RationalWiki talk:Article-a-Week Club

Is the title meant to be "article of the month club" or "article a day club"? 19:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry too much coffee. tmtoulouse 19:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Call it an article a week and I'm in. I don't mind creating stubs, but I'd struggle to each day make something that's worth expanding on. -- 19:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here. Every week I can create a decent full article, but not every day.  I don't like stubbing very much.  It's too Edpoor. (attention new adjective has been coined)-- 20:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So lets make it a week then. tmtoulouse 21:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you have a new recruit, Sarge.-- 23:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here, again. Uni sometimes gets in the way, but comitting to do a decent article each week here helps handle procrastination, and I do "believe" in the project overall. (PRAISE THE LAWDH! I BELIEEEEVE!!!) --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 13:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I admire the intention but...
A new article doesn't mean the site is improving. My thing personally is more to take a stub and expand it. I would be happy to try a do one of those every couple of days. Creating a new article per day does seem to invite mission creep. 00:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So we expand and adjust the criteria. We move to an article a week, to make it more manageable and encourage people to put more time/effort beyond just stubbing. We also add criteria to be either a "new article or expansion of an existing very short article or stub"? tmtoulouse 00:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We can set up a show case mechanism too for people participating. A list of the "weeks" that shows who is a member and what article they developed for that week? tmtoulouse 00:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll have a read through the dpl manual. I am sure we can do something like show the last 10 or 20 edits to the mainspace by the club members. 00:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I approve of a way to brag with this.-- 00:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this seem oddly familiar?  00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but nobody is keeping score and there are no "winners" or whiners in Schlafly's case. 00:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, and I'm sure we won't come up with a bunch of dictionary terms as full mainspace pages either. I'd like to participate, but my writing is never up to snuff, in my own eyes.  I'm better behind the scenes, or until a topic really strikes my fancy.   01:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I got my rough scrawl for the day done. Plus doing another one this evening...Acei9 01:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was nice to look at Recent Changes yesterday and see so much going on. There is a risk of creating articles for the sake of it, but we can keep an eye on them and be willing to delete or rework stuff if we see our scope drifting too far. Ace, the Quantum Computer article was a good idea. Clearly scientific, and it links in well with refutation of the quantum woo. Oddly enough we lack an article on the crusades. Temped to add that to the list, with an emphasis on the causes and results. It's nicely on mission, since Christians and Muslims have a lot of misconceptions in their heads, and it ties in to the Two wrongs make a right thing I put up this morning. -- 13:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We have an article on the crusades. It could probably be improved.   20:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we do ships beginning with A? Totnesmartin (talk) 13:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bags I Law Terms "D". 13:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Noobs
Not sure I'm up to spec on actually writing articles, but I'm game for a bit of effort. I'll try to add/improve a few and see how it goes before I join up and spoil the view for everyone ;) I made a start with George Simpson and I'd appreciate constructive criticism (or abuse if you must) with my first real effort. -- 20:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My manual of style is not official in any way, but it may be of use during this process. It helps keep our articles look like they are on the same web site.  00:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've got to say, you folks are on a roll. "New articles" now fills up a page just going back a few days. Can I join as the official "copyeditor-a-week" at least? 11:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

proposal
I think new Conservapedia:space articles should come within our remit - they are, after all, the original point of RW, and still on-mission.

Support

 * Totnesmartin (talk) 16:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 16:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 16:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * -- 17:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 12:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose
TheoryOfPractice (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC). Not so sure CP is still the "point of RW"...we've grown a lot in almost three years.

Bad idea, CP articles are mostly boring and don't build the site. 02:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that place still going? 02:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Some wiki I guess? Not really.  Andy's greying and boring.  03:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Fluff
I don't see why not, exactly. If anything it's an easy way to get inspiration and can often spark off some interesting topics that can branch into the mainspace. But I would prioritize mainspace articles over CP centric ones and certainly only go into the Conservapedia namespace when it's something quite pressing that relates to the real world. I wouldn't want to see this effort turn into a "lets pick on CP every day" type of thing. 12:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * not every day, or even every week. What I meant was that CPspace articles ought to be included in the weekly credits. I barely follow CP and have written a total of two cpspace articles in nearly three years. And one of those is shite. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's just that if we made it "official" that you could use CP stuff for this project, it may end up as an excuse to swamp it with CP stuff. I think we seem to agree with that. 18:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I understand what you're trying to say, but I wouldn't discount the value of the CP articles on this site. They're why I came here in the first place, and I still use them to help explain CP to other people. That being said, I'm not so sure that there is a need for a lot of new CP space articles; however, a lot of the existing ones are out of date or incomplete. Those could use some work.--Colonel of Squirrels (talk) 03:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Another thought
Although it's been said above that this isn't particularly a competition, could it be worth highlighting the best of each week? "Featured new article" for instance, that would stay up for a little while and get splashed about. There's some really good stuff that has come up over the last two weeks and I figured a way to recognize it as such would be an improvement. 13:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It might spur peple to make more than a stub. perhaps we could nominate a new article (by someone else) for showcasing (where?). Totnesmartin (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if it was possible. I'd put it on the front page or somewhere highly visible, literally as "new article of the week" or "featured new article". Something like that. The criteria wouldn't even have to say that it's a large article. Even a very interesting topic that's stub class would work. Something similar to Wikipedia's "did you know..." section that showcases the newest articles. As for selecting them, I have no idea. Maybe just have a judge do it rather than voting as that can get a little complicated and takes a while, I'd want to see it quick and punchy; when the week ends, the best one is chosen and flagged up on the front cover. 18:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's an idea. Maybe two or three new articles with potential and missiontasticness get put on the main page... shall I bring this to the mob's attention? Nick WP's Did You Know idea (a few of mine have gone up on that over the years)... yeah... Totnesmartin (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps stick it by the "more featured content" section, as I'm not entirely sure how much that gets used. And it'd be a good excuse to revamp the contents page too. 20:02, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If something new meets the standards (what?), make it a cover story. "most awesome great new articles" doesn't strike me as a main pageable idea, really.  02:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has that "do you know?" section, which is changed 4 times a day, which feature new content. I think we are a little small for that, as it needs constant attention (nominations, judging and so forth). Maybe we should have an actual article-a-week featured here, that is a stub we can all work on, if you want to display out talents. 03:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you cut out nominations and voting and just appoint someone to judge it as best as possible it won't require constant attention. For featuring one new article per week, for a week, I think we're plenty big enough for that now. As for flagging up an article here for people to work on, I quite like the idea of that. 08:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Idea: Let's replace the "article of the weak" feature with the "new article of the week". The Aotw was always been slow to change and a lot of work for something that I don't think sees much activity (one problem is that comments on it don't show on RC, so it's "invisible"), so there is a perfect "dead zone" on the main page to use for this. Actually, let's not make it "article of the week", make it "featured new article" with another link to "new articles" perhaps, that way it only has to change when another good one is ready. 18:02, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I second Human's proposal. AOT Weak makes the site seem dead, as it's so rarely changed, and some of the new things popping up in the Article a Week Club additions have been damn good entries that deserve the exposure. --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 23:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to third that one. While AOTW is nice, it's not updated enough to warrant it being on the mainpage. 18:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Demo

 * The above is the wigo template with AOTW replaced. I slapped it in a table to show mainpage-style wrapping.  Picked a random article to link to.
 * I like it. And Cryonics would be my choice for this week, too. ADE-651 for the week previously. I don't have a particular choice for the week before, but Kadir-Buxton Method would probably get my vote. 18:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd also stick:

Featured New Article: Cryonics See all new articles
 * as a template, and transclude it into both the mainpage and the top of AaWC. 18:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good ideas, all. How about this: the template randomly picks one that has made the grade, that is less than a month since being started? I suspect we'd have to remove them manually, but this way the slightly older ones you mention can be featured for a bit.  21:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I added a link to the aawc, if it wraps badly on smaller screen let me know, we could shorten our phrases if necessary. So do you folks think we should call a meeting of the mob to discuss this change to the main page or just fiat it accomplishly? 22:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A thought
Instead of invading "What is going on", wouldn't this be better under the "Participate in RationalWiki " section? 01:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Doh, yes. Feel free to change the "demo" above to reflect that idea (or paste in a new one...).  Should we leave the AotW up or kill it anyway?  01:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or under the random featured arcicle:


 * 17:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Having put it in and previewed it, it shifts the more featured content down, leaving a massive bit of whitespace below the participate section next to it (see here). So we'd either have to trim down the contents of more featured content or play with it some more to go that route. 17:18, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should transclude a chunk of the article - they may be "good" but they're not necessarily "cover story" material. Just a one line blurb and link ought to be enough.  19:56, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Couple suggestions
1. Put the most recent week at the top of the lists; 2. Remove the NOTOC thing? 18:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say "way ahead of you", but no. I've done that anyway. I think it'll fix things up since we're likely to get multiple weeks on view. 18:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How about archiving weeks older than, say four weeks? As their own subpages linked under their original header?  19:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

whoops!
I wrote a new article... on Wikipedia. Damn. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Traitor! Infidel!  20:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm actually surprised that nobody beat me to it, seeing it's all over the news here. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * damn and blast, I wrote one on Teawiki Blightynet as well. What am I like? Totnesmartin (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Find a way to pull it onto RW's mission and you'll have a hatrick! 15:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't see an article on hot cross buns fitting the RW mission in the slightest way. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Recipe space? 14:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Hot Cross Buns

 * Recipe by Totnesmartin:


 * 1) Go to that nice cafe with the outdoor tables. you know, the one near the co-op.
 * 2) Order hot cross buns and a nice pot of Lapsang souchong.
 * 3) Consume, as the blackbird sings in the cherry tree down the lane.
 * 4) Pay.
 * Totnesmartin (talk)
 * Unfortunately there's no cafe near my nearest co-op. 19:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You may have to substitute an inferior alternative. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Starbucks. 20:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * He said inferior, not abysmal! 20:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I had forgotten about this
And thanks to whoever's been adding my meagre contributions. 20:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * was moi. Totnesmartin (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, sir. 20:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Steam, running out of
There are fewer and fewer articles being created by the club. As it was created during the last MC/Loya Jirga mess to get people's heads back into mission mode, it served its purpose quite well. The thing now is, do we try to insert new life into it, or retire it with a chorus of "well done everyone, it's a wrap." What say you? Totnesmartin (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * We could pop a little advert in to the SB. I say keep it going. If it encourages a single good article to be written in a week then it's worth having. -- 10:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And kick out the lazy bums who failed to meet their quota. Just so everyone knows that we you mean business. -- Nx  / talk 10:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No boss, gimme a second chance, ah? I bin real busy with Mary-Ann and the kid and stuff, y'know? C'mon, boss, just gimme a second chance! 11:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

So 13 weeks agoes youse guys wanted to step on its neck and call it dead, eh? And now this week alone, thah Goonies Spunk made an article about your momma's milk and tha Huming wrote some tripe about a frothy mix. What are you gonna tell your mothers now about the apparent death of your cousin? Eh? EH?? 09:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Help wanted!!!!
Any of you folks care to help a guy out? I'm looking for help creating a good article about the raw milk movement fad. Anybody who wants to help out is more than welcome. 01:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. I don't really drink milk.  And this just makes my stomach turn.   Quaru (talk) 02:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I loves me milk, cream, ice cream, sour cream, and stuff. Oh.  Yeah, you wanted "workers"?  I also love bees.  09:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've heard of it before, looks like a pretty decent start to an article. 19:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * How many years will it take for your site to reach 5000 pages with just one article per week? Care to wage 10 scoots on the date 2014? XD --208.54.38.50 (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Is anybody home? Helllllllllo????
Does anybody still contribute to the Book of the Month Club anymore, or is it dead? Just curious. 14:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose I could contribute with the books I got for Christmas. Scarlet A.pnggnostic 14:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got plenty of books I could contribute, too. But I was never a member of the Trent Book Club, nor do I intend to become one. 14:46, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * looking pretty dodo-esque, even though it's linked from the main page. Rennie McGreet (talk) 12:51, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah well, so die such good ideas. 14:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, I wrote a stubby thing a few days ago! TyAnnoy 14:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it's not really a club if it's just you. It was a good idea and seemed to achieve its purpose, but let's mothball it now and move on. This wiki seems to like doing projects that start off well then fizzle out after a few months. This is just another of them. There'll be others in due course. Rennie McGreet (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * True that, mothballed. TyAnnoy 18:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So... next big idea? Scarlet A.pngnarchist 19:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Recipe a month club? CP-space purging? Youtuber clean-up? TyAnnoy 19:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * These things come along in their own time, no use brainstorming a new one on the spot. Sometimes (as here) it's a brainwave of The Mighty One. Rennie McGreet (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)