imported>Carl Jantzen |
|
| (18 intermediate revisions by 13 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| ==Day of the week== | | {{Archive box|auto=long}} |
| What day of the week should the New Article be selected? We could keep it Tuesday, to synch up with the Article of the Week. It might be nice to have it on a different day, though, so we see Main Page updates twice a week instead of just once.
| | <br/><br/><br/><br/> |
| I'm going to go ahead and change it to Thursday for right now, to keep it as a weekday thing and to also let us start off the program as soon as possible. If anyone has any objections or alternate suggestions please say so.--[[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 23:15, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Front page or no?==
| |
| Should the New Article of the Week appear on the front page? It would make the page somewhat less simplistic, as well as possibly highlight an incomplete article. However the added attention might be useful in improving the article. Should it be on the front page, or perhaps highlighted on Project Home or somewhere else in the CZ namespace? --[[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 09:44, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| : My instinct is that an announce could appear, the precise form to be yet determined. The "added attention" is difficult to overestimate. Besides, this would be a "reward" for the authors. I'm already planning to get there ;-) [[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] 10:46, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :: Take a look at [[Main Page/Test]] to see how the front page would look with a New Article of the Week. Not bad, if I do say so myself. Unless anyone objects I will update the Main Page at 1900 UTC tomorrow to reflect whichever article wins the honors. --[[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 23:26, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Rules== | | == Date needs fixing == |
| Carl, I've noticed you've already nominated two articles which violates the stated rules. :) My other comment is, what qualifies an article as a "New" article? [[Terrier]] seems obvious because it was made today, but [[Edward I]] has been around since 7/20. Is there a time frame we look at for this, say 2 weeks? Also, as far as article completion, can stubs be nominated? My personal opinion is this would be a good venue to show off articles that are ranked 2, developing, in hopes of attracting other authors attention and they can jump in on the collaboration process. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 09:59, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| : Haha, you're absolutely right Todd. I can't believe I didn't notice this. I guess I was just too excited to get this project moving. I've un-nominated [[Terrier]] for now to bring myself back in compliance. Whoops! -- [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 10:01, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| : We're definitely going to need to come up with some guidelines for what articles do and don't qualify as "new". I was thinking articles newer than 1 month, and ranked a 1 or 2 would be eligible. I also think the 1 month timeframe should be from when the article stopped being a stub, not necessarily from the date the software says it was created. I think allowing articles ranked 1 is important because it would let articles that are decently developed, but only by one author, to gain exposure to other authors and editors. -- [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 10:06, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| I think we shouldn't restrict new article of the week to just the last week - To be honest it would be difficult to find new articles created in just the last week that would meet criteria. Though then again it depends on the direction we decide to take - should it be developed articles or developing articles on the new article of the week? Also, Is it ethical to vote for my own article?[[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 10:10, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| | Next pick date needs fixing! [[User:Dalton Holland Baptista|Dalton Holland Baptista]] 18:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC) |
| : I think that at least for now voting on your own article is ok. Since you can nominate yourself you should be able to vote for yourself. Perhaps when the program gets off the ground we'll change it. On the other hand it might not be easy to find good new articles, so maybe we want to keep the rule that lets you nominate/vote for your own articles even then. -- [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 10:13, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| :: I would agree that saying articles within the last month would be a good limit. You can easily check the list of new articles with the date they were created here - http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:Newpages . Since most articles on CZ are not created at the stub level, this should be able to give people a pretty good idea of what articles can qualify as "new".--[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 10:17, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Monthly Write-a-thon as article source== | | == Revising score for voting == |
| One place to look for articles to nominate might be the list of new articles created during the [[CZ:Monthly Write-a-Thon]]. --[[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 10:16, 8 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Interested in New Article of the Week==
| | About 5 days ago, I started a thread on the forums at [http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,2732.0.html here] in which I suggested reducing the score for voting of "specialist supporters" from 3 to 2. |
| Please sign below if you are interested in, at the very least, selecting a <s>Creation of the Week</s>.[http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1093.msg8481.html#msg8481 New Article of the Week]
| |
|
| |
|
| # [[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]]
| | The following users have commented on my proposal in that thread: Hayford Pierce, Drew Smith, Howard Berkowitz, Daniel Mietchen and Peter Schmitt. Neither they nor anyone else objected to reducing the vote score for "specialist supporters". Some of those commentors also suggested that "specialist supporters" be limited to only 1 vote when voting for an article which they created. |
| # [[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] (if we can call it "New Article of the Week"--excellent idea)
| |
| # —[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] [[User talk:Stephen Ewen|(Talk)]]
| |
| # [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]]
| |
| # [[User:Matthew Cornell Woods, Jr.|Matthew Cornell Woods, Jr.]]
| |
| # [[User:Eric M Gearhart|Eric M Gearhart]]
| |
| # [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] - I hope I'm not being too bold by going ahead and starting to jot down some proposed rules about this program. I don't know if I need to get approval or anything to do this...if so someone please let me know. [[CZ:New Article of the Week]]
| |
| # [[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]]
| |
| # [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]]
| |
| # [[User:Robert W King|Robert King]]
| |
|
| |
|
| == Rename? ==
| | Accordingly, I am changing the rules so that "specialist supporters" have a vote score of 1 for articles they created and a vote score of 2 for articles that they did not create. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC) [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 20:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| How about [[CZ:New Draft of the Week]]? This will make it easier to distinguish from [[CZ:Article of the Week]] and will also make it clear that we do not think our new articles are, necessarily, completed articles. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 08:05, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
| | == When there hasn't been an update == |
|
| |
|
| I don't know - for a curious traveller, 'new draft of the week' looks kinda tacky. Or something. [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 08:09, 10 August 2007 (CDT) | | I think it's more fair to pick an article that might have passed the deadline, than continue featuring an article on the front page. I can be pretty neutral here, because it is my article on think tank that has been continued. I'd rather have seen either the new one I contributed or one of the two others replace it, and to start the voting afresh with a new candidate. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 16:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC) |
| | :Did I miss last weeks change over? Because it's still only wednesday where I am. But yes, when I do forget to change it over I agree that an older article would be fine. [[User:Drew R. Smith|Drew R. Smith]] 23:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| : Perhaps something like Recent Creation of the Week? --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 12:09, 10 August 2007 (CDT)
| | == Regarding rules for new drafts of the week == |
|
| |
|
| "Recent Creation of the Week" sounds like we have divine aspirations. In lieu of anything better, I'm going to change it to "New Draft of the Week," which (pace Denis) I think sounds perfectly fine. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:20, 22 August 2007 (CDT)
| | Since they include developing articles, suggest an exception to the one-time rule in cases where substantial further development has occurred since first posting on Welcome Page, perhaps with explanatory note regarding why the repeat. [[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] 16:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC) |
| | |
| I don't really mind whats it called :-) [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 06:06, 24 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Moved from the page ==
| |
| | |
| I won't be able to update the front page this week, so can someone else take care of it? Thank you. -- [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 09:44, 13 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| Yeah, I'll do it at some stage [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 10:09, 13 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| I wrote that on the front page based on this little piece of the policy, inherited from the Article of the Week: "If you are volunteering to change the article of the week on the front page, then say so above the "article nominees" table ("I'm doing the honors this time" -- Jane Doe) so that no one else does it." Do you guys think we should have this on the front page or here on Talk? --[[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 11:45, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :"Doing the honors" lasts for a couple of minutes and should be better announced on the front page, not the talk -- just to prevent others from doing the same work. [[User:Aleksander Stos|Aleksander Stos]] 08:21, 17 August 2007 (CDT) PS. Front page means [[CZ:New Article of the Week]], not the [[Main Page]] as few sections above.
| |
| | |
| ==Tied votes==
| |
| It was agreed on the Article of the Week Talk page that the rules under 'In the event of a tie' be used, so I have copied them here, adding that winning articles may be so named after their last eligible date. I think this is fair because as a last resort, the winner is identified by alphabetical precedence. [[User:John Stephenson|John Stephenson]] 10:38, 21 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == Sorry ==
| |
| I just realized that I broke the rules by nominating two different articles on this page! Sorry! --05:20, 25 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| :Don't worry about it, Larry. The same day I created the New Article of the Week, right after reading all the rules and posting them I nominated two different articles without realizing it. -- [[User:Carl Jantzen|Carl Jantzen]] 11:18, 25 August 2007 (CDT)
| |
Date needs fixing
Next pick date needs fixing! Dalton Holland Baptista 18:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Revising score for voting
About 5 days ago, I started a thread on the forums at here in which I suggested reducing the score for voting of "specialist supporters" from 3 to 2.
The following users have commented on my proposal in that thread: Hayford Pierce, Drew Smith, Howard Berkowitz, Daniel Mietchen and Peter Schmitt. Neither they nor anyone else objected to reducing the vote score for "specialist supporters". Some of those commentors also suggested that "specialist supporters" be limited to only 1 vote when voting for an article which they created.
Accordingly, I am changing the rules so that "specialist supporters" have a vote score of 1 for articles they created and a vote score of 2 for articles that they did not create. Milton Beychok 20:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC) Milton Beychok 20:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
When there hasn't been an update
I think it's more fair to pick an article that might have passed the deadline, than continue featuring an article on the front page. I can be pretty neutral here, because it is my article on think tank that has been continued. I'd rather have seen either the new one I contributed or one of the two others replace it, and to start the voting afresh with a new candidate. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Did I miss last weeks change over? Because it's still only wednesday where I am. But yes, when I do forget to change it over I agree that an older article would be fine. Drew R. Smith 23:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Regarding rules for new drafts of the week
Since they include developing articles, suggest an exception to the one-time rule in cases where substantial further development has occurred since first posting on Welcome Page, perhaps with explanatory note regarding why the repeat. Anthony.Sebastian 16:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
