StrategyWiki talk:Collaboration of the Month

Voting rules
Here's how the voting works, if anyone's interested:
 * 1) Each nomination has support and oppose votes; the former counts as +1 and the latter as -1.
 * 2) At the end of every month, the nomination with the highest net count is chosen to be that month's collaboration.
 * 3) * For ties, the first one nominated is chosen.
 * 4) At the end of every month, any nomination with a net count of less than 1 and a time since nomination of six months, is removed.  Any nominations older than 1 year will be removed.

Suggestions
As you may have noticed, no one really votes "oppose" on these, because why oppose a collaboration? Any collaboration is good, right? However, that's the only way to get old nominations off the page. Here are my suggestions: This assumes that getting old nominations off the page is what's wanted. I'm in favor of it (obviously), as it seems pointless to have entries that will just sit there forever because no one cares about them. Post some opinions! - najzere T 08:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) If a nomination is approaching the six month mark, force yourself to make a decision one way or the other. If you want to work on that collaboration vote in support, and if you don't, vote for oppose. No hard feelings, this is just a cleanup move.
 * 2) Change the requirements for removal to six months from the last time someone voted on it, regardless of net votes. This will clean up the nominations that either no one cares about anymore, or that a single person nominated and no one was interested.
 * If this was a collaboration for a collaboration (err...) then I'd be in support. How about another rule...


 * 1) If a vote has no support but more than four or five opposes, it gets removed.
 * Maybe change the numbers a bit. Also something I notice is that hardly anyone apart from the admins and people who use SW a lot take part in any of these votes unless they actually nominate the guide. Because I'm sure there's more users interested in some of these games, but the only ones who seem to vote are the what you might call "SW locals". Like Afro Samurai which was the collab for February. The only page that was created in that guide was an achievements page. Not exactly what I'd call a collaboration. 12:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I personally liked seeing the failed ones up there as a reminder of what to think about for these. The collaborations tend to be hit or miss with results. It is nice however to be able to give an early guide some extra attention. Unless it is the most obscure unpopular old game that a user can come up with or it doesn’t qualify I don’t see much reason to oppose a suggested guide (on second thought I would probally oppose a completion level 4 or higher guide. Not much left to add to doesn’t sound like a fun collaboration).--Zaiqukaj
 * @Melon: It's doubtful that a nomination would have zero supports, as the person nominating it is likely to support it ( #~ is in the template). Anyway, as it is now if the oppose votes are equal to or greater than the supports, it will be removed after six months. As always, there's not much we can do about who decides to participate. The link to Collaboration of the Month is on the front page, so its visibility can't really get much higher.


 * @Zaiqukaj: I know it's tough to put "oppose" on something, since like I said, collaborations are a good thing. Maybe we need a different word for it (if we want to get rid of old ones). Maybe after six months, a nomination could start getting "cleanup" votes, that wouldn't affect the support/oppose votes, but would cleanup the page if it got some arbitrary number (3? 5?). Also, I had to laugh about level 4 and higher, 'cause I just supported Chrono Trigger for the exact opposite reason. :P Better go put your oppose on it! - najzere T 15:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That made me laugh too now that I look at the guide. After taking a look at the guide and considering other factors I’m on the fence on opposing or supporting. Honestly since I haven’t played the game before I can’t tell if the walkthrough is missing anything (though I do recognize it for being popular) but it looks like proof reading is all that’s left there. The appendices could use some images. I think what I said earlier may simply be a personal bias now. Once a guide looks awesome and done I don’t want to work on it. :P --Zaiqukaj 07:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)