Biography Project‑class | |||||||
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hey, I'd like to suggest that you lower the number of votes needed for an artical to be used in the next by to 3 like the GCOTW has. You only have to do this until the BCOTW gets popular. Its a suggestion, you don't have to take it if you don't want to. -- ZeWrestler 02:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This wasn't "accidentally" selected 24 hours early. This was selected because the person in charge of the collaboration did not know if he would be there tomorrow to update it, so he did it early. I'm reverting and putting the templates back to the way they were. Instruction creep much? Mike H (Talking is hot) 16:38, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Falphin, I changed the wording on the template from one week to two weeks because I rather thought this was what "Collaboration of the Week" implied (there are other projects called "Collaboration of the Fortnight"). This is what I meant when I, probably too curtly, wrote "no one supported" the two weeks system; there did not seem to be any indication of it on the page, and I figured it might have been some capricious, spontaneous change.
Now I see the page had in fact said "Every other week", which is sort of brief but it's there (or at least was). Considering this, if you want to operate this as a biweekly collaboration I certainly would not oppose it, but I really wonder what others thought the intended period was.-- Pharos 4 July 2005 04:33 (UTC)
-->It's officially biweekly then? I will adjust it to the new duration.-- Fenice 08:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I won't be here to update the article as I will be on a cruise at the time(and the next weeks in Prudhoe Bay I won't be able to update it. If there are still 3 votes tie and not much work is done I wouldn't object to expanding the BioCOTW another week. I will leave it up to those here at the time. Falphin 00:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Would anyone object to keeping him for one more week???? A whole lot more could be done, and no other topics are getting many votes. Falphin 20:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I left a note for Falphin, but I guess he's busy. Accordingly, I think we should move forward & keep the project going. Based on the rules we've established, it looks like Pope Damascus, the earliest nominee with 3 votes.
Kaisershatner 17:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I have archievd Louis Pasteur and Elton John, but looking other nominees all of them must be archieved. Is this project dead, looks like there is not much attention. Will we archieve old unsuccesful nominees or not?-- Ugur Basak 13:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
President of the United Nations General Assembly has a significant number of red-links for past-Presidents of the UN General Assembly which could be done -- Midnight tonight 01:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Biography Project‑class | |||||||
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Hey, I'd like to suggest that you lower the number of votes needed for an artical to be used in the next by to 3 like the GCOTW has. You only have to do this until the BCOTW gets popular. Its a suggestion, you don't have to take it if you don't want to. -- ZeWrestler 02:01, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This wasn't "accidentally" selected 24 hours early. This was selected because the person in charge of the collaboration did not know if he would be there tomorrow to update it, so he did it early. I'm reverting and putting the templates back to the way they were. Instruction creep much? Mike H (Talking is hot) 16:38, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Falphin, I changed the wording on the template from one week to two weeks because I rather thought this was what "Collaboration of the Week" implied (there are other projects called "Collaboration of the Fortnight"). This is what I meant when I, probably too curtly, wrote "no one supported" the two weeks system; there did not seem to be any indication of it on the page, and I figured it might have been some capricious, spontaneous change.
Now I see the page had in fact said "Every other week", which is sort of brief but it's there (or at least was). Considering this, if you want to operate this as a biweekly collaboration I certainly would not oppose it, but I really wonder what others thought the intended period was.-- Pharos 4 July 2005 04:33 (UTC)
-->It's officially biweekly then? I will adjust it to the new duration.-- Fenice 08:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I won't be here to update the article as I will be on a cruise at the time(and the next weeks in Prudhoe Bay I won't be able to update it. If there are still 3 votes tie and not much work is done I wouldn't object to expanding the BioCOTW another week. I will leave it up to those here at the time. Falphin 00:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
Would anyone object to keeping him for one more week???? A whole lot more could be done, and no other topics are getting many votes. Falphin 20:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I left a note for Falphin, but I guess he's busy. Accordingly, I think we should move forward & keep the project going. Based on the rules we've established, it looks like Pope Damascus, the earliest nominee with 3 votes.
Kaisershatner 17:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I have archievd Louis Pasteur and Elton John, but looking other nominees all of them must be archieved. Is this project dead, looks like there is not much attention. Will we archieve old unsuccesful nominees or not?-- Ugur Basak 13:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
President of the United Nations General Assembly has a significant number of red-links for past-Presidents of the UN General Assembly which could be done -- Midnight tonight 01:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)