Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008
- Voting is now concluded.
Current time is 08:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
Candidate | Votes |
---|---|
Yllosubmarine | 11 |
Kevinalewis (withdrew) | 10 |
others withdrew |
Overview
The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers, nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct.
The Lead Coordinator bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project; the Assistant Coordinators aid the Lead Coordinator and focus on specific areas that require special attention.
A more detailed description of the coordinators' responsibilities is available here; some specific examples of day-to-day coordinator work can be found here.
Incumbents
Name | Position | Standing for re-election? |
---|---|---|
None currently |
More information on the history of the coordinator positions can be found here.
Election process
- The election will run for about four weeks, starting at 00:00 (UTC) on April 1 and ending at 23:59 (UTC) on April 30.
- Any member of the project may nominate themselves for a position by adding their statement in the "Candidates" section below by the start of the election. The following boilerplate can be used:
=== Name === {{user|Name}} : Statement goes here... ==== Comments and questions for Name ==== *
- The election will be conducted using simple approval voting. Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the Lead Coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); the next eight candidates will become Assistant Coordinators. The number of Assistant Coordinators may be increased if there is a tie or near-tie for the last position.
- Both project members and interested outside parties are encouraged to ask questions of the nominees or make general comments.
Candidates
- Voting is now concluded.
Current time is 08:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
DangerTM
- I am a somewhat new user, but I think un blemished enthusiasm should be held in higher regard than someone who has been here for too long and has lost the spark for wikipedia. Although I am new here, my wide reading and education should more than make up for my lack of main page edits. I assure you, that all of the edits that I have made have not been called into doubt, and I have taken an active stance when it comes to creating book related stubs. I am new, but if I can help, I will, I want to help, and anything I can do to help I will surely assess to see if it is worthy. DangerTM (talk) 07:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments and questions for DangerTM
- Since you are so new (you have had your account for approximately a week, after all), what articles within the project have you contributed to? How comfortable do you feel with the MOS as it pertains to works of fiction? The Fair Use guidelines (in regards to book covers)? In short, what is your experience that shows you are capable of handling such an important leadership position? María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- It was my idea to hold an election, but now I can see that I shouldn't run, one can make a big difference in the shadows.DangerTM (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I am confused by your reply to Maria. What do you mean by ... 'now I can see that I shouldn't run, one can make a big difference in the shadows' ? Boylo (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm a little hazy here, too. Are you resigning from this "election"? If you are, perhaps you should
strike-throughyour name to clear it up for everyone. Howa0082 (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think it is even possible to merge - somehow - all the fiction related projects? See Portal:Literature/Wikiprojects for an incomplete list; there are actually more! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it is possible, and a not entirely a good idea, at the moment at least. We should wait until we have mastered this format, and then we should start to ingest other projects into our own.DangerTM (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have my concerns with you becoming a co-ordinator here, especially after reading your postings on Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/GeneralForum. Your ideas '..i would group Jane Austen's works into the category of pulp fiction of 200 years ago..' and '...I think that one president, and three other council members who the president answers to would be fine, then the president should choose his cabinet...' are a worry to me. Your words here '..my wide reading and education should more than make up for my lack of main page edits..' makes me wonder if i would be considered way down the ladder scale to yourself on this Project, with my lack of higher education and amount of reading. To me a coordinator should have a good knowledge of how Wikipedia works and runs, also a understanding that the Project is a team objective rather than just one person running the whole Project the way they desire. With your experience on Wikipedia just being over one week, i wouldn't be voting for you myself as i dont feel your have the important experience skills, even if you have '..un blemished enthusiasm..'. There are over 245 Projects started by enthuiastic people that have now became inactive, so it's more about long standing devotion than a quick burst of zeal. Boylo (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- A coordinator of wikipedia in general should have an intense knowledge of the inner working of wikipedia, but when it comes to specialist projects, like this one, a knowledge of the content that the project looks at more than make up for it. And the things I said about Jane Austen, are just my opinion, I recognise that they have merit in today's society because of the way in which they are written. Comment on the discussion. Jane Austen is not my favourite author, a sentiment that I would probably share with a number of people in this day and age, which doesn't mean that I cannot appreciate the way in which it was written.DangerTM (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm very confused. In response to my questions and doubts about your experience with Wikipedia workings, you said "now I can see that I shouldn't run", but you're still answering questions and you have not removed your name; are you running or not? María (habla conmigo) 12:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Kevin said I should run, if only to give people another choice of whom they should be voting for. DangerTM (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- You have still avoided answering the original questions asked to you by Maria, as i am keen to see your reply. From looking at your edit summary, i find you have created 3 stubs on books. One such article you have created i have found to be Plagiarism from someone else's website. I have posted details on this at Talk:The Great Automatic Grammatizator (short story). It still makes me wonder exactly how skilled and academic you claim to be. But i shall assume good faith in accordance with Wikipedia policy It is not uncommon for a newcomer to believe that an unfamiliar policy should be changed to match their experience elsewhere. Similarly, many newcomers bring with them experience or expertise for which they expect immediate respect. Boylo (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Surely you should have edited the page and changed it so that it doesn't infringe on copy right. The fact that you decided to defer the task onto someone else's shoulders tells me a lot about you as a person and as a editor. The fact is, I read the story, and decided to use another person's ideas as the basis for the article, according to the fact that wikipedia doesn't publish original thought, I thought I changed the words enough, but after reading it again, and reading the other website, I can see that it wasn't a good enough change in the writting.DangerTM (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- The more of a pissant you behave like in this forum, the less votes you're liable to get, pal. You've already called Kevinalewis a fascist, and heavily implied that your dubiously in-existance education makes you more qualified to run than others. Calling someone else lazy for not covering up your plagiarism is simply immature and you're digging yourself a deeper and deeper hole with every post. Frankly, even if I overlooked your non-existant experience with Wikipedia, your conduct on this page has sealed your fate in regards to my votes. Howa0082 (talk) 11:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with the reply made by Howa0082. I have no need to add more. Boylo (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Let us look at this logically, four positions, and four candidates, no matter who you vote for, at this point, I will definately get in. Maybe you should, instead of insulting other candidates' "Dubious educations", get off your arse and run your selves. And I didn't say that my education would make me better qualified to do this job, I said that it would help me do this job. Maybe you should learn to read before you decide to run, m'kay pumpkin.DangerTM (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Votes in support of DangerTM
- Support signatures
Kevinalewis
Kevinalewis (talk · contribs)
- As this election has been proposed I think I should set things in motion by standing myself. My record with the project so far is basically my platform. I believe I have most of the basic principles of Wikipedia understood after 2.5 year of editing. The levels of bureaucracy sometimes leaves me cold and occasionally lost, but I suppose it is to be expected with such a worldwide animal. Temperamentally I'm probably a bit of a conservative, so changes are likely to be encouraged on a slow managed basis. It is so easy to have an idea proposed and go with the WP:BOLD thing and only then find it wasn't such a good idea. Anyhow that is enough of my failings; bring on the other candidates and the questions. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 11:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments and questions for Kevinalewis
- Should we really support you if one of your promises is to make things change slowly, we need quick changes, fast, not slow conservative facism. DangerTM (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Having pretty much done this job for over 2 years I find that the quicker the change the more liable to cause problems it is. Such a large collection of editors is a challenge to take forward together and that decisive change is good but it does need to be considered and as far as possible based on a decent level of consensus. Please avoid terms like "fascism", I do take exception to that! If this job passes to others then it might allow me to get a bit more of a life so I have no problems with the baton passing to others. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for calling you a facist, that was immature, but I do have a question. If you have essentially had this job for over two years, why do you need to have the title? Is it for the recognician, or is it because you think you can make a bigger difference if you have the title?DangerTM (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- No problem! On the question, I'm not bothered by the title, either way. If people don't want me to do it, also fine. I'm not doing this for recognition. I just thought that to make the election viable a certain number of people needed to submit candidacies and if people want to identify who the coordinators are, the labels are useful. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for calling you a facist, that was immature, but I do have a question. If you have essentially had this job for over two years, why do you need to have the title? Is it for the recognician, or is it because you think you can make a bigger difference if you have the title?DangerTM (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Having pretty much done this job for over 2 years I find that the quicker the change the more liable to cause problems it is. Such a large collection of editors is a challenge to take forward together and that decisive change is good but it does need to be considered and as far as possible based on a decent level of consensus. Please avoid terms like "fascism", I do take exception to that! If this job passes to others then it might allow me to get a bit more of a life so I have no problems with the baton passing to others. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, Kevin - Whilst I appreciate all the work you've done on this project, you may remember that we've clashed once or twice on the "stub" issue. I contend that it is better not to label every short article as a stub just because, for example, it doesn't include a detailed synopsis of the novel. To my mind, we would be better occupied in concentrating on the real stubs - the ones that don't give the passing reader most of the information they are looking for (which would include title, author, date of publication and a brief summary of the theme and plot). So my question is, "What is your definition of a stub?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs)
- I trust "clash" is really too strong a word. Anyway, my definition of "stub" is roughly based on the normal wiki one. So basically an article that doesn't answer users questions when they come to the article, and / or doesn't provide references, citations and "verifiableness". If pepole agree that this working definition is not appropriate, then I'm very open to a revised form. Also more clearly listed criteria for each of the classes would be very helpful, it just needs people to work together to produce them. Some WikiProjects have some quite formal sets of criteria for these matters. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, yes and "detailed synopsis" wouldn't have been a reason for such a choice - or if it was I must have had a really bad night's sleep that day. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's quite a fair answer, but I think we should be aiming for more precision in the definition. No doubt it will be up for discussion when you're elected :-) Deb (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think Kevin has done a great job with this Project with the amount of time and work he has put into it. He has always been helpful and quick in answering any questions i have had, so i dont have any complaints. Having extra coordinators is a good idea to spread the workload. I been a member of a few Projects that have gone by the wayside and became inactive so have always admired how well this Project functioned under his guidance. Boylo (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I can think of no reason to oppose, you've done a fantastic job with the project, and I admire all the work you've done with it. I whole-heartedly think you could, and should be the first coordinater of WikiProject novels. ~ Bella Swan 16:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Checking the user stats for the Novel Project main page, Kevinalewis, you completely dominate the page with 212/536 edits. Why shouldn't you be the co-ordinator? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because we might just find new people, better able, more capable, with new ideas, with more time than I; or all of these. I can also do it as well of course! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- OK, but don't go away! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Because we might just find new people, better able, more capable, with new ideas, with more time than I; or all of these. I can also do it as well of course! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think it is even possible to merge - somehow - all fiction related project? See Portal:Literature/Wikiprojects for an incomplete list; there are actually more! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ahhh! I see three basic issues here. Firstly, fiction is an enormous subject and potentially spans many different mediums, drama (theatre, radio, film, TV), speech (audio readings, plays, monologues) and print (books, e-print, magazines, comics); so you see just fiction is probably just too broad. This problem lays down the source for the Second issue, conflicting scope boundaries. In other words when a say "genre" group like our "Australian task force" is happy to be associated, it defines its own scope note just a all Australian prose narrative but all such literature (include plays, poetry), I hope you can see the problem. Thirdly, or lastly, defining project wide scope or task force scope so that editors can feel motivated to identify with the grouping. Now having said all that I do think we can do better than we have done in pulling together genre related groups. I have to confess I'm not sure I'm the right guy for that, it might need someone with a focus for it and new energy for the task, and lots of negotiating skills. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- You've been the defacto Novels guy for some time, Kevin. Assuming we elect you to the position you more or less already occupy, do you have any plans for really getting this project in shape? Nothing "fascistic", of course, but where would you like to take this WikiProject? Howa0082 (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Mate, "Facistic" is not a word, you probably mean facist, which can be a verb and a noun, and an adjective. You facist, The facist, or Facism, not Facistic.DangerTM (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- ... if Rob Halford can make up "desolizating", I can make up words, too. Hell, if SHAKESPEARE can make up words... Howa0082 (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- And is does have an another "s", "Fascism" is it in one form. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sir, let's hope you are the one most voted for. Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- In direct response to the question above; it is a very good question. One of my clear disadvantages over other candidates is that I have perhaps used up my fund of good ideas. However playing to my strengths, and one reason I prefer the name "coordinator" is that a major aspect of this type of role is to pull together other peoples effect and ideas. If you want a charismatic leader; that is not me. If you want to engender an environment where everyones ideas are encouraged (or should be) and welcomed, if sometimes challenged; then I'm your man. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's a disadvantage, really. Like in a democratic government, having a progressive party and a conservative party helps keeps things on track, mostly. We've got the one guy here who wants to apparently merge everything ever into one WikiProject (WikiProject: All of Existance), and it's good that there be someone to step in and say "Um, perhaps not." I'd liken you to a Captain of a boat whose executive staff are all saying "But I've always wanted to see a dragon, and the map says Thar Be Dragonns! Let's go, c'mon!" and then you shake your head sadly at their youthful exuberance; but I don't know how you'd take it, so... I won't even mention my nautical example! But I would hope you would understand my point, despite the muddled metaphor and not feel discouraged. "Head Coordinator" might be appropriate, as a sort've Coordinator Emeritis, since you've mentioned your desire to step back from constantly working on this. Howa0082 (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- "desire to step back", I wouldn't have phrased it like that. More than willing to let others have more of an chance/influence in the project. I'm not about to back away anytime soon, unless life issues impinge. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I must've misunderstood you, then. Sorry. Howa0082 (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- "desire to step back", I wouldn't have phrased it like that. More than willing to let others have more of an chance/influence in the project. I'm not about to back away anytime soon, unless life issues impinge. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know if it's a disadvantage, really. Like in a democratic government, having a progressive party and a conservative party helps keeps things on track, mostly. We've got the one guy here who wants to apparently merge everything ever into one WikiProject (WikiProject: All of Existance), and it's good that there be someone to step in and say "Um, perhaps not." I'd liken you to a Captain of a boat whose executive staff are all saying "But I've always wanted to see a dragon, and the map says Thar Be Dragonns! Let's go, c'mon!" and then you shake your head sadly at their youthful exuberance; but I don't know how you'd take it, so... I won't even mention my nautical example! But I would hope you would understand my point, despite the muddled metaphor and not feel discouraged. "Head Coordinator" might be appropriate, as a sort've Coordinator Emeritis, since you've mentioned your desire to step back from constantly working on this. Howa0082 (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- In direct response to the question above; it is a very good question. One of my clear disadvantages over other candidates is that I have perhaps used up my fund of good ideas. However playing to my strengths, and one reason I prefer the name "coordinator" is that a major aspect of this type of role is to pull together other peoples effect and ideas. If you want a charismatic leader; that is not me. If you want to engender an environment where everyones ideas are encouraged (or should be) and welcomed, if sometimes challenged; then I'm your man. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Votes in support of Kevinalewis
- Support signatures
Wassupwestcoast
Wassupwestcoast (talk · contribs)
- I've done maintenance and bureaucratic things at several projects since I joined Wikipedia. I’ve created templates, fooled around with portals, mucked about with project page formats, reconciled membership lists, and all the general silliness that keeps a project active. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments and questions for Wassupwestcoast
- The biggest challenges with a project of this size appear to be motivating and inspiring the collaborative efforts of editors with highly varied interests, generating promotional ideas and relating the efforts of this WikProject with other (possible overlapping) WikiProjects. How would you anticipate adding to these efforts? Also would you agree with the above analysis? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- All the projects I've been involved with have motivation problems! To often, the only way to get a response from another user is to poke them...but annoying people isn't my thing. On Wikipedia, change is a great motivator. Actively working on the project pages creates interest and makes the project seem alive. I've noticed on other projects, if nothing happens with the project pages, users tend to drift away from the project. What kind of change? Nothing more exciting than the tweaking that indicates the project is still breathing. I'm a Wikisloth. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Having just looked back at your recent "contributions" I would expect that to be a successful coordinator you might need to just turn up here a little more regularly. If only to see if anything needs doing and then, if not, going back to "slothdom". As you say life is largely indicated by activity, and activity in the wiki world is seen as changes, even if only small ones. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I did take a wiki break for Feb. By the way, Kevinalewis, I think you are the natural choice as ‘co-ordinator’. You've practically kept the project alive single-handily! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Having just looked back at your recent "contributions" I would expect that to be a successful coordinator you might need to just turn up here a little more regularly. If only to see if anything needs doing and then, if not, going back to "slothdom". As you say life is largely indicated by activity, and activity in the wiki world is seen as changes, even if only small ones. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 17:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- All the projects I've been involved with have motivation problems! To often, the only way to get a response from another user is to poke them...but annoying people isn't my thing. On Wikipedia, change is a great motivator. Actively working on the project pages creates interest and makes the project seem alive. I've noticed on other projects, if nothing happens with the project pages, users tend to drift away from the project. What kind of change? Nothing more exciting than the tweaking that indicates the project is still breathing. I'm a Wikisloth. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- So, I'm reading your userpage. In this position for which you're running, how do you reconcile the position's requirement for action with your newly found WikiSlothhood. (I get that the WikiSloth moniker is a gag, but still.) You said "I will treat the project as a fun hobby. I will not concern myself with the success or failure of Wikipedia." So... why the hell should I vote for someone whose own userpage says they're not going to make an effort beyond an average user? What would the point of a coordinator be, if they won't take the initiative and do coordinate-y stuff? Howa0082 (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- 'cause I do more than I say :-) I've certainly taken the initiative on the the Novel Wikiproject pages. I'm the user who cleaned up the membership pages...which hadn't been touched in over a year. I've also messed around (messed up?) with the Novel portal and fixed a few templates. So, perhaps, not much ... but Wikisloths do get things done. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect what you mean is that it's your temperamental position not what you actually end up doing, which is more active. And I suspect you meant to say the Literature Portal, or am I wrong? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, yup...Literature portal and Harry Potter portal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- I suspect what you mean is that it's your temperamental position not what you actually end up doing, which is more active. And I suspect you meant to say the Literature Portal, or am I wrong? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- 'cause I do more than I say :-) I've certainly taken the initiative on the the Novel Wikiproject pages. I'm the user who cleaned up the membership pages...which hadn't been touched in over a year. I've also messed around (messed up?) with the Novel portal and fixed a few templates. So, perhaps, not much ... but Wikisloths do get things done. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Votes in support of Wassupwestcoast
- Support signatures
Yllosubmarine
Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs)
- To further get the ball rolling, I might as well nominate myself. I've been on Wikipedia for a little over two years and have been editing heavily since fall of 2006. During my time here I have consistently edited articles devoted to novels and other works of fiction and have familiarized myself with proper formatting and little intricacies of the MOS. Although I spend most of my time editing biographical articles, I find myself adding a fair use rationale to an book cover image here, updating an assessment there, or just copy-editing a plot summary.
- This was the first WikiProject I joined and although I have yet to be heavily affiliated with its processes, I would love the opportunity to improve certain facets and better ensure its success. I do not believe major changes are needed, but participation, peer reviewing and assessments are three areas in which I see the most need for improvement. Contests and drives would be a great incentive for our more than three hundred members; at the moment we are sadly not as productive as other WikiProjects and this needs to change. There is also a very small number of GA and FA level novel-related articles, a deficiency that upped participation and interest would help fix. I think I can greatly help in providing a gentle (and consistent) nudge to our members to make everyone wake up and smell the book glue. Thanks for the consideration. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Comments and questions for Yllosubmarine
- how would you anticipate working together with any other coordinators with whom you might not agree on some issues, should you succeed. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 13:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- It depends on the circumstances, of course, but what I would have to remind myself (and perhaps remind the other party) is that we're working towards a common cause: the betterment of the WikiProject. What is important is that we have similar goals in mind; how we attain those goals can be discussed and debated, but we should never lose sight of those goals. If by "succeed" you mean keep my temper in check then, yes, I think I could do that. If I don't agree with someone in regards to various issues, I hope that they'll be willing to work with me on reaching a compromise. María (habla conmigo) 13:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Good answer, I totally agree. Actually I meant succeed in the election, but no matter. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 14:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Do you think it is even possible to merge - somehow - all fiction related project? See Portal:Literature/Wikiprojects for an incomplete list; there are actually more! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- Anything is possible, but I think the more important question to ask is if it will do any good. Personally, I greatly believe in smaller, branched off WikiProjects and I do not see a reason to merge all of the fiction-related ones. Smaller, more focused groups of individuals working on a focused subject (such as articles dealing with Middle-earth or Harry Potter) are far more successful because they are not as broad as their parent WikiProject (WP:BOOKS). Because there are a less amount of articles to worry about, there is less of a chance that members' time will be spent on upkeep (assessment, stub sorting, categorization) and more time can be spent on article improvement, which is our ultimate goal. For example, look at how successful the Simpsons WikiProject is! 23 FAs, 80 GAs... such attention wouldn't be given to this particular subject if they were wallowing in the much bigger pool that is WP:TELEVISION. Therefore, yes, it's possible, but I don't think it's a good idea and I would be against it. María (habla conmigo) 20:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
- The only problem with such approaches I can see with that is the disproportionate attention based on Fan popularity. The examples you give are based on high levels of this type of support. For the large project scopes (like ours and WP:TELEVISION) the future would probably be improved by advancing the "task force" concept, ie. special focus within a large focus. This type of approach appears highly successful at WP:BIOGRAPHY, WP:MILHIST and to a lesser extent WP:FILM. There obviously is a home here for both approaches, but a little more logical structure could be beneficial. What's your take on these ideas? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think there's a good case to be made for both scenarios, really, and I agree with you in that there seems to be a home for both approaches. I don't know if I agree that any kind of high attention is "disproportionate" since it all benefits Wikipedia in the long run (although I must say that 80 GAs is far too much Simpsons for my tastes). María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry poor choice of word. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think there's a good case to be made for both scenarios, really, and I agree with you in that there seems to be a home for both approaches. I don't know if I agree that any kind of high attention is "disproportionate" since it all benefits Wikipedia in the long run (although I must say that 80 GAs is far too much Simpsons for my tastes). María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- The only problem with such approaches I can see with that is the disproportionate attention based on Fan popularity. The examples you give are based on high levels of this type of support. For the large project scopes (like ours and WP:TELEVISION) the future would probably be improved by advancing the "task force" concept, ie. special focus within a large focus. This type of approach appears highly successful at WP:BIOGRAPHY, WP:MILHIST and to a lesser extent WP:FILM. There obviously is a home here for both approaches, but a little more logical structure could be beneficial. What's your take on these ideas? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Goddammit, I think Iron Dawn is an important first work by an overlooked author! Why do you keep changing my rating back to Low?! What the hell criteria are you using to rate the importance of novels?!?!?!!!1 (I'm being stupid here, but really. Beyond the "top importance" discussion page, how would you explain to a person reacting in my way why a novel is the importance it is? Really, what do the importance ratings mean to you? A person could argue that Rosemary's Baby is no more important than The Name of the Rose, after all. Isn't importance almost too subjective for proper use in an art-based project?) Howa0082 (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what Yllosubmarine has to do with Iron Dawn. There is nothing in the edit history to prompt this, or is there? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure Howa0082 meant that "rant" as an example. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I was entirely being facetious. :D Howa0082 (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I definitely agree that, aside from obvious examples like Alice in Wonderland or Pride and Prejudice, the importance ratings are almost completely subjective. If a user wants to argue that one work is of higher importance than I thought, I wouldn't resort to arguing or edit warring; I hope that most of them wouldn't react with such venom as your Oscar-worthy re-enactment. :) To continue with your example, I personally know very little about Ira Levin's work, so if someone wanted to give a higher importance rating to The Name of the Rose than I originally thought proper, I wouldn't put up much of a fight. Assessments do serve a purpose, however, and although I think think it is mainly up to the one who is doing the assessing, I don't think that it's entirely superfluous to our goals here. María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is a shame "importance" ever got used, "priority" which some use, would have been better. It is really intended as a means for the project to establish relative editing importance / priority. Linked to relative notability, it's just an aid to sequence our work and efforts. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- You know, I've always wondered why WP:NOVEL used "importance" while other WPs seem to prefer "priority"; I think the latter is a far more judicial word. But, yes, the rating does serve a purpose, so although subjective, it's beneficial. María (habla conmigo) 12:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- So, would it be fair to say that perhaps you might be willing to change the term to Priority, to foster less potential butthurt? And if so, or even if not, how would you use the cross-rating system to direct efforts? High-priority articles should be focused on to reach FA moreso than others? Low-importance articles being worked extensively past a certain rating on should be discouraged? Howa0082 (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- If consensus was reached that "priority" is favored over "importance" then, yes, I would be willing to change it. I don't think extensive work on any article, regardless of its rating, should be discouraged. There have been great articles about what I may have considered marginal encyclopedic material, so who am I to judge? But because obvious high-priority works tend to be more encyclopedic, it makes sense to put more of a community-based effort into improving these. Therefore, core articles within our WikiProject, all of those "classic" novels and things we're forced to read in intro to literature courses, should be our highest priority, but not our main priority. María (habla conmigo) 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- So, would it be fair to say that perhaps you might be willing to change the term to Priority, to foster less potential butthurt? And if so, or even if not, how would you use the cross-rating system to direct efforts? High-priority articles should be focused on to reach FA moreso than others? Low-importance articles being worked extensively past a certain rating on should be discouraged? Howa0082 (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- You know, I've always wondered why WP:NOVEL used "importance" while other WPs seem to prefer "priority"; I think the latter is a far more judicial word. But, yes, the rating does serve a purpose, so although subjective, it's beneficial. María (habla conmigo) 12:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is a shame "importance" ever got used, "priority" which some use, would have been better. It is really intended as a means for the project to establish relative editing importance / priority. Linked to relative notability, it's just an aid to sequence our work and efforts. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what Yllosubmarine has to do with Iron Dawn. There is nothing in the edit history to prompt this, or is there? :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Although we have never interacted prior to this (after all, Wikipedia's a big world :p), I've got an excellent impression of your writing skills from the comments on Awadewit's talk page :) This question may seem little foolish, but I was wondering whether you have enough time for this task; so it doesn't affect the time spent on article work? —Dark (talk) 05:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- That's a very fair question. I think I would have enough time, definitely. Article writing does take a lot of time and energy, but most of why I'm here is because I've seen biographical articles blossom and bloom at GAN and FAC, whereas very little novel and fiction-related articles get such attention. I would like to see more representation from this WikiProject and if I can help that happen, I'm definitely willing to give up a couple hours here and there that would usually be given to anal retentive copy-editing of my own work. :) P.S: thank you very much for the compliment! María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Votes in support of Yllosubmarine
- Support signature
General comments
Please make any general comments not related to one of the candidates on the talk page.