Wikipedia talk:Anime Collaboration of the Week/01

Icon suggestion

I have inserted an icon into {{Anime Collaboration Notice}}. I found this on commons and it does not seem to have licence problems. --Fenice 07:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Having an icon is a great idea. I suggest we change it to a picture of the current COTW if relevant, every week. - Squilibob 10:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Templates

The collaboration needs some more templates: candidate, current, and voter notices.--Fenice 07:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The first two pages exist.

• Candidate is at Template:Anime COTW candidate (for usage read nominations section)
• Current is Template: Anime Collaboration Notice.
• I don't know how to make a voter notice, however

- Squilibob 10:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

A voter notice is something like this. Jacoplane 03:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

History page formatting

People probably don't have the History page on their watchlist, so please have a look at the history talk page and have a look at my comment. Jacoplane 03:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Organization

Are the candidates supposed to be organized by time/date of submission or alphabetical order? --Dave 03:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is friendliest to users adding new nominations. Alphabetical is a good idea, if you want to organize it like that then note somewhere that new nominations should be arranged alphabetically - Squilibob 06:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

List of English Dubbed Anime

There has been talk amongst several users showing interest in making this a category, rather than a list because of its length. --Dave 03:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC) (The first comment was me, too...)

On second thought...in defence of a list, there is a list of anime in existance. --Dave 23:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The "List of anime" is redundant and out of date due to there already being a category "Anime". I think this would be better as a category (same with the "List of anime". --nihon 04:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It'd make much more sense for this to be a category IMO - Phorque 09:46, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Moved from the project page to here. This is the talk page! I think "comments" was a bad title to use. It was supposed to be just to state the reason for nomination, that others could add to if they wanted. I'll reformat the main page - Squilibob 10:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Naruto collab necessary?

I'm posting here because the "comments" thing got removed from the nominations.

I don't know if I'm the only one thinking this, but isn't the Naruto article quite good already anyway? There's a whole multitude of spin-off articles and the topic is quite well covered... I don't really feel there's much for us to do there. If I'm the only one I'll shut up. - Phorque 12:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The comments thing got removed because this is the talk page and this is the place where nominations should be discussed. As for Naruto: No one has stated a valid reason under the nomination heading and I agree that the article is pretty well filled out, in fact we will probably do much less work on it than Spirited Away. (I've noticed you contributed a lot to both ACOTWs so far). That being said I can think of three reasons to make Naruto the next ACOTW.

1. There is little opposition, it outvotes every other nomination by a lot.
2. The goal of the collaboration of the week is to get articles to Featured article status and Naruto could be polished and submitted for the approval processes for peer review.
3. Naruto is very popular and will attract attention to this project page

There's probably a chance that those who voted for it may not contribute if it becomes the next ACOTW (and if that happens, we'll hold it against Naruto if it ever gets nominated again) ;) - Squilibob 14:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Those reasons sound pretty good to me! I'm in. - Phorque 19:50, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Bleach support?

Now, seeing how much support Naruto got, it's not surprising that people seem to come out of the woodwork to support Bleach. Now, one thing that's bothering me is that the first vote of support is "Ichigo", who is not a member of Wikipedia. Should we institute a policy if we're going to have non-members vote, at least have them use their real signature? I mean, if this stays, then I'm afraid that the support page might look like this:

1. Neko
2. SSJGOKUGOKU
3. SSJ2VEGETTO
4. Bob
5. TALKABOUTKURIRIN

And so on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TcDohl (talk • contribs) .

Good point... whoever wrote this... Though if they copied the template properly in the first place, their IP would have been displayed. "Please use the template provided and change information between the asterisks" should clear up this confusion. - Squilibob 06:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Reasons

I have quite boldly suspended a few nominations because the reasons for nomination are not valid. Ever since the inception of Naruto_(manga) there has been a greater number of visitors to the page, this is what we wanted and is by no means a problem. However the reason for nominating an article seems to have been sidetracked and many are copying Naruto thinking that an article needs to be nominated because it is popular, long running or is their favorite anime.

This is a collaboration to improve anime articles. Stating that an article should be improved because it is popular is not a reason. If you want your favorite anime to be awarded then go to an award project page and not to a collaboration page.

I believe that Fullmetal Alchemist, Bleach, Sandland and Niea under 7 could all be AnCOTW, but people need to know what is wrong with the page. If an article is nominated and nothing is done to it, then a week is wasted and people may lose interest in the collaboration. If a collection of 10 or thereabouts people edited Fullmetal Alchemist or Bleach (manga) for a week stated what could they do during that week? If the answer is something one person could do in an hour then it does not need to be nominated. - Squilibob 00:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. There have to be valid reasons for a collaboration, preferably in point form. - Phorque 12:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

A tie

There is a tie between FMA and Planetes, and there's no tie policy yet. Oops! - Squilibob 11:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a tie anymore. --nihon 01:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, you voted twice :) - Squilibob 06:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I must be getting tired. This week has been very stressful at work. Oh, and I must really want Planetes to get the vote. ;-) --nihon 08:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

FMA

You know... the FMA article doesn't really seem all that bad. I'm not very knowledgeable on the subject but the most I can say at an initial glance is that the first sentence about the name variations is a bit unwieldy. Shiroi Hane 17:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a successful wikiproject?

Is it just me, or is it that the collaborations of the week haven't really improved drastically when they're chosen as the collaboration of the week? I mean, the Paranoia Agent article looks almost the same, FMA didn't really change much. Even the main Anime Collaboration of the Week page isn't updated reguarly to renew the status of the collaborations themselves. For example, the "next collaboration" is supposedly chosen last week. If that's not changed by those who are supposed to change it, then is it really worth it to have this Wikiproject?

--TcDohl 04:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The project's fairly new, so give it a little time to get going. (^_-) --日本穣 06:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)