Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Collaboration of the fortnight

Positive votes only

Can we agree only to make positive votes? This saves hassle, and makes it easier to judge which are to be selected. It is the method that works at WP:COTW, and I think it would be nice to implement it here. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 18:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but I think I'd rather leave off that requirement for the mo - but I would choose the collaboration as being the article with the most positive votes, with negative comments only being used as a tie-breaker. I certainly wouldn't want negative votes to be counted as "minus 1" or to be taken as outweighing positive votes. The aim, I think, is to get an article which as many people want to help to contribute to improving as possible - neutral and negative comments can be helpful in that aim. If the negative comments are unconstructive though then that would be a problem, but I don't think this is likely on what has been, and I hope will remain, a friendly WikiProject. Kind regards, jguk 19:22, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

The concept is rather confusing. I voted a 'no' for history of test cricket because I don't think it is yet ripe for a two week attack. There are too many things to do for it to become anything like reasonably complete. But that does not mean that I won't contribute if it is chosen. Tintin1107 21:21, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

No-one is forbidding you from editing the articles under CCOTF. The idea is that people don't just vote and ignore the collaboration. This is to ensure that the collaboration gets results Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Template

I have the following template to add to the talk pages of each collaboration of the fortnight, jguk 14:52, 21 May 2005 (UTC) :

{{CricketCOTF}}

Removal of Sydney Riot of 1879

I have removed Sydney Riot of 1879 from the list of potential future collaborations as it is now on WP:FAC. However, if anyone has any objections, I shall re-add it, jguk 15:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Anybody home ?

The two weeks of Cricket Laws is up. Tintin 06:53, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and it was a bit of a flop. Is there still the will to do another COTF? Stephen Turner 08:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Methinks we need to do some leaning on Jguk to come back. Ambi 08:14, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, that would certainly help! With Laws of cricket, Jguk did a lot, and I did some, but no-one else seemed interested. If there's not enough interest without Jguk around, it's not worth nominating another one. But maybe Laws of cricket was just less interesting than other proposed topics. Stephen Turner 09:08, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will put some energy into this project, but I don't have the time at the moment. I shall do after the end of my exams, on Monday. Cheers, smoddy 15:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not very interested in this. I prefer something related to cricket history. Tintin 15:37, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I have a suggestion then. How about we choose History of Test cricket (1890 to 1900) as the COTF starting this weekend? (Is that page still in need of some attention, or is it now too good for a COTF?) Stephen Turner 09:30, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've declared History of Test cricket (1890 to 1900) to be the COTF for the next fortnight. Stephen Turner 02:41, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Need more nominations/votes

I've just changed the COTF to West Indian cricket team. But if we're going to do another one in two weeks' time, we're going to need som more nominatons and/or votes. Stephen Turner 08:24, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

This can do with a lot of beefing up.

1. The 'notable cricketers' include just statistics and they are not always relevant (see for instance, Lawrence Rowe and Frank Worrell)

2. The decades also could do with more descriptive stuff.

3. A general outline of WI cricket history, which could be part of 'decades' or a seperate section. I am not very clear about what this could be. Highlights could be the events that preceded Worrell's selection as the captain, Lloyd's team, all the mess that has happened in the last 10 years etc.

I am willing to give a try at 1 & 2. Tintin 08:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Tintin, can I suggest copying these comments to Talk:West_Indian_cricket_team? Stephen Turner 09:52, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

How to change the COTF

I've acted as self-appointed COTF-changer the last two fortnights, so I thought I'd make a list of the pages I found I had to edit in order to do the change. This might prove useful to myself or other people in the future. But in particular, I won't be able to do it this Sunday, because I've just moved house and I don't have connectivity at home yet — so somebody else should take it on if possible.

• Count the votes. Positive votes count +100, negative votes count -1.
• Edit the old COTF just to insert or delete a blank line somewhere. This generates an oldid for the previous edit, which will be needed in the next step.
• On the COTF page,
  1. Change the current COTF at the top;
  2. Change the dates for the next COTF;
  3. Find the before and after oldid's for the previous COTF, and add it to the list of previous COTFs;
  4. Delete the new COTF from the list of nominations, but save a copy of the comments for use in the next step.
• On the new COTF's talk page,
  1. Add {{CricketCOTF}} to the top;
  2. Also add the comments from the COTF page which you kept a copy of in the previous step.
• On the old COTF's talk page, change {{CricketCOTF}} to {{OldCricketCOTF}}.
• Change the COTF at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket#Collaboration_of_the_fortnight.
• Put encouraging messages on the user talk pages of all users who voted in favour of the COTF, inviting them to come along and improve the article.

Stephen Turner 11:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

New COTF needed

Tintin just pointed out to me that the COTF hasn't changed for over a month. Unfortunately, I still don't have internet access at home (just don't ask) and so I'm unable to change it at the moment. Anyone else want to do so? Just follow the steps above... Stephen Turner 08:48, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No diffs

I want to explain why I didn't include diffs when I added the before and after links for previous collaborations — and why I removed them when Kroome111 just added them.

I did consider them when I first added the before and after links, but I decided they were really not useful. During a collaboration, as well as wording changes, paragraphs and sections tend to get moved around, and the diff really can't cope with this. You tend to end up with the original article on one side of the page, and the new article on the other side of the page, with only small overlaps; and really you'd be better off just looking at the two articles.

Of course, this is all very subjective, and you're welcome to shout me down!

Stephen Turner 19:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

To be honest I was going to suggest it on here first and probably should have done! --Kroome111 22:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone else have an opinion? If people want them, we can have them, I just tried them myself and found them useless to me. Stephen Turner 08:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That was very poorly worded by myself, it meant to say that I was going to suggest what people thought of it here first before going ahead and doing it to see what opinion on it was. On reflection 1 looks horrid a couple average and one looks alright (only alright) --kroome111 17:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Inactive?

If nobody opposes, I'd like to move this collaboration to "inactive". --Fenice 19:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• I concur — it's inactive. Stephen Turner (Talk) 18:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)