Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Boneyard/Featured content dispatch workshop: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:03, 8 March 2008

February 25

The February 25 entry can be written at Wikipedia:FCDW/February 25, 2008. I still believe a piece on peer review is the most logical next entry. If Geometry guy isn't up to writing it, perhaps Marskell can? Please add ideas to the main page as you think of them, and it's already time to start thinking about March 3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Points to cover on PR dispatch

At least a month is needed at PR, many close too quickly

hmmmm. I just read the new instructions at PR, and they are now closing them (not sure how, since I can't understand the instructions) at two weeks if they get no comments, so I guess we can't tell folks they need to give it a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Need to solicit input from WikiProjects, other editors, ect. Browse similar articles at WP:FA.
Volunteer list
Redesign of PR, how templates work
Close peer review and archive before approaching FAC

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~No feedback on the PR issue, so Marskell has suggested he may write up oldest FAs instead.~~ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that, Marskell is going to write up FAs by topic. Now on to March 3. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

After I set this up, I noticed that Raul's original post at WT:FAC mentioned all featured content. Do I need to change all these pages and templates to Featured content dispatch workshop, or can we live with this title? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No response from anyone. OK, since Raul originally mentioned all featured content,[1] I'm going to move all these pages to reflect featured content rather than featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 31, 2008

This would be the April Fool's Edition, correct? Would a swimsuit edition be appropriate? maclean 19:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you volunteerin' ? I suspect Raul654 might want to have some input on April Fools.

April Fools

April Fools – Raul, do you want this issue? If so, you could tag it at Wikipedia:FCDW/March 31, 2008
- If we want the April Fools signpost article to be pro-actively useful (that is to say, if we want it to be helpful in stimulating someone to write a really good April Fools FA) then we have to do this a few weeks before April 1. Raul654 (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ah, ok, if you want to do that article, can you tag one of the earlier dates at {{FCDW/T}}? Probably March 3 ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And what about Mozart? I'd have to get the Simkin book, and Tony (music) might be able to help in March. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we reserve the March 3 issue for April Fools, or there won't be enough time to get an article featured before then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005 first (?) discussion thread, long brouhaha, nobody wrote an article, Raul scheduled Nintendo.

2008 possibilities:

Leck mich im Arsch (would need quick work)
Only Fools and Horses Lame, but a fallback ?
WP:FFAs that weren't on main page and might be resurrected ?
- Bloodletting
- Social history of the piano (really)
- Political correctness (no laughing matter ?)
- Steer wrestling

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April Fool's DYK

For the last couple of years the main page has run a DYK secton about real (but not necessarily new) articles that seem like hoaxes but are actually genuine referenced articles. An example is casu marzu which I nominated for the 2006 page. If you haven't decided on a topic yet, it would take me a day or two to write up a summary of April Fool's DYKs. Please respond kind of quickly, I've got a few other irons in the fire. Durova^Charge! 16:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to try to write the April Fools entry, but it's a bit hard as I wasn't involved in the past. I was going to need help from Raul, but haven't heard from him. Can we make this a combined effort, covering both DYK and FA? Can you add a paragraph or two on DYK to Wikipedia:FCDW/March 3, 2008 and then we'll round it out to include FA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting around to it :) Raul654 (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad; I was going to do it, but it was going to be shaky :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, thanks. Durova^Charge! 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've written up something basic. Please let me know if it needs work. Durova^Charge! 17:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 3, 2008

Now that Feb 25 is decided, who wants March 3? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I'll be caught up in time to write that one. It's amazing how much stuff changes when you've only been gone 5 days!! I may be able to do the next one. Karanacs (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been discussion that peer review is the next logical article, but I'm not clear still who is going to write it or whether we should peg it for the 3rd. I can't write that article because I don't understand PR anymore. Most of the articles coming to FAC are showing up with non-responsive peer reviews, so all I can contribute now is the list of suggestions I put above. Not sure how to encourage more peer reviews; I used to enjoy peer reviewing articles, but the page has gotten very complicated, so I stopped visiting. For example, Ganymede moon is still listed at PR, even though it's at FAC and Ganymede's talk page says it's archived. I used to be able to manually remove them, but I no longer understand how the page works.

Whenever we want to slot it in, I can write up a description of articlehistory, Dr pda's articlehistory script, and how GimmeBot builds articlehistory, but I guess that should be after the peer review article. If we decide no one is going to write peer review for the 3rd, I can describe articlehistory any time we want to slot that in. ~~On the other hand, maybe that should be in the SignPost tutorial series, so more editors could learn how to build articlehistories rather than focusing on how it helps the featured processes ??~~

Strike that, I just looked at the Tutorial page, and they're "booked up" through June. I'll write this whenever we have an opening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone else have a suggestion for the 3rd? It would be nice to have an overview of all the featured processes, but who is involved enough in each to be able to write that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone can think of a good FLC related topic, I'll do it. Perhaps I could just do an overview of the FLCs closed in February. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 05:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion shaking out at WT:FAC about the need to clearly define list vs. article would probably be a good topic, once that is resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm probably not the best one to do that because I've been neutral and uninvolved in most of the FL vs FA debates, perhaps Colin could write one like that. I wanted to start off with an easy piece, so I would prefer to do something like an overview. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rethinking this, if there's going to be an article featured in time for April Fools, the word needs to be put out soon. Can we reserve the March 3rd issue for April Fools? I hope Raul will write it; if not, I can give it a go, if others will ce and fill in the blanks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 10 and March 17

No one has offered any feedback, but I still believe March 3 must be reserved for April Fools. Then I suggest it's time for an entry outside of the featured article process; can someone please suggest or sign up for a March 10 topic that concerns another featured process? Then perhaps we can entice someone to use March 17 for a peer review entry. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll do a piece on featured pictures. If Fir0002 wants to collaborate we can overview the whole thing. Otherwise I'll focus on vintage uploads and restorations. Durova^Charge! 19:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, unless anyone else disagrees. Temporary work at Wikipedia:FCDW/March 10, 2008, then follow the stesp on the main page here when it's time to publish. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start posting there once I have an adequate working draft. Did an outline and quick draft and it looks like there's more than enough to fill a page just on restorations. Plenty of licensing and upload issues to discuss regarding vintage work. Might be best to save photography for another week. Durova^Charge! 21:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ack. OK, who wants March 10? It would be good to have a non-article topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um...something about the GA process? Anything been suggested? Otherwise I could do a general "we exist, remember!" thing. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Durova is doing March 10 on images after all (she has started the page), and I'm still hoping someone will pick up peer review for March 17, since that new complicated page needs to be deciphered for the masses. Also, I'm interested in writing the articlehistory/GimmeBot review/tutorial before we run anything on GA, since efforts to get the GA process to update talk pages correctly (with either the old templates or the articlehistory template) haven't panned out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to offer to do peer review, and started a draft at User:Geometry guy/Peer review, but maybe I am not the person to do it, since I hardly recognise the description "new complicated page [which] needs to be deciphered for the masses".

The page itself, particularly this format, has hardly changed since December, and the instructions are no more complicated than they used to be (the old ones didn't even explain properly how to use peer review correctly). It now takes two edits instead of three (plus a potential page move and large number of link fixes) to request a peer review, and two edits instead of three (including a horrid cut and paste job) to archive a peer review. Furthermore, peer review is no longer a machine for producing broken links, and there's one less job for GimmeBot as a result of the changes. Geometry guy 16:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be stupendous if you'd write the March 17 entry (since you were involved in setting up the volunteers, the new archiving and the new automation), or perhaps collaborate with Marskell. You can explain all the things you just explained here :-) At any rate, I'm just hoping someone will do it. I left a list of items to possibly include, above, (most peer reviews are still showing up empty at FAC, so it would be helpful to remind nominators they need a solid month at PR and they need to recruit reviewers from WikiProjects and perhaps by browsing similar articles at WP:FA). If no one picks it up for the 17th, we can skip over it, and I'll go ahead and write up an articlehistory/GimmeBot description, but the more logical order is to explain the new peer review process first, as a lead in to articlehistory, which would then lead in to a next entry on GA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, check out my draft: I'm happy for anyone to use it. If I'm to do it, I'd prefer to coauthor with someone familiar with the Dispatches style, and Marskell is the obvious choice. I could add more on the technical "how to", but I think that would make for tedious reading. If the instructions at peer review are unclear, then we need to make them clearer, not explain them somewhere else. I've seen very few errors, however.

As for the one month thing before FAC, I'm afraid that peer review is a victim of its own success here. The servers limit the amount of peer review which we can have on the page to 2 megabytes at any one time. If we left all peer reviews on the page for one month, this would break. Of course, this is good news for the many more editors who are getting answers to their requests, but not so good for the editor whose request is closed after 2 weeks, with only a semi-automated peer review to show for it.

In the long run, there may be a technical fix for this, but it requires changes to the mediawiki software, so don't hold your breath! Geometry guy 17:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Marskell will dig in with you; if we don't hear from him here, I'll ping him. Wow, that time limit is really sad ... what is causing that limit, and why didn't we have that issue before? Two weeks is just not enough time for a peer review, and I'm seeing a preponderance of empty peer reviews showing up at FAC. Look at Wikipedia:Peer review/Reactive attachment disorder/archive1 for an effective, five-week PR. Can we reduce the MB or the server load by getting rid of some of the links or overhead in each peer review? They used to run for a month. The main thing I wanted to convey to editors for the featured process is that they really need to allow a month for a solid peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, you've got more than a good start on the article; would you mind moving it in to Wikipedia:FCDW/March 17, 2008 so others can pitch in? Technically I think other editors aren't supposed to work in your userspace, but I've never understood that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm happy for editors to play in my user space. My understanding is that users have editorial control over their userspace (as long as they don't violate policy), but that doesn't prevent other editors from editing it. Anyway, I've moved this one out to the page you suggest.

As for the short time at peer review, I think we may have been archiving a bit hard recently, and I will suggest throttling back. The 2MB limit existed before, but I don't know if it was a problem. Peer reviews still run for a month if they get comments: the two week thing is for requests that get no response. I've been sensitive to the size issue, and have checked carefully the overheads involved in providing links and other information: they are small. The technical solution is to stop transcluding complete reviews when they become too long: I occasionally do this by hand, but a general solution is in the wikimedia pipeline. Geometry guy 20:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marskell is swamped, so I pinged Karanacs (although Marskell might not have understood that being the advance planner that I am, this is two weeks out). Anyway, I want to make sure we have text explaining to nominators how to seek out reviewers via the volunteer list, WikiProjects and browsing similar (recent) FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC) And a reminder that, per instructions at both, articles shouldn't be at PR and FAC at the same time, close PR before submitting FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Geometry Guy's draft looks pretty good. I haven't used Peer Review for a while because it was so hard to get feedback, but I'll take a look at the new process and see if there is anything that I can add as someone relatively new to the new system. (Probably not until later this week, though). Sandy, I'm hoping life will settle down in the next few weeks, so I'll volunteer to write the dispatch for the 24th (unless we have other volunteers), if you'll help me pick a topic. Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad they're going to settle down for you; I'll have a house full of adolescent testosterone the last two weeks of March, so I'll be busy. I'd really like to write a description of GimmeBot/articlehistory for the 24th. Unless something else comes up, or someone else needs that date, we can get that done before I get busy. Once we've done the dispatch on PR for the 17th, I want to explain how articlehistory works on the 24th, as a lead in to a subsequent dispatch on GA. Someone else may have other ideas, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should run the general FPC overview before focusing on specific contribut(or|ion)s to maintain some sort of logical order. I'll aim for March 10 (or 24), depending on my laziness. MER-C 12:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit late to switch gears, MER-C; Durova offered to do this on 28 Feb and considering there was no other input and we're four days from deadline, it may be late to change what is scheduled for the 10th (unless you and Durova agree to switch). Also, since the 10th is pictures, it might be better to let another process run on the 24th (or leave it at explaining GimmeBot/articlehistory which is part of all processes). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to make it anyway, there was some sort of conspiracy to get copyvios on the main page that was a major timesink. MER-C 08:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that; those processes should have a director position (like Raul) so that vote stacking can be overridden. Durova, I hope you're on track for Monday in spite of the distraction over there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 100: / Line 100: @@
 :It's a bit late to switch gears, MER-C; Durova offered to do this on 28 Feb and considering there was no other input and we're four days from deadline, it may be late to change what is scheduled for the 10th (unless you and Durova agree to switch).  Also, since the 10th is pictures, it might be better to let another process run on the 24th (or leave it at explaining GimmeBot/articlehistory which is part of all processes). [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 14:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 ::I wasn't going to make it anyway, there was some sort of [[WP:AN#Votestacking at WP:FPC|conspiracy to get copyvios on the main page]] that was a major timesink. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 08:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
+:::I saw that; those processes should have a director position (like Raul) so that vote stacking can be overridden.  Durova, I hope you're on track for Monday in spite of the distraction over there?  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:03, 8 March 2008 (UTC)