Wikipedia talk:Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight

Please click here to start a new topic

Nomination process is confusing

"Click here to add a new nomination" is totally broken... why is the only useful instruction in a hidden comment at the bottom of the page? :/ Are new nominations supposed to go at the start or end?

Also can someone rewrite the annoying 2 weeks thing using the nifty magic words? pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed "click here" to point at the right section again. I clarified that new nominations should be at the end.
I don't know if the "annoying 2 weeks thing" can be fixed with magic words, subst: and #expr or not. The algorithm for adding 14 days to a date is surprisingly complex as each month has a different number of days (and some Februarys are different again). I'm also not sure whether the subst can be protected now, but used when the template is copied without ending up with even more complex instructions. Most people seem to be able to cope with the current instructions. If you can't get the 14 days right, someone usually comes along and corrects it.
Do you have specific suggestions? It IS a wiki. --Scott Davis Talk 07:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean template as in an actual template or just the html comment? pfctdayelise (translate?) 08:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the text in the HTML comment. Do you think the process could be made easier with a Wikimedia template? --Scott Davis Talk 13:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK let me see... today is Thu 26 Dec, 2 weeks will be Thu 9 Jan. Hm, do these subst? test: Sat 21 Oct --pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


OK inputbox doesn't actually work as the box specifies... I will see if any help on buzilla comes first. pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've worked out how to do times with ParserFunctions ({{#time:D j M|+14 days}} gives Thu 9 Jan). To get them to subst properly just stick <includeonly> around the "subst", which I've done now. --bainer (talk) 02:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks bainer. And I fixed up the sig thing based on a similar trick. So it is more or less good to go. All you need to do is press the button, change the article name and add a reason, if you want. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the above box work? If so, should it now be added to the page? It would greatly simply nominations.--cj | talk 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current collaboration template updated

I noticed that the sign at the head of ACOTF was still saying Gough Whitlam several days after Bringing them Home was announced as the new ACOTF, so I tracked down the templates and updated them to point to the new article. Hope I haven't broken any rules. Phaedrus86 22:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all - thankyou. The main page says anyone can update it after about 8pm AEST on the relevent Sunday nights. I got round to it at about 1am the next morning, and seem to have missed one of the most important bits! Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 00:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We all slip up occasionally, especially at 1am! Glad I could help. Phaedrus86 00:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time to update the guidelines?

The first two paragraphs of the ACOTF page include:

This is a specific topic which either has no article or a basic stub page that is directly related to Australia, the aim being to have a featured-standard article by the end of the period, from widespread cooperative editing.
The project aims to fill gaps about Australia in Wikipedia, to give users a focus and to give us all something to be proud of.

And further down under "Considerations for nominations"

Please only nominate Australian articles which don't currently exist or need serious work. – also see Australia stubs).

It seems to be time to discuss updating these guidelines to keep up with the times. Since these were written:

  • The Feature Article standards have increased significantly
  • Many more Australian topics have articles giving at least basic information
  • The referencing standards have become stronger
  • WikiProject Australia has been established and this collaboration has become part of it.

To start a discussion:

--Scott Davis Talk 02:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are comparatively few missing or stub topics now that need this sort of attention than there were in 2004, and more longer articles that could really do with that time, so I think we should get rid of the suggestion that it need be either missing or a stub. Mentioning those categories could be good for potential collaborations, but I don't think it needs to be a requirement. Making FA, on the other hand, needs to remain the fundamental aim of this - GA is comparatively pointless. Rebecca 05:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I hadn't noticed that the categories you mentioned existed. In theory, any article that is proposed for ACOTF should already be in both of those categories and would be in neither by the end of the fortnight.
This might sound a little harsh, but I think that if someone wants to propose an article that doesn't exist, they should create the stub or place it in Requests, then propose the ACOTF after the article has been created.
I don't think that the length of the article should work against it. I'd propose to change the first sentence to:
This is a specific topic which is significant to, and directly related to, Australia. The aim is to substantially improve the article, ideally to featured-standard, by the end of the period, from widespread cooperative editing.
In this scenario, there is theoretically no reason why an article couldn't be ACOTF once to get it from stub to reasonable, then sometime later be ACOTF again to get to FA. --Athol Mullen 05:19, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
From non-existant to FA in a fortnight? Holy Crap! If we could do that WP would be emblazoned all over with FA articles. While ideally with a very active colab this might happen, I believe it would be an outside shot at even being idealistic - think virtually impossible. Prove me wrong and I'll be impressed. I like the suggestion above by Athol Mullen. The criteria should be significance not stub or non-existant. Now if someone wants to suggest a significant subject that is non-existant, I think more than just myself would be interested to hear. I like the ultimate aim of ACOTF being FA status or candidacy by the end of it. Persoally I think we need to have a head start and work with a article with a framework to build on. SauliH 05:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Athol - the orphan articles category won't change by a collaboration - that changes when a new Australian Wikiproject is formed and picks up some articles. I mentioned it here as that contains articles that do not already have a group of interested editors covering them.
My current proposed first paragraphs:
Every two weeks, an Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight will be picked using this page. This is a specific topic directly related to Australia, the aim being to develop the article to featured-standard article by the end of the period or soon after, from widespread cooperative editing.
The project aims to fill gaps about Australia in Wikipedia, to give users a focus and to give us all something to be proud of.
Considerations for nominations
I realise I'm pushing, so if you think I'm going the wrong way, please say so. --Scott Davis Talk 14:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support the revised guideline proposed by ScottDavis, in particular the notion that the ACOTF is to give users a focus and to give us all something to be proud of. To achieve the aim it cannot be too esoteric a subject, thus it should be subject the wider Australian Wikipedian community can contribute to. Some clarity of direction is useful and review of aims seems appropriate; I don't see this as "pushing" :- )--Golden Wattle talk 21:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any aspect that's pushy: these are perfectly sensible suggestions, which ideally should be enacted as soon as possible. In my opinion, there's long been a disconect between guidelines and practice on this page; these changes would simply recognise the approach most now expect of ACOTF.--cj | talk 23:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I support ScottDavis' proposal. Anybody can create a stub, but people will only work on an article if they think it is notable, as is shown by the ignored requests for new articles, most of which have been around for ages (Bicentennial Heritage Trail, Daintree Reef, George Adams, Insurance in Australia, Poppy Industries, Sports Rorts affair, State Orchestra of Victoria, Yarmirr v Northern Territory).--Grahamec 01:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. I've updated the page in the spirit of the proposal above. Please continue to discuss or improve these guidelines if required. Thanks. --Scott Davis Talk 14:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jump on board, another Feature article is within our grasp

Only a few more days of the Palm Island article being ACOTF, but already a new record for this Collaboration has been set!!! In only ten days 140 edits have been made by about a dozen editors!

This is what ACOTF is all about :) Please jump on board for the last 100 meter slog to get this thing up to a standard that is eligible for consideration to become a featured-standard article. This could be the first in over two years to make it, but we need more editors who would like to see this one go Feature. See you on Palm, WikiTownsvillian 12:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That bright yellow banner hurts my eyes. Perhaps choose a more subtle, pastel shade? --Oreo Priest 00:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's meant to be gold, as in green and gold.Garrie 22:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results notification

For Scott's work in notifying particpants of results (Mulesing, Leyland Brothers, Road transport in Australia, Bushranger, Climate of Australia) I have awarded him the Working Man's Barnstar at his talk page.

Thanks Scott, I'm sure your notifications have helped in improving articles at least as much as the voting process and choosing which article should actually be the Collaboration article.Garrie 23:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Concern

The current nomination precess requires that the subject/edit summary field is left blank during nomination, given the profound want for 100% edit summaries at WP:RFA can this be rectified. Gnangarra 04:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ACOTF template

I note that the ACOTF template has been removed (twice) from the current collaboration - Australian literature - by a user claiming they only go on talk pages. Certainly, the ACOTF template has been shown on the current collaboration for as long as I have been here and I am unaware of it ever being an issue. Is this a new guideline? -- Mattinbgn/ talk 03:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's just one user enforcing their own preference.--cj | talk 03:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They should go on talk pages, usually. Ral315 (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed the tag back on the article, following long standing precedent. If you can show me some guideline or policy regarding the location of these tags I will consider removing it. -- Mattinbgn\talk 02:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it's been discussed specifically, but I would note that self-references are generally discouraged (I believe this is one), and that of active improvement projects, the current article improvement drive, core topics, biography, alternative music, football (soccer), wrestling, rugby union, Peru, Anglicanism, birds, mathematics, medicine, molecular and cellular biology, pharmacology, science, space, U.S. Roads, and the Universities projects all use talk page messages. Only novels, the U.S. Congress projects, and of course Australia use templates on the article page. While it isn't standard across all projects, it is at the very least a guideline (with 18 of 21 active projects using talk page messages instead). Ral315 (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed reply. Is it a self reference? Perhaps, but no more than cleanup tags and the like. Similar to cleanup tags, it is an invitation to editors to participate in the editing process. I will wait and see what others think. Cheers, Mattinbgn\talk 03:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Ral315 is correct. This project was a specialization of Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week, which was using banners on talk pages rather than article pages ever since well before ACOTW was started in late 2004. And as he points out, almost all other improvement projects use talk page banners; and indeed it is general style that project-related matters are kept on talk pages. --Stormie (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Mattinbgn that it is in a way akin to clean up tags or even AfD motices - no worse a sin as far as self reference goes. I believe that on a talk page the message would be lost for the sake of immediacy but perhaps the collaboration message is transmitted in other ways anyway - eg by editors indicating prefernce and being reminded when their preference comes up plus an update to to the Australian noticeboard. Not going to die in a ditch over it but I don't see the harm in it staying either.--Matilda talk 04:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are numerous other projects that do it the way we do (I don't care either way, for the record, but I do love consensus) - WP:VG used too (that's inactive now), and WP:MYMEMORYISFAILING :( did too. Agree also on the Cleanup tags issue - just like they invite readers to help, so this invites readers to improve the article towards FA standard (is that a bad thing?). Dihydrogen Monoxide 08:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really is extremely bad practice putting the collaboration tag on the main article page. We use article tags to primarily inform our readers of issues there might be with an article. For instance, and {{unreferenced}} tag tells our reader that it may not be as reliable as other articles, a deletion tag tells readers that the article may not conform to our standards and will likely be deleted soon. The tags should have a benefit to our readers. The talk page of an article is there for collaboration and this is where any “article of the week” tags should be placed. This is the only time I have seen this happen, and I have to say that I’m disappointed. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am disappointed, but not surprised, that you have taken a unilateral decision to remove the template without waiting for consensus to be reached here, knowing the issue was under discussion. A cleanup tag, such as {{wikify}} or {{tone}} makes no such statement to the reader and is a clear and unambiguous invitation to the reader to edit the article. As for bad practise, as mentioned above, there are other collaboration templates that are shown on the article itself. Show me the policy, guideline or discussion with clear consensus on this issue, otherwise how about waiting until consensus is reached here. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What you're essentially trying to do is own the article. We have tags to inform readers of possible problems with the article. A wikify template still lets the reader know it's sub standard. Tags to articles are wikipedia wide, not just one special wikiproject. This really isn't done in any other wikiproject, and as I said, it's something for the talk page, not for the main page. Talk=collaboration, main=reader. This tag does nothing whatsoever for the reader. I don't believe we should get a consensus here where most of the people will most likely want to keep it, a wider audience may be better. I'm sure there's something in the manual of style about this. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is wanting to wait for consensus trying to OWN the article? You are the one attempting to impose a unilateral preference and override longstanding precedent, I am willing to abide by consensus and I am quite happy for it to be a wider discussion than what it is at the moment. The content is freely edited and I have made very little (if any) contributions to the article, other than reverting vandalism and replacing this template. A wikify tag does not point out any problem to a reader that isn't immediately obvious. It is nothing but an invitation to edit and I can't se how it is any different to a collaboration tag. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, from Wikipedia:Template namespace#Usage - "Templates used in pages from the article namespace provide information to help readers. These can include navigation aids, or warnings that content is sub-standard. Templates that provide information only of service to editors belong on an article's talk page." - hope that explains why the template must be added to the talk not the article. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with the removal of the template (especially the unilateral removal without discussion first), and agree with the points above that it's no more a self-reference than the wikify template is. Would it help to modify the template so that it fits in with the "new" style of the other commonly used article templates? Lankiveil (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The tag is of service to readers, by notifying them that 1) The article is not perfect yet. 2) The article is improving. 3) We have a WikiProject devoted to this stuff, which you can join if you want to help out. Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It gives no indication of what is "wrong" with the article. It does not inform he reader it is sub standard, it merely tells the editor that there's a collaboration effort going on with it at the minute. WikiProject tags go on talk pages, I've pointed to the policy above - it's quite clear where these tags go. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you didn't know what wikify meant, who would "please wikify this article" help you? How would that tell you what's "wrong" with the article? Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 08:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It shows the article is substandard, it's not wikified correctly. Yeah, fair enough, it's not going to help the reader that much, but it does notify them that they won't easily be able to move onto articles related to that topic. 12:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Postlethwaite (talk • contribs)
OK, fair enough. Well, since most others seem to have stop fighting, and as I said above that I don't really care either way, I'll stop kicking the horse now. Now Ryan, it's your moral duty to help Brisbane towards FA standard, right? ;) Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I closed my eyes and put my fingers in my ears, it would continue to go on the article page, as that's what we've always done. I do see it as a warning to readers, along the lines of the current event template: the page may be changing rapidly. This matters if people are using Wikipedia as a reference for a school assignment, for example. Wikipedia:Collaborations#Templates says:
Most collaborations use templates to mark the current collaboration and candidates for future collaborations. General practice is to have the template marking the current collaboration at the top of the article in question while leaving the candidacy templates on the talk page.
--Scott Davis Talk 09:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That collaboration page actually had consensus on the talk that all such templates should go on the article talk page, but no-one got round to implementing it. I have now gone ahead and changed the wording. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a problem if it was up indefinitely but we're talking about a template which is present for two whole weeks, then removed. I honestly don't see the problem, and I think consensus is pretty clear. Orderinchaos 12:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that my quote above came from this version of Wikipedia:Collaborations which has since been changed by User:Mclovin acting for User:Ryan Postlethwaite to reflect his view of consensus from 18 months ago on its talk page. While a majority appeared to support his opinion, it was far from unanimous, and somewhat confused by also talking about collaboration candidate templates, which we have rolled in to the WPAus template on the talk page. I think the majority here is in fact the other way: that the current Australian collaboration template should remain on the article page itself. Comment? --Scott Davis Talk 11:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to be a reasonable conclusion. Consensus is not on the basis of "once established, bound forever" - and what was actually determined by the consensus in August 2006 doesn't quite seem to relate to our use of the template here. I still maintain that the use of a template which only occupies a single article for 2 weeks at any one time is doing no-one any harm. Orderinchaos 21:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any localised consensus here counts for little. This is clearly a project notice rather than a cleanup notice, and so should be on the talk page, in the same way that WikiProject notices should be. Other, similar projects (Spotlight, the WikiProject Biography collaboration, etc) all place these templates on talk pages. Whether this is a current collaboration is of no interest to a reader of the article (as opposed to the reader of a portal, who may well be interested) but would be interested in a tag notifying them that neutrality, sourcing or whatever was a problem. The consensus that cleanup templates go on articles is fairly longstanding and stable, but these self-references do not belong in articles. J Milburn (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is also longstanding precedent for this template to appear on the article space and the seeming consensus (at least the existing practise did not change) from the above discussion was to leave it there. Certainly, there is nothing in Wikipedia:Collaborations to say that it shouldn't. In fact it says the following "Most collaborations use templates to mark the current collaboration and candidates for future collaborations. The template marking the current collaboration should be placed at the top of the article in question." -- Mattinbgn\talk 19:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That same point was raised above, and it was duly changed to reflect some outdated consensus there, and now it seems it's been changed back. Whatever, that's not exactly a foundation policy or anything. The point is that this template is very much out of the oridinary compared to other templates of the same type, and a localised consensus to treat one article, template, group of articles or whatever differently from others without a good reason just doesn't really fly. If this one is to be included on the article, why not include WikiProject notices? WikiProjects are clearly of interest only from a collaborative point of view, and so they go on the collaboration page- the talk page. Cleanup templates are placed on the article partly to look bad- in looking bad, they encourage people to fix the issues. This one isn't drawing attention to an issue, but to a collaboration relevant to the article. It should therefore be treated as what it is- a WikiProject notice, and thus put on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, {{wikify}}, {{cleanup}}, even the humble {{stub}} (You can help Wikipedia by expanding it) are without doubt self-referential tags clearly designed to encourage readers to edit the article, so I don't feel that there is any broad consensus that self-referential templates are verboten. The argument that templates are placed on the article "in part to look bad" is a novel one, although not without merit, but I don't see how the same argument doesn't apply to collaboration tags. I point you to the place where I can expect broader consensus to prevail and rather than provide counter-evidence of this supposed broader consensus, you instead do two things. Firstly, dismiss WP:COLLABORATE as not being "exactly a foundation policy or anything". Of course most of our guidelines at Wikipedia are not foundation policy either but that does not mean they are without merit. Secondly, you dismissed the consensus here (or at least the lack of consensus for your -and Ryan's - view) as being that of a minority (with a hint of a WP:OWN violation). Fine, if you want a broader discussion, point me to it. In the meantime, I see no reason why the existing practise, over many years, of placing the ACOTF template on the article page should change. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually care enough to take it further, but I will leave you with two thoughts- it looks terrible, so it's going to discourage your readers, and I have little doubt that others will complain in the future. Do you really have much to gain from placing it on the talk page? Why not just treat it like every other WikiProject template, and keep it off the article? J Milburn (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Time of new ACOTF

Hi everyone. I've been slack and not rolled over the ACOTF for nearly a fortnight more than it should be. Sorry about that, real life got in the way. I'm about to do it now, and will change the time from 8pm to midday on Sundays, as I find I'm at least as likely to want to look at it in the afternoon as in the evenings on Sundays. --Scott Davis Talk 08:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with that. Thanks for your work. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should the collaboration template appear on the article page

Following on from the discussion above and the recent reversion at Gundagai (current collaboration), I have raised an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Collaborations#RfC: Should the collaboration template appear on the article page--Matilda talk 00:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's now at Wikipedia_talk:Template_namespace#RfC:_Should_the_collaboration_template_appear_on_the_article_page, for the record. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some idle thoughts on fortnights and months

Is there a view about whether a fortnight is too short a time to get an article close to featured standard, as the template says? Should we be looking at ACOTMonth? I notice from the archives that it used to be ACOTW but that articles were either new or stubs. Now we are working with established pages, which means to genuinely improve them requires more detailed research. Unless an editor happens to have materials to hand at the start of the fortnight they will struggle to get the background to make a major contribution before the fortnight closes. I appreciate anyone can continue to work on articles after the ACOTF period has closed - I'll keep going on HM Bark Endeavour for example - but we miss the point of the collaboration if some contributors can't get involved at the same time as everyone else.

I'm not wedded to this suggested change - just thought I'd throw it out there for discussion. Any other views? Euryalus (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tended to being rather slack on Wikipedia lately, and I'm the main person who changes these around, so some have extended closer to a month anyway. My feeling is that if I remember to change it and advertise the change, then the edit rate drops off by the end of the fortnight. If someone or a small team want to progress to FA or GA, then they've had the wider collaboration to get well on the way, and they con continue without the ACOTF banner, which clearly needs to be removed from a GA or FA anyway. --Scott Davis Talk 12:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Unassessed Australia articles

I went to work on this current Collaboration but could not find any unassessed articles. No details are listed on the talk page as to what is required, so am unsure what we are trying to improve there. Not sure also how it can be improved to featured article standard as it states 'this page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale'. So am lost on what is required here. Boylo (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

expiry date principle

Just in case anyone is interested, the principle I have been attempting to follow when deciding whether to update expiry dates or to move nominations to the /Removed page is that "two weeks" is equivalent to "a selection cycle". Thus a nomination can't expire until as many days after the next selection date as the number of days it was nominated after the preceding selection. Every two additional votes move the expiry date out by the number of days (theoretically 14) of the next active collaboration. If I or anyone else correctly change the active collaboration every second Sunday, that is the same as the rules written on the page. This paragraph is an attempt at explaining how I've decided what to keep, and what dates to use, for when I've been busy outside of Wikipedia. --Scott Davis Talk 14:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RIP ACotF

You were kind of useful for a little while. Never quite reaching a critical mass you seem to have just faded away into a nice thought. I'll miss you as I keep doing my own thing just as many other Australian editors do. - Shiftchange (talk) 14:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will try to revive ACotF over the Aussie summer - don't give up hope yet! Australian Matt (talk) 01:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is now July 2010, was anyone looking at this? I would run with it, but the template used to specify the article is locked by an administrator and cannot be changed by myself. Jwoodger (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]