Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Paranormal/Collaboration

Paranormal Project‑class

	This page falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Unsuccessful collaborations?[edit]

Maybe I'm being dense, but why were BFRO and Valentich Disappearance both deemed to be unsuccessful nominations? They both had a 'for' vote. Shouldn't one, or both, of them been considered the next collaboration of the month? --Careax 05:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice in the procedures, there's a three-vote threshold for something to be made the Collab of the Month. The thinking behind this is that if not even three people vote for something (especially considering that users can vote for as many nominations as they'd like), then it is unlikely that the nom has the support of a large segment of the project, and thus unlikely to actually be 'collaborated' on. Believe me, I'm not pleased about this, but this seems to be the only thing to do under the circumstances. --InShaneee 06:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok. Fair enough. Shame we can't instill more enthusiasm or garner more attention on the Paranormal Collab of the Month concept. But one can only do so much. --Careax 06:15, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. You have no idea how hard it was not to spend the last week spamming member to just go and vote. It started out so strong, too! --InShaneee 06:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can things be re-nominated? If so, I'm putting BFRO back in the race. Ninety ^wazup?^{Review me}_{My ToDo} 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They can, but only if it their situation has changed (ie, the page has been significantly edited, a major dispute has been resolved, ect); otherwise, they're expected to fail for whatever reasons they initially failed. Anyway, that's rather academic at the moment, since what really matters is getting people involved/excited about the collab again, or else anything that gets nominated will fail. --InShaneee 02:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

I think that limiting the collab to already high-quality articles is not a good idea. I believe that improving low quality articles up to at least average quality is more important than bringing already great articles up just by that little bit more. My suggestion is that there be two separate colabs, the first being this one, for the already good articles, and a second one for lower quality articles. Thank you for your time. Cheers!!!! Ninety ^wazup?^{Review me}_{My ToDo}^{sign here!} 17:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Collabs for each level even? Stub of the month? Totnesmartin 09:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that collabs for every level would be such a great idea, just because of the large number of articles that would be the collaboration of the month; I was thinking more along the lines of either

Having two collabs: One for bringing high quality articles about major topics up to featured article status (this one), and one open to all other articles, or
Keeping just this one collab, but changing the rules to allow any paranormal related article to be chosen.

If I could get some more feedback on this, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you!! Cheers!! Ninety ^wazup?^{Review me}_{My ToDo}^{sign here!} 17:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]