Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science/Collaboration of the Week

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

Directions unclear

I would nominate some items from my todo list, but the directions don't make sense. Template:CSCOTW isn't valid; should it be added after nomination, or after confirmation? --Mgreenbe 00:06, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates need to be created for the current COTW, candidates, etc. I haven't done so. For now, you can just nominate the article w/out the template. Maybe someone could create the templates (I'm not too familiar how they work). Gflores ^Talk 00:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've created a couple of templates. Feel free to edit them if you want to change anything - I basically just copied the Math COTW templates. --Allan McInnes (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change in number of required votes

I'm not sure that I understand why the number of votes required (and final dates) for the current nominees was just changed. Shouldn't the votes just be tallied at the end of this week, and the nominee with the highest number of votes designated the "winner" for this week? Instead, it looks like voting has been continued for an extra week. Are we turning this into a "once every two weeks" collaboration? --Allan McInnes (talk) 16:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I wasn't thinking at all. I think once every two weeks would be better. Gflores ^Talk 00:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're probably right. It just wasn't clear to me that we had actually moved to that model. We should probably update the leader text on the CotW page then. --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eventual candidates

I have a good candidate, though I'm not going to nominate it right now. Check out Object-oriented analysis and design: isn't that a terrible amount of mergefroms? --bmills 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just.... wow. --Allan McInnes (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of like the last of the merge suggestions - at least someone has a sense of humour. Leland McInnes 03:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:D —Ruud 03:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol. :) Gflores ^Talk 03:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voting over?

Well, the deadline for voting seems to have passed. I guess that means the CS article is now the COTW. Shall we work on it? --Allan McInnes (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. BTW why is there only one candidate, my nomination? --D e ryc k C. 09:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the CSCotW has died from lack of attention. I guess we need someone to volunteer to take responsibility for organizing votes, and getting people involved. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do that right now. --Allan McInnes (talk) 14:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess maybe I could take over...but I don't have much experience with this kind of stuff and those pesky vandals will have one less user reverting their edits. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to take a stab at getting the CSCotW revitalized. Please stop by Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science if you decide to do so, and let everyone know what's going on. --Allan McInnes (talk) 04:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why moved?

Why was this page moved? There was no discussion at all. Also I note that there are two subpages that didn't get moved with it. --Ideogram 11:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently to de-capitalise the 's' in science. Jaxad0127 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I meant from Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer Science/Collaboration of the Week to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer Science/process creation. --Ideogram 22:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked User:Karunkuzhali to clarify his reasons for the move on his talk page as well. I'd suggest that if no explanations are forthcoming in the next few days we simply revert the move. The new name makes no sense to me whatsoever. --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the only contributions that User:Karunkuzhali has made so far appear to be these page moves. --Allan McInnes (talk) 23:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is really bugging me. I'm going to move it back until he comes up with a reason. --Ideogram 01:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]