a bit - do you still intended to nominate it?

As it happens, I think the next winner, National parks of England and Wales, while being much shorter, is a much better bet in WP:FAC. Please would people add to it anything think is missing, or comment on its talk page before nominate it later this week. -- ALoan (Talk) 16:59, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is now red-link free --Keith Edkins 21:53, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What are we voting for?[edit]

Is it

  • "I think this article should be improved", or:
  • "I think this article should be improved, and I'd like to help".

If everybody is voting on the first basis, we run the risk of a series of damp squibs, which Bill of Rights 1689 seems to have been. --Keith Edkins 17:17, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is not clearly defined, but I always take it as being the latter. The problm with the Bill of Rights article is that there are some unresolved issues on the talk page which have seriously slowed up any attempt to expand the article. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This weekend[edit]

This weekend I'm going away to Weymouth (be still my beating sense of adventure) and won't be back on Sunday until quite late. Caqn someone else sort out the UKCOTW selection for next week? If not leave it and I'll do it on Monday. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 17:46, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Religion in the United Kingdom and Monmouth Rebellion were tied at 18:00 on Sunday so we play 24 hours golden-goal extra time. It they are still tied, Religion in the United Kingdom gets the decision as the earlier nomination.--Keith Edkins 09:53, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oh bum - was updating for Religion in the United Kingdom when Monmouth Rebellion got another vote. Blast. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why I reverted my own edits[edit]

At 18:00 yesterday evening Bedfordshire and National Health Service were tying in the vote for the next collaboration. NHS now has more votes, however I'm going to be picky and insist on waiting until 18:00 today before selecting the next winner. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This weekend[edit]

I'm off again this weekend, this time to Tenerife (someone else is paying). Please check the changeover of the cotw on Sunday, or I can do it on Monday. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 02:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Christmas[edit]

Wot no article on Christmas dinner? IVoteTurkey 11:09, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Speaking of which, does anyone have an idea for a christmas related collaporation; I was thinking maybe Christmas Traditions in the UK (an expansion of a section in Christmas) - maybe Regional Christmas Traditions in the UK so that everyone can contribute. --NeilTarrant 18:27, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What about the Queen's Speech. The article I link to is fairly good about the general idea, but not that much about it in the UK in particular. For example, we could mention Channel 4's alternative Christmas message, and there is probably quite a bit more that could be said. Silverfish 19:26, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Er, the Queen's Speech is quite different! But we don't have an article on the Queen's Christmas message. -- ALoan (Talk) 19:45, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Page dead?[edit]

Has the UK COTW died? just two nominations listed on the page (which hasn't been updated for over a week), one of which hasn't the required votes and another which has been generally accepted to not be relevant. Grunners 05:02, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No - just resting. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:32, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Agreed, I'm taking a wikibreak from stuff - prob. come back on to normal duties once our ofsted inspection is over - in the meantime anyone is more than welcome to update the page. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 03:18, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've made Charity shop the current UK COTW after a rest period for this page, and will give it an extended period to a week Sunday to expand a bit. Hopefully we'll have some other nominations up by then. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 21:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd be quite happy to take over the role of deciding the UK COTW article. Talrias | talk 23:24, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Size of an article[edit]

How could I check the size of an article? Thank you. — Instantnood 13:21, Feb 5 2005 (UTC)

This page is one such site that can tell you. Just submit your query and the size of the page should appear in the HTML row under "Object Size Totals". Don't go by "Total size" under "Global Statistics" because this includes the CSS and Javascript from it being a wiki page, and the image of the globe thing in the top left hand corner. -- Francs2000 | Talk [[]] 13:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. — Instantnood 17:48, Feb 5 2005 (UTC)

Long week[edit]

I must say, Northamptonshire has been the UKCOTW for a very long week. G-Man 20:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the winter evenings fly by in Northants ... (sorry, watched Blackadder last night). -- ALoan (Talk) 22:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good point, maybe we should all concentrate on putting the final tweaks to Brian Close so that it can sail past the FAC process:) jguk 23:03, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You'll mentioned United Kingdom corporation tax next :(( My bad. -- ALoan (Talk) 00:46, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
New article, London chosen! Talrias | talk 23:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

A question[edit]

If an article is selected for UKCOTW are the sub pages of that article included?, if not they probably should be. The reason I ask is that History of London is in need of some work, and is IMO really just an extension of the main London article. G-Man 22:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, good question. On the main page should be a short description of the various sections which have their own article, so the section on London which is about its history should be a summary of the information in the History of London article, IMHO. The main article, London, is the focus (but of course information should be added to the other articles too). I personally think both are important. Talrias | talk 23:21, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Help please![edit]

I've tried to add Vimto to the requests, but no matter what I do, I can't get the page title to come up on nominations! --PopUpPirate 22:48, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I see it. I've added a purge cache link also which you should try clicking on if you get this in future. :) Talrias | talk 23:13, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Good work! --PopUpPirate 00:04, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Away[edit]

I'm not going to be here for the next two Sundays so if someone else wants to update the COTW (just edit {{UKCOTW article}} and archive the current COTW to /past collaborations), I'd be very grateful! Talrias | talk 23:15, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Away[edit]

I most likely will not be able to update the COTWs for the forseeable future (just guessing but I think the same may be true for Talrias), hopefully someone else will be around to notice it and act though. -- Joolz 23:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll do it, don't worry. -- Francs2000 23:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]


template[edit]

I added a template Template: past ukcotw to the talk pages of past collaborations in the Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board/UKCOTW/History but wasnt sure about the dates in the Wikipedia:UK Wikipedians' notice board/UKCOTW/Past collaborations section Astrokey44 12:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this project dead?[edit]

I have kept the project up for a prolonged period partly because I have been so busy, but partly also because there has only been one edit since it became the UKCOTW. Is anyone still interested in this project or has it died a natural death? -- Francs2000 18:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks pretty dead to me. Secretlondon 00:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fresh Start?[edit]

Okay, how do this sound. We scrap the three votes a month required ATM just to bring this back alive. We could say three votes required in total. Thoughts? Computerjoe's talk 20:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{UKCOTW}}[edit]

Template:UKCOTW (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]