Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines/Collaboration

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Collaboration #1 selection[edit]

Nomination phase[edit]

  1. Pasig River (goal: Featured article) — a Start-level article on an historically important river with many online resources and ongoing rehabilitation activities, and can be peppered with lots of pictures. --seav 06:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tamaraw (goal: Good article) — a B-class article that just need a little push...--Lenticel (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 1986 EDSA Revolution (goal: Featured article) — A B-class article with tons of references but mostly offline.--Lenticel (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Laguna de Bay (goal: Good article) — a Start Class article that would grow if only it had the attention of different people with different specializations. And I think the LLDA's technical input already gives us one facet of the Bay we dont have to worry about. Alternativity 10:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I move that the nomination be closed. :-) --seav 04:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion :-D -- Alternativity 05:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Nomination is closed. (Ok na ito... trial lang naman.) --seav 10:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voting phase[edit]

You can vote more than once. Use four tildes (~~~~) to signify your vote. Remember that voting means a commitment to help collaborate on the article if ever it wins. See the guidelines on the main project page for details.

The winner is 1986 EDSA Revolution. --seav 09:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pasig River (to FA)[edit]

  1. Alternativity 10:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. seav 10:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TheCoffee 18:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Magalhães 06:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamaraw (to GA)[edit]

  1. Lenticel (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. †Bloodpack† 14:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1986 EDSA Revolution (to FA)[edit]

  1. Lenticel (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. seav 10:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ætərnal ðrAعon 09:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC) but we've got to change its name![reply]
  4. BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 11:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. • Kurt Guirnela • ‡ Talk 03:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laguna de Bay (to GA)[edit]

  1. Alternativity 10:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. seav 10:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain[edit]

Place your name here if you don't want any of the nominated articles so that we can keep track of who voted for this collaboration stage.

  • Voting is evil. With that said, I'd rather get an article which is already an A or GA to be collaborated upon. --Howard the Duck 14:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel I need to contribute if I vote for an article, and I can't commit significant amounts of editing time in the next two months. But I'll probably work on Jose Rizal whenever I have some time (I'm currently reading this, which has some interesting things to say about Rizal). If voting doesn't mean committing, I vote for Jose Rizal.--Nino Gonzales 14:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually going to nominate Jose Rizal, but decided the Pasig and Laguna de Bay would get my vote anyway so i didn't nominate it. Just on a curious note, what among the four would you have chosen if it didnt mean you need to commit significant amounts of editing time in the next two months?-- Alternativity 17:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC) still posting despite a major flu hahahaha[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the voting. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made below.

Process discussion[edit]

Trial votes[edit]

Ok, I vote for number 2 and number 3. If only one article, then I vote for number 3--Lenticel (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I vote for number 1 and number 4. If only one article, then I vote for number 4 :-D -- Alternativity 10:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the guidelines in the project page. Multiple votes are allowed. :-) --seav 10:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I vote for Edsa Revolution. Reason: Historical events and ought to be prioritized. Also, the page is quiet long than the other. Lets go for it to finish the page with an FA status then go to pages with GA down to Stubs. Thanks. --BritandBeyonce (talk•contribs) 11:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added you in the list--Lenticel (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Close?[edit]

Discussion seems to be inactive for almost a week now. Should we consider that the voting phase is already closed?--Lenticel (talk) 10:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the voting can be closed. But there's a tie! I don't know how to break it. One thing I can think of is to ask Bloodpack, who is the only one not to vote for any of the tied articles to change his vote. --seav 12:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tie was broken by User:Kguirnela in favor of EDSA.--Lenticel (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. :-D What's the next step? :-D Alternativity 00:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New guideline (I just made it up now, but I think it's reasonable): the one who nominated the winning article becomes that article's collaboration coordinator! Go Lenticel! (Some suggested steps: inform all the voters of the winning article, tag the article's talk page that it is under collaboration, announce to the tambayan, create a list of things to do on the talk page, etc.) :-) --seav 05:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What the... anyways I'll inform the voters.--Lenticel (talk) 05:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's postpone the improvement drive for now due to Undas since most of us will be going to provinces where the net access might be hard to find.--Lenticel (talk) 06:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't matter. We're not on any sort of deadline. Anyway, I already did the tagging and started a to-do list. --seav 09:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a humorous note... nobody has yet offered to buy my vote. Sigh. Alternativity 12:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration department discussion[edit]

Question: Is this for bulking up small articles or does it also include cleaning up existing large articles/working to get articles to FA status, etc? Shrumster 08:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see this Collaboration department primarily as a way to increase the coverage and material about core Philippine-related articles and secondarily as a means to improve the quality of such articles. So, yes, large articles can be selected just as long as there is a goal to aim for (FA/GA). But ultimately, the selected article depends on what the community decides to work on through the selection process. Do you have any nice large articles to improve in mind? Go ahead and nominate it. :) --seav 08:20, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, just to emphasize that there is a need for both upgrading substantial articles until they get FA/GA status, and for upgrading stub or start articles, would it be possible to identify two collaboration articles? One substantial and one small? Tutal, it wont take as much additional energy to bring a substantial article up to par, and that means we get to our goal of "increase the coverage and material about core Philippine-related articles" faster. For example, we can work on both Pasig River as already suggested, and Laguna de Bay as well.Alternativity 06:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start first with just one article so that there's no division of community focus. The old 2005 collaboration drive tried to improve 3 articles at once and no such improvement ever occurred. Besides, the faster we can do one article, the faster we can move on to the next article. --seav 09:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, is there some means by which we can have a list of top importance stub and start articles? That would make this selection process much easier.Alternativity 06:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the category intersection feature is still not done which would've given us the list of articles that are both in Category:Top-importance Philippine-related articles and Category:Start-Class Philippine-related articles or Category:Stub-Class Philippine-related articles. The easiest way for now is to poke around the Top-importance category and look for interesting articles that meet our selection criteria. --seav 09:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could start at Tamaraw That thing only needs a few arrangements before it becomes GA, refs are covered only formatting seems to be problem(that would be uber easy). As for FA, the best candidate would be EDSA I due to the rich coverage there.--Lenticel (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then go on and nominate it! The community then gets to decide which article gets selected. --seav 09:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request to split article of Lake Sebu[edit]

I would like to suggest that we split these article into two: Lake Sebu, South Cotabato (municipality) and Lake Sebu (body of water - lake). I noticed that when we want an article about the lake, it is redirected to the article about the municipality. Also in the category.

Bonvallite (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there's a Lake Sebu article already.--Lenticel (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines/Collaboration&oldid=1137456992"