New Zealand Project‑class | |||||||
|
When should we start the first one, in May ? Brian | (Talk) 08:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the number of votes needed should probably be increased. Currently, only two votes are needed, and one article has already beaten that even though the next collaboration won't start for quite sometime. I was wondering what happens for it to be changed? Is there any set process? -- Midnight tonight 08:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The top of the NZCOF page says that nominations should be for "a specific topic which either has no article or a basic stub page that is directly related to New Zealand". Two of my nominations so far have flouted this guideline, with no one objecting. Weta isn't a stub, and Years in New Zealand is a series of articles. Should we expand the criteria, or just continue to take them with a grain of salt in the usual relaxed kiwi style?- gadfium 02:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Can I request that the regulars at NZCOTF keep this article on their watchlist, even though we're about to change to a different topic, as this will remain a controversial topic and will attract both vandalism (such as this edit) and POV editors.
I think we've done an outstanding job on this article, which is probably a lot more taxing than the average collaboration will be in the future due to the huge amount of detail relating to the case and the strong opinions it generates. I'm pleased to see that we seem to be drawing in new editors to Wikipedia as a result of the collaboration; some of them will stick around and contribute to a wider range of articles in the future, I hope.
Normally, I think the procedure should be that a collaboration should be put on peer review when it finishes its run, with a view to becoming a featured article. I have no objection to this article being moved forward in this fashion, but I suspect that most of us have had our fill of this subject for the time being, so I won't nominate it myself.- gadfium 09:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This article has just finished being the NZ collaboration. The article needs a general peer review. Also, if it could be looked at for POV-pushing in particular due to the controversial nature of the case. Cheers -- Midnight tonight 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The above comment is unsigned. The last time another writer made similar comments they went on to vandalise the article. There is a fundamental problem with reporting on the case. Those unfamiliar with its history seem to be asking why was he convicted, implying that sort of evidence isn't highlighted. In reality the conviction wasn't a result of any credible evidence, it was a result of a myriad of social and circumstantial factors that many analysts have since recognised as a describing a witch hunt. So, what was he convicted upon? Good examples have already been supplied - they are in essence children's stories, digging up Jesus, killing all the boys with axes etc. Mingled within were credible allegations 'he did poos in the bath' (scatological content featured prominently) and others that the adult interpreters coaxed out and then sifted (through arguable means) in order to create a case. Allied with that were parental anxieties about behaviours falling within perfectly ordinary range of childhood behaviours, behaviours that would be remarkable if they didn't occur in such a sample size. That's basically it. Let me repeat, the so called 'toddler testimonies' are IT in terms of evidence. The article just records the resultant fall out. Some of the language may be tweaked but the facts are facts. Those who feel something has been left out are welcome to research such and include it. That doesn't make the existent fact POV. Richard 12:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
An unsigned user wants neutral language and equal weighting. Well, who is stopping that person from doing just that if they feel offended by the article? I have tried to use neutral language and to give plenty of weight to both sides. A claim has been made but no evidence is provided to support it. If anyone has a problem with the language used, feel free to say what it is. Vagueness is not helpful. 21:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher
Please don't debate the issues on this page. Commnents on the article should be directed towards improvement which can be made to it. If you feel a comment is unjustified, then add a very brief reply suggesting the discussion be pursued at Talk:Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis.- gadfium 06:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Placing the following on your user page will produce the box below
{{User NZcollab}}
The current NZ Collaboration is None. |
.
A good way of advertising the collab! -- Midnight tonight 09:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks like we may have a three-way tie coming up! Someone should vote to break the deadlock! -- Midnight tonight 08:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I've set up a section in the page to do the tie breaking vote. -- Midnight tonight 08:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Oleg Alexandrov has raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:Collaborations of whether the template for the current winner of a collaboration should go on the article or the talk page. You might be interested in taking part. Pruneau 00:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Could we use a hash (#), instead of a star (*) on the voting? That would make counting a lot easier? Cheers. -- Midnight tonight 01:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
What are the rules surrounding reviving a previous topic that failed in nomination? Should there be a period in which an article cannot be renominated? I would suggest either four or six weeks. -- Midnight tonight 09:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I was away last night, ran out of time to promote Rubgy, thanks for doing that Brian | (Talk) 00:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This should have been updated by now, I'm unsure of what to do regarding whether to promote all of "year in New Zealand" or just the 1980s. -- Midnight tonight 07:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I know what the rules say, but given that there are a number of countries with FA status, could we, at some stage, have the colla work at the New Zealand article and get it to FA status. To do so I think we would peer review it before hand to see what was wrong, and then edit it up to scratch. It would be nice to see it on the main page at some point in time. I am not suggesting we do it now, as there are some very deserving articles currently put forward, more something to think about in the future. -- Midnight tonight 05:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like we are going to have a tie, anyone care to vote before it closes at 8pm? Brian | (Talk) 06:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Methinks this needs more people. Maybe someone should use a bot and leave a message for everyone in Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand?? Will return shortly - MidnightTonight (yes, I'm logged out at the moment)
Let us know if you happen to pick an article on a person and we'll alert our members! plange 05:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
All candidates are overdue for removal due to not enough votes to stay there. Looks like an opportunity for anyone to nominate their most important articles, for collab. Brian | (Talk) 19:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The collaboration has languished for several months now. Why? At first I thought it was because those of us who are students were busy with end of semester / school year assignments and exams, but it hasn't picked up again since.
One of the problems I can see is that people may vote for a topic because they agree it should be improved, but they have no particular expertise themselves in that topic. I'm guilty of this myself; I nominated New Zealand literature, but since it became the COTF I've looked at a few sources, sighed, and decided to do something else instead. I'd like to see this article become a good one, but I don't have the inclination to do it myself. In retrospect, I shouldn't have put it forward.
What can we do to revitalise the NZCOTF? Here are my ideas:
Alternatively, if no one is very interested in the idea of a New Zealand collaboration any more, maybe we should scrap it.- gadfium 08:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's face it, this collaboration is inactive. If you want to revive it, please do so. -- Midnighttonight ( rendezvous) 21:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion for reinvigorating the project? Change the banner colour! It scares people away being that bright ;-) dramatic 07:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm this project is as inactive as I am. perhaps a change to a monthly collaboration? Onco_p53 11:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Since this is the current Australian collaboration, and the NZCOTF hasn't changed for over a year, I've updated the topic to join the Australians. If there's lots of participation from New Zealanders, maybe this will serve to trigger a revival of our collaboration.- gadfium 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to be available on 1 November to select the topic. Anyone else is welcome to do so - just follow the instructions at Wikipedia:New Zealand collaboration#Selection. If no one does, I'll do it a day or two later.- gadfium 19:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I am currently researching most of the books written about the 1981 tour with a view to expanding and fully referencing the article (a previous collaboration). My target will be GA or A class. dramatic ( talk) 01:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
We all seem to be working flat-tack on election coverage right now, and the collaboration on State Housing hasn't gotten anywhere. Why don't we defer that article until December and reflect reality by declaring New Zealand general election 2008 and associated pages to be the November Collaboration? dramatic ( talk) 09:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I only happened across the collaboration for Agriculture in New Zealand on April first, and all the significant improvement to the article seems to have happened since then. There's a long way to go, so shall we retain the collaboration status for the rest of April? dramatic ( talk) 00:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems no subject is getting the four votes I've deemed necessary for promotion. If I drop the requirement to three votes, then I fear not much collaboration will actually happen on the target article. It seems this process has not managed to gain the interest of sufficient editors.
In practice, collaboration (sometimes) happens as a result of appeals on the New Zealand Wikipedian's noticeboard. The New Zealand river stubs is a good example. Another is my request for help at Fairfield College, where several editors responded and one has continued to take an active role. There was less response to SimonLyall's request about 2degrees, where one editor not previously involved in the article has contributed.
Is there a future for this page? What if anything should be done to revitalise it?- gadfium 10:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I've made the next article "None", since it seems this collaboration isn't working. Not a single edit was made to Gregg's (New Zealand) during the two months it was the collaboration subject. I think part of the problem is that articles take a few months to be promoted, and by that time most people are no longer interested in them, or the article has already been greatly improved since the nomination, as was the case with Gregg's.
Anyone else is welcome to take over the process if they believe they can restore interest in it. Grutness' suggestions above might help.- gadfium 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
New Zealand Project‑class | |||||||
|
When should we start the first one, in May ? Brian | (Talk) 08:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the number of votes needed should probably be increased. Currently, only two votes are needed, and one article has already beaten that even though the next collaboration won't start for quite sometime. I was wondering what happens for it to be changed? Is there any set process? -- Midnight tonight 08:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
The top of the NZCOF page says that nominations should be for "a specific topic which either has no article or a basic stub page that is directly related to New Zealand". Two of my nominations so far have flouted this guideline, with no one objecting. Weta isn't a stub, and Years in New Zealand is a series of articles. Should we expand the criteria, or just continue to take them with a grain of salt in the usual relaxed kiwi style?- gadfium 02:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Can I request that the regulars at NZCOTF keep this article on their watchlist, even though we're about to change to a different topic, as this will remain a controversial topic and will attract both vandalism (such as this edit) and POV editors.
I think we've done an outstanding job on this article, which is probably a lot more taxing than the average collaboration will be in the future due to the huge amount of detail relating to the case and the strong opinions it generates. I'm pleased to see that we seem to be drawing in new editors to Wikipedia as a result of the collaboration; some of them will stick around and contribute to a wider range of articles in the future, I hope.
Normally, I think the procedure should be that a collaboration should be put on peer review when it finishes its run, with a view to becoming a featured article. I have no objection to this article being moved forward in this fashion, but I suspect that most of us have had our fill of this subject for the time being, so I won't nominate it myself.- gadfium 09:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
This article has just finished being the NZ collaboration. The article needs a general peer review. Also, if it could be looked at for POV-pushing in particular due to the controversial nature of the case. Cheers -- Midnight tonight 02:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
The above comment is unsigned. The last time another writer made similar comments they went on to vandalise the article. There is a fundamental problem with reporting on the case. Those unfamiliar with its history seem to be asking why was he convicted, implying that sort of evidence isn't highlighted. In reality the conviction wasn't a result of any credible evidence, it was a result of a myriad of social and circumstantial factors that many analysts have since recognised as a describing a witch hunt. So, what was he convicted upon? Good examples have already been supplied - they are in essence children's stories, digging up Jesus, killing all the boys with axes etc. Mingled within were credible allegations 'he did poos in the bath' (scatological content featured prominently) and others that the adult interpreters coaxed out and then sifted (through arguable means) in order to create a case. Allied with that were parental anxieties about behaviours falling within perfectly ordinary range of childhood behaviours, behaviours that would be remarkable if they didn't occur in such a sample size. That's basically it. Let me repeat, the so called 'toddler testimonies' are IT in terms of evidence. The article just records the resultant fall out. Some of the language may be tweaked but the facts are facts. Those who feel something has been left out are welcome to research such and include it. That doesn't make the existent fact POV. Richard 12:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
An unsigned user wants neutral language and equal weighting. Well, who is stopping that person from doing just that if they feel offended by the article? I have tried to use neutral language and to give plenty of weight to both sides. A claim has been made but no evidence is provided to support it. If anyone has a problem with the language used, feel free to say what it is. Vagueness is not helpful. 21:16, 9 May 2006 (UTC) User:NZ researcher
Please don't debate the issues on this page. Commnents on the article should be directed towards improvement which can be made to it. If you feel a comment is unjustified, then add a very brief reply suggesting the discussion be pursued at Talk:Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis.- gadfium 06:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Placing the following on your user page will produce the box below
{{User NZcollab}}
The current NZ Collaboration is None. |
.
A good way of advertising the collab! -- Midnight tonight 09:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks like we may have a three-way tie coming up! Someone should vote to break the deadlock! -- Midnight tonight 08:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I've set up a section in the page to do the tie breaking vote. -- Midnight tonight 08:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Oleg Alexandrov has raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:Collaborations of whether the template for the current winner of a collaboration should go on the article or the talk page. You might be interested in taking part. Pruneau 00:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Could we use a hash (#), instead of a star (*) on the voting? That would make counting a lot easier? Cheers. -- Midnight tonight 01:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
What are the rules surrounding reviving a previous topic that failed in nomination? Should there be a period in which an article cannot be renominated? I would suggest either four or six weeks. -- Midnight tonight 09:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I was away last night, ran out of time to promote Rubgy, thanks for doing that Brian | (Talk) 00:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
This should have been updated by now, I'm unsure of what to do regarding whether to promote all of "year in New Zealand" or just the 1980s. -- Midnight tonight 07:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I know what the rules say, but given that there are a number of countries with FA status, could we, at some stage, have the colla work at the New Zealand article and get it to FA status. To do so I think we would peer review it before hand to see what was wrong, and then edit it up to scratch. It would be nice to see it on the main page at some point in time. I am not suggesting we do it now, as there are some very deserving articles currently put forward, more something to think about in the future. -- Midnight tonight 05:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Looks like we are going to have a tie, anyone care to vote before it closes at 8pm? Brian | (Talk) 06:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Methinks this needs more people. Maybe someone should use a bot and leave a message for everyone in Category:Wikipedians in New Zealand?? Will return shortly - MidnightTonight (yes, I'm logged out at the moment)
Let us know if you happen to pick an article on a person and we'll alert our members! plange 05:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
All candidates are overdue for removal due to not enough votes to stay there. Looks like an opportunity for anyone to nominate their most important articles, for collab. Brian | (Talk) 19:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The collaboration has languished for several months now. Why? At first I thought it was because those of us who are students were busy with end of semester / school year assignments and exams, but it hasn't picked up again since.
One of the problems I can see is that people may vote for a topic because they agree it should be improved, but they have no particular expertise themselves in that topic. I'm guilty of this myself; I nominated New Zealand literature, but since it became the COTF I've looked at a few sources, sighed, and decided to do something else instead. I'd like to see this article become a good one, but I don't have the inclination to do it myself. In retrospect, I shouldn't have put it forward.
What can we do to revitalise the NZCOTF? Here are my ideas:
Alternatively, if no one is very interested in the idea of a New Zealand collaboration any more, maybe we should scrap it.- gadfium 08:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's face it, this collaboration is inactive. If you want to revive it, please do so. -- Midnighttonight ( rendezvous) 21:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
My suggestion for reinvigorating the project? Change the banner colour! It scares people away being that bright ;-) dramatic 07:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm this project is as inactive as I am. perhaps a change to a monthly collaboration? Onco_p53 11:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Since this is the current Australian collaboration, and the NZCOTF hasn't changed for over a year, I've updated the topic to join the Australians. If there's lots of participation from New Zealanders, maybe this will serve to trigger a revival of our collaboration.- gadfium 19:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to be available on 1 November to select the topic. Anyone else is welcome to do so - just follow the instructions at Wikipedia:New Zealand collaboration#Selection. If no one does, I'll do it a day or two later.- gadfium 19:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
I am currently researching most of the books written about the 1981 tour with a view to expanding and fully referencing the article (a previous collaboration). My target will be GA or A class. dramatic ( talk) 01:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
We all seem to be working flat-tack on election coverage right now, and the collaboration on State Housing hasn't gotten anywhere. Why don't we defer that article until December and reflect reality by declaring New Zealand general election 2008 and associated pages to be the November Collaboration? dramatic ( talk) 09:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I only happened across the collaboration for Agriculture in New Zealand on April first, and all the significant improvement to the article seems to have happened since then. There's a long way to go, so shall we retain the collaboration status for the rest of April? dramatic ( talk) 00:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems no subject is getting the four votes I've deemed necessary for promotion. If I drop the requirement to three votes, then I fear not much collaboration will actually happen on the target article. It seems this process has not managed to gain the interest of sufficient editors.
In practice, collaboration (sometimes) happens as a result of appeals on the New Zealand Wikipedian's noticeboard. The New Zealand river stubs is a good example. Another is my request for help at Fairfield College, where several editors responded and one has continued to take an active role. There was less response to SimonLyall's request about 2degrees, where one editor not previously involved in the article has contributed.
Is there a future for this page? What if anything should be done to revitalise it?- gadfium 10:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I've made the next article "None", since it seems this collaboration isn't working. Not a single edit was made to Gregg's (New Zealand) during the two months it was the collaboration subject. I think part of the problem is that articles take a few months to be promoted, and by that time most people are no longer interested in them, or the article has already been greatly improved since the nomination, as was the case with Gregg's.
Anyone else is welcome to take over the process if they believe they can restore interest in it. Grutness' suggestions above might help.- gadfium 20:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)