Wikipedia talk:Notice board for India-related topics/INCOTW

Archives: 1

New rules

I have gone ahead and simplified the rules for selecting the INCOTW. Basically, the nomination with more votes wins, irrespective of the nominated date. It is basically what I was doing when updating the INCOTW every Friday. --Pamri • Talk 12:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indian names

This article needs massive copyediting. Please have a look and improve it in any way you can. deeptrivia (talk) 05:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate Notice

Can we not leave the candidate notice on the discussion page of an article instead of removing it? It could say, "This article was a India Coloboration of the Week in December 2005". It could link to a page containing all previous candidates. Your thoughts? - Ganeshk 22:15, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good idea. It could also have the diff of the versions before and after collaboration. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 04:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Insert {{Old India COTW|date Month|Year|diff}} to the article's talk page. --Pamri • Talk 09:18, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A slight change in the syntax:

{{Old India COTW | Date=day Month | Year=Year | URL = diff}}.

See Talk:Arts and entertainment in India for an example. --Pamri • Talk 09:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. - Ganeshk 15:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated all previous winners with the old COTW template. - Ganeshk 18:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good work guys. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 03:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Small correction. It must be {{Old India COTW | Date=Month Day | Year=Year | URL = diff}}. The date must read Month followed by the day as per convention. I am working on a history table for past COTW in my sandbox. I will update it here when complete. - Ganeshk 10:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Past COTW History

I have done a large update and created a table of past COTW. Please check and review. The previous history page has been archived here. - Ganeshk 22:55, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria of Improvement

What is the criteria to see if the article has been improved? Just Number of words may not be sufficient. e.g. Hyderabad, India page was full of words See the older edit of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hyderabad%2C_India&oldid=31632289 Chirags 16:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The improvement gives you a general idea. It was picked up from main COTW project. Usually stubs get nominated to COTW and you would see the dramatic increase. The main project has number of edits too. I had no idea how to count them. So kept it simple. - Ganeshk^T/_C\^@ 16:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lok Sabha

Please help out on List of Constituencies of the Lok Sabha, filling out red links. electoral results are availible on www.eci.gov.in. I'm putting the results in templates, so that in the end it will be able to add several results on the same page. See User:Soman/temp4. --Soman 15:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not clear as to why you need templates for the purpose. Also, the talkpage of WP:INWNB may be a better bet for getting broader response. --Gurubrahma 17:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2 weeks on shorter side

Isn't 2 weeks timeline for removing failed nominations on the shorter side? May be we should fix it at 2 months, --Gurubrahma 17:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made it a month for now. - Ganeshk (talk) 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum 6 nominations

To make the choices simpler, I have modified the rule to reflect the consideration of the 6 most recent candidates. Older noms not gathering enough momentum, vote wise, will be removed on through a FIFO methodology. See here for the relevent discussion. AreJay 16:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a change in the rule - no new nom should be added if six noms are already available. 6 is a good number, imo. If it is FIFO for adding above six noms, people will keep adding noms regardless of the previous noms available. If any of the previous noms are in bad faith, they can be removed with a note on this talkpage. This rule should come into effect as soon as the current no. of noms is reduced to 6. Please do not add any more noms to it. --Gurubrahma 17:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Placement of the INCOTW template

I was wondering if it was correct to place the INCOTW template on the main page of the article itself.. Shouldn't it be placed on the talk page instead? thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK}

This is the convention followed in the main Collaboration of the week. See English Interregnum, the current COTW. Talk page already has past COTW template. - Ganeshk (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I asked, because why would a normal user of wikipedia be concerned whether it is the current collaboration or not? I think it is totally unnecessary to place the template on the article page when there is amble space in the talk page to place the template. thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu_Joseph |TALK}

Regionalism? ;-)

I see too many nominations on cities and states from where we hail. May be we should have more diversity in the nominations - people, places, events etc. but I am loathe to add any more rules than what are currently available. However, I leave it to the better judgement of wikipedians in choosing nominations. --Gurubrahma 08:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close fight

This week's INCOTW is heading for a close fight with Delhi, Culture of India & Sholay each having 7 votes. BTW I'm curious what do we do in the event of a tie? Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 04:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would go by the date of nomination. In this case Delhi was nominated first. IMHO, all colloboration nominees are worthy of selection. - Ganeshk (talk) 04:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. For the first time I have seen, the collaboration nominees are all worthy of being INCOTW. Good to see so many people actively involved in INCOTW.

Srik e it^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 04:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I voted for Delhi after checking out the article and making a small comparison with Kolkata. This gives Delhi the lead. I agree with the general opinion here, we've got some really good potential this week (apart from India, which didn't really need a collaboration). Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err

Sholay should be INCOTW by the vote count. My apologies. I will make sure this does not happen again. - Ganeshk (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template on Article or Talk page?

Oleg Alexandrov has raised the issue on Wikipedia talk:Collaborations of whether the template for the current winner of a collaboration should go on the article or the talk page. You might be interested in taking part. Pruneau 00:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit different work

I was wondering if editors would be willing to collaborate for something different that the usual. What I am talking about is the articles NOT created by User:Ganeshbot, whose listing is present in User:Ganeshbot/Not created. There is a need to update/merge the data got from these pages with the original ones. I feel that in order to make this work actually happen, it will need a collaboration, and if left by itself, the backlog will take ages to clear. This will mean days full of work on full throttle. Since this wouldn't require much thinking, work can go pretty fast. Opinions/suggestion? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Count Improvement from day of Nomination?

I think the improvement to the page should be counted from the date of nomination and not from the day of selection, as some of us do not wait for an article to get nominated to improve on it. Chirag 13:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of India

Economy of India is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 03:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policy change

I made a policy change so that only stubs get nominated here. I watched Diwali go through multiple COTWs with no major changes. For full length articles, the Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Peer review department would help. IMO, Ahmedabad and Nagpur should go there. The peer review department people can suggest comments, make copy edits as required. Please comment. - Ganeshk (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you but believe you should include Stubs, Start-class and B-Class articles on the assessment scale as possible Collaborations. Sometimes, an article is tiny and useless but simply not a stub. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessment can be subjective. Using it to decide whether an article qualifies would be confusing. Each person would have a different opinion on the rating. The defintion of stub is already defined. - Ganeshk (talk) 22:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer

While I am away, Can someone please volunteer to manage the INCOTW? - Ganeshk (talk) 15:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteer. Is there anything more to do than these things? - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 15:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the procedure I follow. Hope that helps. Thanks again, Ganeshk (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing day of selection from Friday to Sunday for INCOTW

I am changing the day of selection of articles on INCOTW to Sunday. I don't know why it says Friday. Looking at the dates of selection of the past 2 moths, I observed that they have never been selected on Fridays. So I am changing it to Sunday for uniformity. I shall be selecting it on Sundays from now onwards till Ganesh returns. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 12:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography

Let us know if you happen to pick an article on a person and we'll alert our members! plange 05:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only stubs on INCOTW

I don't think many are aware about the policy change made by Ganesh regarding the eligibility of articles. Only stubs (up to 2 paragraphs) can now be nominated - the rest go to PR. If I apply this new rule then there won't be any candidates for INCOTW, which is really a shame. So should I let this particular nomination (AB) remain or reject the nom? - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 14:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub Only Policy is good.Chirag 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, really I (nominator of AB) was not aware of the policy. I support removal of AB.--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I asked you to come here. I am not removing it yet pending comments from the old-timers. Coz if I remove this then there will not be any articles at INCOTW. It doesn't matter if it stays there for a day. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 19:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Amitabh now. Didn't have the heart to see no candidates. But really we must try and bring some more people to INCOTW. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 20:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should revert back to the old INCOTW policy. Peer review is very different from a collaboration. During a peer review, people will comment on the article, and one or two people get the things done. Whereas in a collaboration everybody works together. The person nominating it needn't have any particular dedication towards the article. Hence, what I suggest is that we include non-stubs as well in INCOTW. Long articles, however, can go to peer review.-- thunderboltz^{a.k.a.Deepu Joseph |TALK} 04:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the rules. They are now the same as before - all India-related articles can be nominated. But I still feel that articles near to FA status should not be nominated here and would be better-off at any PR. Hence, I have kept that statement. - Aksi_great (talk - review me) 16:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Jana Gana, Vande Mataram, Sanskrit & Devanagari

Moved here Sarvagnya 17:18, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

INCOTW issues

Hi - a few issues and suggestions:

(1) I think the problems with INCOTW are pretty clear - a lot of the regular school of Indian Wikipedians are busy and editing less in volume, if not frequency. This problem also applies to many India-related Wikiprojects. While the "old school" of Indian Wikipedians has done valuable work, the projects need to rope in the large numbers of Indian registered users who don't frequent these noticeboards and Wikiprojects. Don't rely on INWNB posts and messages - folks really need to get messages out to individual usertalk pages. For this purpose, it would be a good, achievable project to start an INWNB/INCOTW weekly newsletter or alert.

(2) A smaller INCOTW issue may be that when 1-2 editors are interested in working on a particular article, it may be overruled by a larger number for another topic. In this process INCOTW will lose many willing editors who don't like the particular topic selected for INCOTW. Perhaps INCOTW can deal with 2-3 articles at the same time, while extending its collaboration period from 1 week to 2 weeks or so to make the deadline realistic. Adding loads of data is easy - formatting, citing and copyediting are not. You lose the momentum in the latter stages.

(3) An interesting point comes to mind. I'm guilty of never having worked on INCOTW. Its unusual because I love working in collaboration - I absolutely love assisting comrades on FA drives, doing the tedious copyediting chores, etc. I can name several articles where I've greatly enjoyed helping out. Many of the recent FAs are excellent examples where 2-3 editors have aided the principal author in achieving success. This is collaboration that works. Perhaps INCOTW could emulate this model?

(4) Don't restrict the net to Indian Wikipedians. We must work with equal enthusiasm and care with non-Indians. There is a natural sense of respect for each other at INWNB, but it should extend to all. The family, team atmosphere at INWNB is pretty cool, but it needs to be open to all. This India cartel should be transformed into an energetic group of editors interested in India-related content.

(5) Sister projects INWNB, INCOTW and India wikiprojects have many accomplishments. Although the principle of working on India-related content is clear, I think its a good idea to collaborate with the efforts of Bangladeshi, Pakistani and Sri Lankan editors. We have a lot of shared content, so its not like we're deviating. This way we can widen the team effort and attract the participation of these communities in our own efforts. I suggest we officially hook up with WikiProject Bangladesh, PNWNB. Rama's arrow 15:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion, though the thing is about India only. People intersted in helping WP Bangladesh or WP Bengal should join the respective WikiProject.Bakaman _Bakatalk 02:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Nirav. I have not been doing my bit for INCOTW. Will try to pitch in more regularly from now -- Lost^(talk) 05:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(deindent) Good points.

(1) - The fact about old-timers getting busy is true. I recognise only 3 people from this list of original supporters. Your idea about a newsletter is good. We could create a newsletter for India related topics - summarising all events in the week (most of them are covered by the Noticeboard though). As for INCOTW I have an idea - Currently only the people who voted for the article are informed when the article gets selected at the end of the week. Maybe we could create a spamlist of people who want to be notified about all INCOTWs. Or it could be done at the Indian noticeboard. Maybe posting at the noticeboard is a good idea.

(2) Extending the time period will not serve the purpose. If you take a look at the history of INCOTW, there are some article that have undergone a large change during the 7 day period. But for some recent articles it wouldn't have made any difference if the time period was 2 weeks than 1 because no one was interested. If more people take part and nominate and support more articles, then ideally such articles would not be selected in month and would be rejected. We need to clarify the purpose of INCOTW. This has been mentioned by Gurubrahma too. The current aim of INCOTW is to collaborate together to improve articles. Aiming immediately for FA is too big a task for INCOTW. So the main job should be to expand articles and see to it that they atleast meet with standards 1b, 1c, 1d, 3 and 4 of WP:WIAFA. 1a (prose quality), 1e (stability) and 2 (MOS) can be dealt with later at a PR or an FAC.

(3) This is exactly how INCOTW is supposed to work. The only difference is that there isn't one principal author. Though ultimately there should be someone who would take the lead and deliver it to FAC.

(4) and (5) are more to do with INWNB. But in reference to INCOTW, all I can say is that collaboration is for India related articles but not limited to Indian editors. The only rule is that the article should be connected to India in some way. An example would be Indian Peace Keeping Force which primarily deals with the Sri Lankan conflict but is related to India.

- Aksi_great (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking through the past collaborations and noticed that the one with the highest votes, Sholay, had very few changes. While others with less votes have had more. The voters were all reliable Indian editors yet nothing happened to the article. I know I am guilty of not helping as I didn't have much time and spent my wikitime on other articles. But what exactly can this failure be attributed to? Nobleeagle (Talk) 04:01, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography

A request, let the current article, Sudhir Phadke stay for one more week. I have just informed WikiProject Biography about this selection. Hopefully they can help out. - Ganeshk (talk) 22:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Had I known about this I would have informed them much earlier. - Aksi_great (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Ganeshk (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notice board for India-related topics/Newsalert

Hi all - I request your help and attention in establishing this publication. Rama's arrow 20:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Government of India

Portal:Government of India has been created. Please suggest your views to make it improve. Please take participation in article and list selection. Actually it will work from October 1 in full phase, so anniversary also has dated October 1. Shyam ^(T/C) 20:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Silence?

INCOTW doesnt seem to be moving. Is everything alright? -10:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The current one has been given some more time per above thread by Ganesh and Aksi -- Lost^(talk) 11:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That's true. The next update will be on Sunday. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats good to know. Thanks! - Mayuresh 15:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry for ditching, am off to a wikibreak

Sorry to ditch Indian Armed Forces, but I am off to a wikibreak. Will be back in around 2 weeks time -- Lost^(talk) 09:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer required

I am on a wikibreak. Can someone manage INCOTW for 2-3 weeks while I am away? The procedure is quite easy and would hardly take more than 5-10 minutes. All steps are listed here. Thanks. - Aksi_great (talk) 06:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aksi, I can take care of COTW until you return. Have a good wikibreak! -- Ganeshk (talk) 06:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

Transit1 (talk · contribs) and Miranam (talk · contribs) have been indef-blocked as socks of Endgame1 (talk · contribs). In light of these, I think the articles nominated/voted on by these users need to be removed from INCOTW. If any other user is interested to nominate these articles, then they can go ahead. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gandu

Could someone with more knowledge to me whether this is correct - or should be put up for deletion? Rmhermen 15:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Does INCOTW work?

After Tata Steel was accepted as the INCOTW it did not have any improvements by any registered editors. So my question does INCOTW actually work or is this just for show? --Parker007 02:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be an inactive project, only 2 anon edits for Tata Steel after 5 days of being in Collaboration. If this project must continue it must change to 1 month. And more people should put this on their watchlist. Talk Page seems abandoned. No one responds on Talk Pages these days. --Parker007 01:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what good can come out of changing the time limit to one month. If the time limit was a month, then it is possible that an article nominated by you would make it as INCOTW after 3-4 months, by which time you and others who have voted for it would have lost interest in the article. But you are correct that the general interest in INCOTW is very low these days. - Aksi_great (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why cant we use the same system as Articles for Collaboration, where noms expires after 7 days--Parker007 06:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under that system we would have a new set of articles competing every week. If we had a huge number of people interested in submitting different articles, then this system would work. But under the current situation, we are not even able to fill the maximum permitted 6 articles even though the articles stay there for a month. I think the only thing that can revive INCOTW would be a dedicated base of 2-3 users who would improve articles greatly and lead to this project turning out more FAs and GAs. This would create interest about INCOTW among the general community and lead to more people taking part. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does MCB collaboration works? Is it because they have dedicated users? --Parker007 19:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We may have to stop the project, since it clearly doesn't work. The last INCOTW Indian Law had a total of 3 editors who had edited the article, and most of the editing was to add links and a bit of grammar fixation. Also note that the last two INCOTW had just one vote. If INCOTW doesn't substantially improve an article, then why keep it.--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good response at WP:INCOTW

The last week's Indian Collaboration of the week, Religion in India received good response, and underwent 136 intermediate revisions. This is huge, when compared to the number of revisions past few INCOTWs received (some in the range of 4 or 6 revisions).

Thanks everyone for participating in the INCOTW and help improving the article. This week's INCOTW is Education in India. Please help improving the article, and please visit WP:INCOTW so that the collaboration regains the past feats it achieved, as requested in WikiProject India Newsletter: Volume II, Issue 2 - March 2007. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Want to nominate buniyaad for INCOTW

I wish to change my nomination and nominate Buniyaad. 68.223.117.139 (talk) 04:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Buniyaad deserves more on its Wikipedia page. Chirag (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does it work?

Is INCOTW active now? Maybe the Wikiproject Indians should be more active in keeping INCOTW alive, there are many articles in dire need of assistance. I'm willing to revive this section again, but I daresay I wont be able to do it alone, if anyone is interested please respond in my talkpage. Regards --CSumit ^Talk 10:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again?

Can an article that has already been a collaboration be chosen again? The article in question is Transport in India, which I nad several others have edited, cleaned up, and would like more help in sprucing up. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:INCOTM

Guys, please check this new page for collaboration. Please nominate articles there. Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 18:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]