This WikiProject Film page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.
This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Film. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
It is a pleasure to be serving with all of you. Well, almost all of you - this actually is our first order of business: we need to appoint someone to fill the remaining open Coordinator slot. Do any of the other coordinators have any suggestions of editors whom you feel would be well-equipped for the role? I have a few ideas, but I'd like to hear from you first. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
As to filling the last post, I have three candidates in mind: User:Clarityfiend, User:Ed Fitzgerald and User:Snowmanradio. Each of these contributors is a very careful and precise editor who understands the complexities of editing, Wikipedia style, and have also made major contributions to many of the WP:Film Project articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
I know of a few terrific editors, though I think some of them may be averse to extended discussion as a coordinator. I think it would be great for Nehrams2020 to return, though I was wondering if there was a reason why he was not a candidate in this election. I think that Steve is another editor who has an interest in contributing to discussions. While relatively new, I think he has learned the lay of the land very quickly, has a positive attitude, and is willing to ask questions. The editors mentioned above are great recommendations as well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've sent out feeler messages for the two editors (Nehrams2020 and Steve) which Erik seconded, as well as Clarityfiend, whom I will second. Of course, more conversation on the matter is definitely welcome! I'm wondering what Limetolime thinks, as well. Best, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
cut and pasted from Girolamo's talk page
Thank you for considering me again for the election. I was always a bit apprehensive about Creamy3, as I believe I remember seeing him create several accounts, so I wasn't too surprised to see him blocked. Although I have been really busy the last few weeks, I believe that I could fill the last position if no one else is able/willing. I enjoyed working with you before, but was just worried that my sporadic editing may be problem. I may become more active as school lets out, and hopefully should be fine for the summer. If someone is really adamant about taking the last position, then I won't stand in their way, but if there are no interested parties, I would enjoy filling the spot (if others agree, of course). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Girolamo, I have a limited experience with editors in the film project group, subsequently my choices for another film project coordinator were limited. I concur that user:Clarityfiend would make a fine coordinator, as well as many of the other names that were proposed by others. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC).
Thank you for your kind words, Bzuk. I am of two minds about applying for the position - I'm a bit concerned about how much time it would take away from my fiendish editing - so if Nehrams2020 wants it, that's fine with me. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; it's flattering you thought of me as a candidate, Girolamo. Forgive me for not replying straight away to your enquiry last night. To be completely honest, it's because I wanted to have a thorough read of the Coordinator project page first to see what would actually be involved. Having read that, I'm not sure that I should put myself forward as a candidate. While I'd be happy to take even more of an interest in point-of-contact responsibilities, chipping in more at the talk/policy/MOS pages, helping out with the other tasks, such as article assessments, seems like it would take quite a chunk of time away from the little time I get now for editing. As Special:Contributions/Steve should attest, the time I'm able to spend on Wikipedia mostly tends to come in short bursts of activity ill-suited to the dedication required for the role. In short, should a nomination on my behalf be successful, I couldn't guarantee that I'd be able to actually do the job, though should circumstances change, I would not rule myself out at some point in the future. Again, thanks for thinking of me. And all the best. SteveT • C07:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Moving onwards
It's a bit tricky, since everyone's treading lightly, but the way I'm looking at it, Clarityfiend and Steve are sorta saying "thanks but no thanks", while Nehrams is willing to return. Is this a fair assessment? If so, should we offer the position to Nehrams? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment and that we should offer the position to Nehrams. His previous experience will help, and I am sure we can do our best to act as coordinators in his periodic absences. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That's how I read it as well. If Nehrams has already been a film projects coordinator and if he is willing to assist in this role again, I would support his nomination. As Erik has pointed out, with others involved in the tasks, the concern that Nehrams had regarding not being able to continually provide assistance, is tempered by the knowledge that other coordinators will be available. I think Nehrams' forthright assesment is not that different from the same reservations that all of the nominees had in considering whether to place our names in contention for the positions. With cooperations from the "team", I believe a lot of work can be accomplished. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC).
First of all, it is good to be working with a larger contingent of coordinators! I have greatly been anticipating some larger discussions of the administrative issues and proposals. I've decided to confine this for the moment to issues which have already been raised above, with an eye towards more thoughts on the matters.
Questionnaire
Many of our editors - and by extension, the project - seem to get active in fits and starts, and in some of our key areas, such as assessment and reviews, go from moribund to busy back to moribund again without much rhyme or reason. Others, like CotW or Translation just died outright. I've been considering creating some new departments such as Contests and perhaps even a rotating open task (see below), but maybe it would be worth polling our members first to find out more about what drives their participation.
A questionaire is certainly an option, but is there any incentive for the less than active to even participate in that? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
The questionnaire could be easily distributed to all of the members with Cbrown's bot, and however much feedback we'd receive would still be beneficial for the general thoughts of the members. I could mention it in a future newsletter to get more publicity for it, or a simple talk message on members' pages would probably be sufficient enough. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Has the encyclopedia made it apparent enough that the IMDb is not a reliable source? It seems a common stumbling block for so many editors that they can't rely on the site, and yet there isn't much in the way of a formal declaration to the effect. Also, should this go into the style guidelines, be thrown to RS, or perhaps be elsewhere?
My reading of the IMDb conundrum is that in general, it is a reliable source except for the the Trivia section which has proved to be problematic. I would caution the use of the IMDb site as a primary resource but not to disregard it outright. As you know, I have also been an advocate of authoritative print resources for the endnotes and bibliographies of film articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
I think it would be a good idea to make clear the application of IMDb, since I've seen it used as a source to cite in future film articles, especially filming locations. We should make succinct the argument against IMDb and try to indicate instead that IMDb can be used as a stepping stone. I've been generally comfortable with using IMDb for basic cast and crew information, but a mix-up between the roles of producer and executive producer at Homerun (film) (see discussion) concerned me a little bit. I imagine that cast and crew information is spot-on for major contemporary films, but I don't know if the information would be questionable for very old films or very indie films.
In addition to clarifying how IMDb could be used, we could cite more static replacements like Allmovie or whatever other references are available. (I know that the British Film Institute's subscription-only Film Index International details credits, and I'd consider the index very trustworthy.) As for placement, I've mentioned the possibility of a References guidelines. This could detail what sources are acceptable (especially when it comes to movie-focused websites or fan websites), how to find sources either online or in print, etc. IMDb, being well-known, would warrant a couple of passages' worth of mention in such a guideline. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I've found more mistakes in Allmovie than I've ever seen on IMDB. TCM is more relaible than Allmovie, too, and has reams more information to boot. I rather agree with Bzuk, that IMDB is a pretty darn reliable source, with the exception of the trivia section, in which the information can be helpful as a stepping-stone, but really must be be verified. No reliable source -- the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, even The New Yorker with its vaunted fact checkers -- gets things right all the time, so a small number of errors on IMDB doesn't make it unreliable, any more that the misinformation on Wikipedia does. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)(talk / cont)00:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
IMDb is mostly user-submitted (as indicated here). It even says, "However keep in mind that our service is provided for the information of users only. It is not provided with the intention that users rely upon the information for any purposes." I don't doubt that for high-profile films of recent memory, the information would be fine-tuned. I think it's more realistic to use IMDb to flesh out an infobox than to actually get the film and check the credits themselves -- for the most part. Cross-referencing is probably ideal. However, I don't think it would be appropriate to cite IMDb directly. I know that SandyGeorgia at the FAC processes is adamantly against citing IMDb. Information like awards and filming locations are surely reported elsewhere by a source that has a stronger reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Obviously, even the most reliable sources make mistakes, but IMDb does not trump other available sources for information about films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It would probably be best to clearly state how IMDB would be used as a reference if at all. I have seen it used as a reference mostly for cast lists of upcoming films, but have seen the page differ from week to week. I always prefer using more reliable sources, but had initially used IMDB as a source myself until the first discussion began on not considering it a reliable source. I believe it should clearly point in the project's MoS how it can/cannot be used. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Character articles
Do characters who only appear significantly in one work actually justify independent articles?
Yes and No. FWiW, the article and its subject would have to meet the standards of notability. I would refer back to the character of Homer Parish as portrayed by Harold Russell, who appeared in The Best Years of Our Lives as a notable exception. FWiW, thanks, Erik Bzuk (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
I think that for the most part, it's not realistic to have independent articles. If a character appears in only one work, then everything about that character will directly relate to that specific work. I think that if the character appears in more than one work, then an independent article would become more appropriate. However, I would not say that the existence of such an article is imperative. A worthwhile compromise is a list of characters for a franchise, though we may need to determine how to handle singular appearances. I know I've been in disagreement with the very brief appearances of some characters in the James Bond franchise. Bzuk, would you mean elaborating on your example? Harold Russell is an actor -- are you saying that Homer Parish would be a notable exception for his own article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have seen some non-notable characters and redirected them/deleted them in the past, but I am open to some notable characters that could warrant their own articles. Stated guidelines in the MoS would be beneficial for new editors who are interested in creating new articles, and I'm sure in most cases it would be likely that individual character articles are not necessary. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Future films list
I know that I've mentioned this before, but it would be nice to see a formal in-department review of all of the articles within the categories in their purview, with an eye towards creating a comprehensive release date master list. Right now the department's list is a scant collection of mainstream releases, which unfortunately leaves the vast majority of the class unaccounted for. When I last did a sampling, many future film's talk pages were incorrectly tagged, either on the normal scale when they still hadn't been released, or as Future class long after a release. Focusing on the smaller and more esoteric films is just as important, however, because they are far more likely to slip through the cracks and potentially create inroads for "walled gardens". It is also very important to take articles out of the Future class as soon as it is proper, because Future-class articles are not accounted for by the 1.0 bot logs, and thus we cannot track if they have been de-tagged, for instance.
What you said, actually, the future film is a difficult area to address because of the scant amount of information that is usually available. An icon marker on the film header would be of use, however. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
Working with this department, I think it has been mostly Steve and me who have carried out the tasks. I think we could outline the department's main page with the tasks you mention to encourage keeping these up-to-date. For the master list of release dates, though, what would be the best way to put one together? It was a little bit tedious to piece the existing list together, and I'm sure it needs to be revised due to some films being shuffled around. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ever since I started assessing the articles, I've done my best to keep up with the wide-release films that are tagged as future class. I usually will be able to reassess the article when released, but I'm usually unable to get all of the films, especially the limited releases. A comprehensive list would be beneficial, but could be difficult to maintain with changing release dates. Would it be possible to include in the banner the month & year release date when tagging it as future class (or create a small tag such as requested image/needed infobox)? Then it would automatically list these films in a category that could be watched to make sure the future films are kept up to date/corrected for dates, and prevent the future class from remaining there after the film is released. Once the films are reassessed, the categories could be deleted. This could be maintained by the future film department, and if it gets backlogged, could be mentioned on the main page that the articles need to be reassessed. I don't know if this may be too difficult though in modifying the code in the banner or if we want another tag on the talk page. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That actually sounds like an excellent idea, integrating it into the banner. I've got my hands a bit full at the moment, but perhaps this could be implemented in a week or so. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the future films are split by year, but are we still planning to add months (or quarters)? I think if it is divided up further it will be easier to manage. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Open tasks
Would it be worth exploring the option of having a weekly or bi-weekly open task collaboration amongst the members? The regular shift in focus would break up the monotony, while only featured one at a time would also reduce the sense of being overwhelmed which members may otherwise feel if confronted with the full scope of remaining work. Additionally, we have recently overhauled the project banner to fully deprecate the separate "needs" banners into project banner parameters. Should this sort of task be split amongst members, or is it too admin-ish to spend their time on?
I think that weekly or bi-weekly may be too often, especially by judging the active status of members from week to week. If it lasted for a month for example, we could then probably make it a contest for barnstars (and tie it into the proposed contest department). There are always some members that are interested on working on these tasks, and if the shiny barnstar is there to motivate them, we could probably begin to whittle away at some of our most extreme open tasks. I'm open to the weekly/bi-weekly periods, but we should probably gauge how effective it is in that time period, and see if a month is more appropriate (or alternate time period). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Banner revision
The banner currently offers advice for how to get to Start class if the article is assessed as a Stub. It would be nice to make equivalent advice for the other classes as well on how to get to the next assessment level.
Also, the banner will be in the process of a redesign imminently, so as to reduce the hidden elements, eliminate the importance parameter, and feature the task forces more prominently.
I can't wait for the new look, and detailing how to get from class to class shouldn't be too difficult. I could work on developing developing these templates, but probably not until late May or June (dang finals). If somebody wants to start, I could then assist however possible. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the first draft of the Start to B-Class. Please take a look and see if it is too lenient/strict. I stated that the article should have six sections of information (a start already needs a plot, cast and crew, and two other sections in the current Stub to Start-class template), so it would only require two more sections. I basically followed the same format as the Stub to Start template, and will work on the B to GA-Class after we've finished this one.
Article upgrading needed: You can help!
Start to B-Class Upgrading Instructions for Film articles
Note that instructions for articles on other types of film topics within the scope of WikiProject Films are currently under development.
To contribute in upgrading this start-class article, the following requirements must be met:
Statements that may be questioned by a reader over their verifiability must be referenced with an inline citation, preferably using citation templates. Cite any quotes, box office figures, movie reviews, production notes, and any questionable statements.
The article should be broad in coverage, and should have at least six sections of information (plot, cast, and four others: production, reception, DVD release, soundtrack, differences between TV show/book, sequels, themes, awards/honors, etc.). Remember to cite information within these sections.
Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be nominated for reassessment to B-class and this template will be removed automatically if it qualifies.
Okay, here's the template. Insert into the banner whenever you're ready. When it's added and any changes are made, let me know and I'll fully protect the template to prevent vandalism. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This template is for improving articles from start to B class. Are we going to be accepting the C class? If so, this template will have to be modified and another template will have to be created from C to B. Do we need to have a project-wide vote to see if we accept the class or are we just going to do it? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Core list
The core parameter has been added to the banner and all articles on the list have been tagged. However, many of the task forces still have open spaces left on the list, due to an inability to decide how to fill them. Any further thoughts would be most welcome.
It's great how this is finally set up. Do you mean that the task forces don't have their own core articles because the members aren't voting on which ones should be core or there simply aren't any? Or something else? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The details are at WP:FILMCORE, but essentially we use the TSDPT metalist to grab the top 250 films, and then for each task force, the next ten films on the list. The problem is that many of the task forces are not able to fill all ten spaces this way. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Contests
The contest department will be forthcoming, primarily in order to provide incentives for working on the Core articles. We could also provide general contests for general article improvement, as well as open task collaborations or other assessment drives. Thoughts on how to best run these are definitely wanted.
I believe that contests have worked well in the past, in this project and other ones I've been associated with. As long as we advertise it enough and provide enough barnstars (or cash prizes if we can get that), completion of tasks/assessment/article improvement should definitely increase/improve. We definitely want to increase our coverage of the Core articles, and if people are or aren't motivated by a contest, it would still be great to reward them for their efforts so as to inspire them to work on future tasks/article improvements. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Awards
A "medal of honor"-type barnstar has been proposed above. (February discussion)
A film-specific barnstar would be useful. I did make one for the Aviation Project Group that was more reflective of the activity. and I know of at least two others that were used. The film barnstar is good, but it does have a "mag wheel" look to it that could be slightly adjusted. Film Barnstar FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
This is a good idea, especially if we begin to start giving the current Film Barnstar out more freely in the Contest Department for completed tasks. Anything more for members to strive for, will likely have a positive effect on our project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Review
The general peer review overhaul seems to have optimized their reviews past what we can offer, and gives the benefit of more eyes on the PR. Is it worth maintaining a wholly separate process, or should we just transclude the general PRs within the Review department PR section?
Also, what can be done to encourage usage of A-Class review? I only now was aware that we actually did have an article there about a month ago - albeit only for a day or two - and apparently we all missed seeing it. (Apologies, Limetolime.)
This would only apply in specific instances, but I can see the article on James Stewart also being important for his military accomplishments, Howard Hughes for business or other interests, Anna May Wong for aspects of racism in her career, a film like The Best Years of Our Lives being a historical document. When films or film figures like these are being reviewed, notices can also appear in related forums or project groups such as Biography, History and society and Entertainment, etc. FWiW, just rambling. 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC).
I've never really been a part of the PR process, so can't say too much here. If there is limited participation it would probably be best to transclude it, but it would be up to those who are most active in the department. We do have limited participation in many of our departments, and outsourcing PR, may drive some members to work on other areas. For the A-class reviews, perhaps we can leave a message on the talk page of current film GAs or prior FACs. I'll make a mention in this month's newsletter as well, so hopefully that helps a bit. I may consider visiting it myself with a film or two, because I'd like to have a FA sometime in my Wikicareer. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Style guidelines
The task forces which focus on film-related topics are in desperate need of their own style guidelines. Expansion of our MOS, infoboxes, templates, etc to standardize these articles is going to be a continuing concern and possible hindrance to their ability to create viable FAs without some guidance beyond the ad hoc. Identifying key members of these task forces also will help.
Yes, they are. FWiW, more to be said about this in the future, but safe to say, there is little compatibility between film articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
I know many of these task forces have very limited membership, so perhaps it would be best to invite these members into a discussion on how the style layout should be set up. We could hold discussion on the main project's talk page so that other members could assist with style concerns for each task force and also hopefully then attract some new members for the task forces. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Actors and Filmmakers
Would there be a benefit to sharing this task force (it is functionally a task force, despite it's name) between WP Bio and WP Films? We have many issues in common (e.g. filmography layout), and this domain is already of prime ancillary importance, since it provides a wealth of real-world information for the film articles.
I've stated before that I think it is best to keep it separate from WP:FILMS since we would then be mixing biographies with the current films, techniques, festivals, characters, etc. I believe we have enough on our plate, and should focus on further coordinating and improving our current articles rather than retagging and modifying the project to accept these many new articles. However, if there is consensus to merge, I'll do my best to help out. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Member lists
Currently our task force member lists highly encourage members to also sign up with the main project, but generally this is not followed. Perhaps some form of transclusion could be implemented to do this automatically? Or should the task force lists just be transcluded underneath the main list? Also, will this adversely affect the newsletter bot?
I would also like to have a notion of which members are admins for one, as I came across an assault on actors last week and was scrambling to call upon an admin to assist. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
I don't know how it would affect the bot, you'd have to ask Cbrown about that would work. If it could automatically transclude though, I believe it would be beneficial. I'm sure there's no harm in having the task force members being considered members of the main project. I doubt there would be any complaints, and it would assist in sending out the newsletter to more of our members along with other specific messages such as a questionnaire, roll call, etc. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I've weighed in a few thoughts, but I am truly occupied in this coming week. I hope to get back here and weigh in on the rest of the topics after this week! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Good job on bringing light to many of these topics. It's great that we have more people to contribute to the discussion instead of just being one-on-one. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Limetolime's thoughts
A-class review
Well, I had recently listed The Muppets' Wizard of Oz for an A-class review, but not a single user responded to the review two whole weeks. I believe that there is not enough action around the A-class review, and that something should be done to publicise it more. I have two suggestions:
Turn it into a channel: By this, I mean to turn it into a reviewing station like GA and FA article nominations have. It can start out small, but it should grow larger in the future.
Turn into a channel - you mean creating an entire wiki-wide A-Class process? I'm dubious that would fly, to be honest. Also, the new A-Class process was intended to be in-house so as to cater to the strengths of the project editors - essentially, it's meant to be more of an expert review with a focus on improving the quality of the actual content, while FAC and PR usually cater more to the editorial deficiencies of MOS and other policy/guidelines.
I think that part of the current problem is that there has been nearly no activity on the section, which leads to it being abandoned. If it were to have a few articles in process, it might have a better shot of being noticed. Perhaps we could start by asking the primary contributors of some of our GAs if they'd be interested in bringing their articles to the new process?
I've seen all of WP:FILM's article guidelines, but one really confuses me: taglines. Many film articles have taglines written as shown, and it's not half-bad:
Youare cordially invited to the royal event of the season.
She needs the rock to rule.
The throne is all hers...but there's a little hitch.
It can take a lifetime to find true love; she's got 30 days!
To get the kingdom of Genovia... There's just a little hitch.
This would come after the intro, and I don't believe it's bad. It gives more info, which is always good. The reason it is not allowed is because "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and that it's just a marketing gimmick. But, this is not entirely true, as taglines give reference to the poster (which is included on most film pages) and are good for people who want to know what the film is about, and quickly. Limetolimetalk to me•look what I did!14:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I understand your argument against the fact that taglines are simply part of films' marketing campaigns. What do you mean when you say that taglines give reference to the posters? The posters serve as identifying images, and we couldn't implement posters outside the film infobox without establishing the criteria for inclusion per WP:NFC. Taglines and posters are part of the same campaign, so any reference back and forth is not independent. In addition, taglines use flavorful language. That's why they're considered marketing gimmicks. I disagree that taglines clarify to the readers what a film is about. Perhaps you can get a sense of theme from it, but there is nothing we cannot write ourselves and objectively in terms of genre and premise in the lead section. I am obviously fine with taglines that have been independently reported to stand out, either positively or negatively (see Basic Instinct 2). However, taglines are as commonplace as trailers and TV spots and other kinds of promotional ads, so I don't think that, barring independent coverage, they are worth mentioning in the articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Box office sources
A question regarding reliability of box office sources has arisen. Although it primarily is about Indian box office referencing, at least one editor has discussed the issue of other sites such as Box Office Mojo with me. If any other coordinators would like to consider the matter either here or on the discussion itself, I would be very appreciative. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering if there should not be a comment on the outcome of the assessment with its closure. Also, is there not a way to leave a link on the article's talk page under "Article milestones"? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, both good points, and both dealt with. We may have to go over old project PRs to get them reflected on the milestones; I will add the appropriate instructions to the relevant pages shortly. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Service awards
I've created medal-type service awards for upcoming tasks - they would look like this:
Gold
Silver
Bronze
These would be basic-level awards designed to be handed out liberally during competitions and task-drives for meeting certain minimum levels of activity. At least, that's what I had in mind - but if there are other ideas about how to use them, let me know! And of course, any general comments on the awards themselves would be greatly appreciated. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
They look fine and rather than service awards, maybe the term should be "Recognition awards," as we are recognizing the contribution rather than the "service" of the individual/group. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC).
Well, I meant it as in "doing us a service" as well as in the sense of "having done a certain amount of work", but if you feel that there are negative connotations, then perhaps a name change might be in order. How about "contributor awards"? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This would be good for helping to work on some backlogs or if we start the contest department for the core list. Good work. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's an excellent idea. Additionally, I want to make the Films barnstar automatic for any core FAs. (I've already done this retrospectively for all FAs on the list.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that and was thinking of doing that to, but you beat me to the punch. I mentioned them all in the newsletter, so hopefully that motivates some members to work on improving the core articles further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Mainly for contests and as incentives for grunt-work tasks, such as a tag-and-assess drive. Each award would have certain minimums that would have to be met, and otherwise be granted automatically. I'm currently bogged down in task force tagging for Japanese cinema, but once that's done, I should have time to properly set up a mockup of the Contest department with more details for coordinator scrutiny. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Assessment change?
There is currently a discussion considering adding a C-class between Start and B-class. If this passes, do you think that we need this class for our project? It would require going through and reassessing thousands of articles and modifying the templates we created within the film banner. However, if we do decide to do this, it may be good use for those service awards in getting people to help with the assessments. The discussion won't be closed until the 18th, but what do you guys think? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I personally am not really in support of the class, I must say, but I'm certainly fine to go with whatever our consensus is. However, on the other hand, we do need to review all of the B-Class articles anyway to check them against the criteria, so that would seem to be the natural time to do an open task drive for that and tag the articles which don't pass with a C-Class. That being said, I'm not convinced that the differences between Start, C, and B are going to be very obvious, which could create further problems. The more we clarify what each given class means specifically for film articles, the easier (re)tagging will be. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Nothing specifically, really. It's like a barnstar - you just keep on working hard and hope that someone notices and decides to award it to you. (That being said, more active participation here certainly wouldn't hurt! ;) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
New A-class nomination page
To Girolamo Savonarola: Sorry I didn't do this sooner.
I am proposing a new A-class nomination page that I have created here. Please tell me what you think under the Comments section.
I think that this is a poor idea for several reasons. First of all, it divorces the process from the general Review department, which was designed to create a central location for editors to locate articles on review instead of having to scavenge amongst a dozen disparate sites. Second, it divorces itself entirely from the WikiProject structure and establishes an independent Wikipedia process. Third, it essentially is a replication of the GA process, which is precisely the opposite of what the A-Class review is intended for. The A review was intended as a thorough review and critique process, much like PR and FAC, but with the specific aim of centralizing around the WikiProject so as to aim mainly at content issues, advise on further information and sources, oversee film style guidelines, and identify content deficiencies and errors which may not be wholly apparent to general editors, while also not concentrating on more FAC-centric issues such as general MOS issues. As such, it benefits from a more open conversational forum where issues can be discussed and advice given, rather than a pass/fail structure that the GAN functions around. Furthermore, it makes no sense to put the article through such an evaluation just after a GAN (which presumably is likely given the current hierarchy), nor would such a process be ideal for the more nuanced, content-based focus which would make A-class more averse to being easily conformed to some sort of checklist - indeed, the whole point of the A-process is to look for the more subtle issues which could not be divined by cross-referencing criteria or guidelines, but rather are more germane to expert knowledge of the subject matter. I am also uncertain as to what these changes are meant to address specifically. Regretfully, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
The setup looks well and could probably be modified on the main Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Review page. However, I think that it would be best to keep the page within the current Review page, as A-class reviews are not large enough yet to warrant a complete move to the other page. It may be confusing for some members, so it would be best to direct more of our attention at getting people to visit the main review page. Perhaps we can start offering some rewards to people who get a successful A-class nomination. Maybe we could use the above rewards to give a bronze for GA, silver for A, and gold for FA. If our main focus is to keep those awards for other drives/backlogs/other contests, then perhaps we can create another one. I'm sure though that we don't want to have too many awards circulating around the project as it may be confusing, but then again, maybe members will work to improve a variety of things within the project to collect the whole set! Anyway, good effort on the page Limetolime, but I think it would be best to work on improving the process in its current location and drive some more interest there somehow. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Girolamo that the nomination page is too similar to the GA process. Limetolime, it is well-designed, but I am not sure if the structure is right for A-class review. I think when it comes to A-class reviews, we need to encourage active participation by other editors instead of giving the review process an unnecessary overhaul. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I have to commend you for a tremendous amount of work that went into the creation of a very attractive form. I like the "look" and can see this graphic interpretation as a model for future use on the present Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Review page. I am ambivalent as to its incorporation as I was unsure of whether the A-class nomination page superseded any other page or in effect duplicated other similar or complementary pages. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC).
Thanks to an ingenious bot, we now have Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Cleanup listing, which is a tremendous help to identifying which articles require large-scale attention across multiple issues. It also classifies all tagged articles by which issues they may have, and orders them by when they were tagged. This is great both for identifying articles which have had long-outstanding problems, as well as allowing those who want to specialize in addressing certain tags to have the articles clearly listed.
The question then becomes do we still need the |attention=yes parameter in the template? This parameter was originally created for articles which needed large-scale attention to multiple issues, but it has languished in recent times, and the category which it transcludes (Category:Film articles needing attention) seems to be largely neglected - which means that articles tend not to be fixed based on this flagging, nor are they detagged when issues are addressed. Between the cleanup listings and our newer |needs- paramaters, it would seem that we have more sophisticated tools for identifying specific problems, and seeing which articles need work in several areas. Would there be any objection to dropping the attention parameter from the template, then? Or at least commenting it out as a precaution, in case the bot is ever abandoned? (That was the problem with PearleBot, the bot that handled the "Pages needing attention" subpages.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Wow, just looking at that list makes you want to improve every article there since they're so easily labeled. I'm for removing the attention parameter. Did the author of the bot say how often it will update? I think the only way the bot will be blocked is if it is continually running and making too many edits. Hopefully it doesn't come to that as this bot can definitely help a lot of projects on Wikipedia. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned the listing in the newsletter in case some members weren't aware of it. Perhaps we should start a drive/contest this month to improve some of the older articles that have been tagged for a while or whittle down some of the larger issues. Perhaps we can start to use the gold, silver, and bronze awards from above for this purpose. It may be good to start a contest for the month of July or for a few weeks in July to take advantage of those on summer break. Hopefully this would increase collaboration among members and improve our project's articles in a friendly contest. What do you guys think? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I probably could, but I'd need to know what we want the contest to focus on. Is there a particular issue we want to eradicate or reduce? Would we want to choose one issue for editors to address or allow them to pick and choose from the many issues and have them update their progress on a subpage of what different articles they've fixed? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, we need to do a basic tag and assess program to go through our category trees to make certain that the right articles have tags, but there are smaller subset tasks within that, such as a B-class review, which could also be undertaken, and might serve as a smaller pilot program for us to gauge weakness prior to a large-scale general Tag/Assess. There are also a lot of smaller things such as the "needs" tags, some of which are easier to handle than others. Infoboxes should be simple, images somewhat more difficult, synopsis and cast (which includes production info) might take more time for the average article. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I just had fun fixing the majority of the requests in the "Articles with dead external links" section and just struck through the articles fixed. I don't know how often the page is going to be updated, and maybe it's not necessary to show our progress if it gets wiped every week/month. Anyway, perhaps it will save somebody the time of checking those articles.
Perhaps for a contest, we can choose 1-3 sections (such as "Articles that may contain original research", "Articles with trivia sections", and "Wikipedia articles with plot summary needing attention") on the list that members can work on and provide awards for members who complete the most tasks. Prior to the contest or on the contest page we can provide instructions based on guidelines on how best to solve these issues (such as how to eliminate trivia or trim a plot). This will help our members to succeed in the contest along with learning guidelines that will help them with future article work. The goal will be to improve our articles while also educating members on policy. I could even feature the upcoming contest each month in the newsletter to prepare members for the next exciting issue our project wants to work on.
I do believe that the tagging will be important especially for determining the B-class articles, but we will have to determine the C-class issue first. Are you referring to the needs requests on the talk pages of the article? Because we can also incorporate that into the contest or do a separate one. I thought that we were going to increase awareness of the Cleanup listing page and work on those issues. However, it doesn't matter to me which we work on so long as we begin to further improve collaboration among members and start facing these backlogs. What do you guys think? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to play catch-up with this discussion, and I had a few questions for clarity's sake. Do we know if the cleanup listing is going to be frequently updated? Also, for contests, are we considering separate contests for each section? It may or may not be easier to rewrite plot sections than to integrate trivia sections, or vice versa. Any chance we could quiz members to find out what they want to do? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Eleven clean-up categories? uugh! FWiW, I'm not a big one for contests that pit one editor against another, we have enough of that happening already. Bzuk (talk) 22:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC).
I was also curious about how often it is updated, whether it be weekly or monthly. For the contests, I'm open to just picking a section (or a few) and having that be our contest for the month for editors to work on. Although contests are quite prevalent on Wikipedia, it is a great way to get work done. Just looking at the cleanup listing, there are thousands of articles that need work. Most members are not going from article to article attempting to fix these issues, but with a contest, they may be more likely to fix the issues when there is a possibly getting a reward out of it. Incentives are a great way to motivate members into fixing the issues, while also a friendly competition will increase collaboration. These contests will also be helpful in educating new members to policy, editing, and WP:FILMS in general. I'd say that we choose what we think to be a few acceptable first contest options, and then consider asking members in a poll what they would like to do. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
It seems from here that he's looking to do it infrequently, every month or two. That seems about appropriate, so that we have time to see what sort of progress we're making, while also receiving regular updates.
As for "pitting editor against editor", I'd ask that you look at the rewards at the last MilHist Tag and Assess run. As you can see, the vast majority of these awards are merely for levels of participation, with grand prizes for the top three editors. In other words, all but three are for absolute amounts, not ones relative to other editors; thus the editor is mainly competing with their own personal desires (for accomplishment, for article improvement, for awards, and for recognition). We could even use the same awards schemata as theirs, with the service awards I proposed above replacing MilHist's, as well as our project barnstar instead of their chevrons. Setting the participation levels for each award would obviously have to be changed as well (at least for most drives smaller than Tag/Assess). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a preference over what we should work on? I'll set up the contest page if I know what we want to collaborate on. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
C-Class discussion Draft
As per many of my ideas, blatantly stolen from WP MilHist...
Following a month of discussion, and wide consultation, the Version 1.0 Editorial Team have decided, to add a new C-Class to the existing article assessment scale. The new class is for articles which are better than Start but fall short of B-Class, and is intended to bridge what is seen as a huge gap between the two classes. Adoption of the new scale is not compulsory and each WikiProject will decide whether or not to implement the new class for the articles within its scope. Here are the main arguments for and against the new proposal:
Arguments for C-Class
More refined definition of the Start/B area, which is a very large and important stage in article development. Some Bs are close to GA standard, others are very poor.
It's a lot of work to turn a Start into a "good" B – this would give editors something to aim for that is more within reach.
For the 1.0 project, we need to distinguish between Bs that are OK for publication, and those which aren't. We need to tighten up standards for B, to exclude those lacking sources or with other problem tags (NOR, POV, etc.).
Arguments against C-Class
The purpose of assessment is simply to provide WikiProjects with a rough idea of where each article stands, and the current system does this perfectly well.
Keep things simple – we don't want people to obsess over the details of assessments instead of improving articles.
The system is unclear right now, and this will only make things even worse!
This will be a nightmare of work, trying to re-assess thousands of articles that have already been assessed as B or Start!
There are enough levels already. Dealing with so many orthogonal parameters (breadth, depth, refs, readibility, etc.) means that many assessments are already haphazard/arbitrary, this makes things worse.
More levels means more reassessment as grades change more often.
So we can determine consensus in WP Films, please say - giving reasons - whether you support or oppose the addition of this new class to the Films assessment scale. We propose closing this discussion and determining consensus after two weeks, that is, on X July 2008. Thanks in advance for your input, ~~~~
Support
Oppose
Comments
Please feel free to make suggestions regarding the draft itself. If I don't hear any major objections within the next two days, I'll post whatever we've finalized up. Thoughts on the C-Class itself should wait until this goes to the project talk page. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Project banner restructuring
As per several decisions and conversations made earlier, I have finally gotten around to redesigning the project banner. You can see my latest revision here, and I encourage you all to use the template sandbox to play around with it and test any and all parameters as thoroughly as you wish.
The most substantial functional changes are namely the abolition of several parameters: importance, as per discussions and consensus regarding the Core department); attention, as per above conversation regarding the cleanup listings and more specificity needed (I also have plans to allow for task-force-specific categorization of our current "needs-X" parameters), and the portal parameters, which were apparently never used.
The removal of the importance parameter required some cosmetic retouching due to the quality/importance dual column display which is currently being used, and I took the opportunity to also allow the task forces to be directly displayed below the assessment without the need for a section to be unhidden. All told, this makes the banner design more closely aligned to many other popular banners such as WP Bio and several of the more advanced country projects such as Australia and India. The Core parameter will also display directly in those articles which qualify to use it, as it succeeds the importance assessment.
Additionally, the hidden sections now only appear when they have content, and have been renamed and slightly re-ordered for the sake of clarity and concision. The general editing guidelines were removed, as they were too insubstantial and largely redundant with the class-specific guideline advice automatically generated for the lower classes. (These class-specific guidelines probably could do with some cosmetic redesign as well, but as they are transcluded templates themselves, they can be handled later.)
I believe that's it. Let me know if you have any comments within the next few days; otherwise, I plan to submit it for a protected edit sometime in the middle of the week. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I like it. The template is definitely improved, and I'm glad we finally got rid of our importance parameter (beside Core of course). If there are no errors in the template, I think you should update the current banner. Let me know if you need me to unprotect the current film banner to update it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We are very lucky to have an editor like you with the capability of working on this template! From what I can tell, what you've changed looks good. I have two questions. You mentioned the Core parameter, but I do not see it in either your template-under-construction or {{Film}}. Where is it supposed to show up? Also, I was wondering, should I now avoid including importance= in the template? For instance, I just added the template to Talk:The Surrogates (film) with this attribute available for filling. Do I no longer need to do this, and should I work toward removing these fields if I edit talk pages? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The core function is simply |core=yes, and it already is functional in the current iteration of the banner. All this revision does is moves it to a part of the banner where it is automatically visible (ie not in a collapsible section). As for importance=, the functionality will be completely erased. This won't affect any talk pages which have importance parameters; rather, the new banner will simply ignore the parameter as an invalid one. The new design of the banner was partly prompted by this, given the current prominence of the importance tag in the banner. So while there would be no reason to include importance in new tagging, there's also no haste to find and delete the existing instances. (In theory they can all be deleted over time in conjunction with other edits to the talk page's tag.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I have been testing the "Needs and requests" part of the template, and I was wondering if we could review some of the fields. First, needs-image=yes says, "This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster." I think that there is a difference between the "identifying image" in the infobox and images used in the article body. I think it's a good idea to have an identifying image in each film article, but I am not sure about pressing for one in the article body. I think that the likelihood of a free photo of the set is very low considering all the film articles WP:FILM covers. A thought is to have something like needs-infobox-image= and needs-image= with the latter wording tweaked to mean images for the article body and to point to MOSFILM (and the possible revision I'm proposing). Another possible field could be needs-bkgd= to request production information (seems odd that we have previously requested for cast sections; it seems that cast sections are more available than production sections). We could point needs-bkgd to MOSFILM#Production, but the particular section may need expansion (which I hope to do). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
As you might have already guessed, my idea of image use stems from the classic form of illustration and its purposes to inform and elucidate ("the picture is worth a thousand words" dictum). I have been mulling about the idea of the use of screenshots to enhance an article. I know this is opening up "Pandora's box" as the image warriors are lurking about. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC).
I'm not certain about the image issue, being as there is no requirement that a film article have images within the body; having one in the infobox tends to be expected unless otherwise unavailable. Encouraging images for their own sake is not really a goal. As for a needs-production parameter, I agree that it may be more obvious than the needs-cast parameter which includes a request for production information in the banner, but may not be regarded as handling that need. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that "decorative" imagery is not the goal but there are times that an image does provide more information and can be seen as useful to the reader. Describing a locale for example may work but a single image showing the film site tells the reader/viewer that it was a sparse, desert-like environment central to the theme being established by the filmmaker. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC).
Revisiting "Needs and requests"
I have three proposals:
Revise the wording for needs-image= to request for an identifying image in the infobox; Wikipedia articles don't have a pressing need to have secondary images in the article body.
Revise the wording for needs-cast= to address the section more specifically, linking to the appropriate MOS:FILM section; move mention of "aspects of the production process" to suggested item below
Add needs-bkgd= (or similar label), mention "aspects of production process" and import sentence from MOS:FILM (since section there is short right now)
It looks very ostentatious aside all of the other review processes within the page. Is there a reason that we didn't have time to bring this up for discussion before being so bold? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I was also curious about this after assessing it as Start. I was wary when doing so and after searching a bit I have seen similar DVD articles like this (for example see this revision) that are usually put up for AFD. Since it appears that there needs to be more mention of its notability in other sources and seems to have some of the same issues as this AFD, should it be nominated as well? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I cannot think of any particular reason why a DVD release would have its own article; when the contents of a DVD release are written well, it would only result in at most three paragraphs (even so, that would be pushing it). That article definitely has too much indiscriminate detail and abuses WP:NFC with its DVD covers. I think it should be summarized and merged to Superman (film series)... not to mention Superman Ultimate Collector's Edition and The Complete Superman Collection. Wow, have we overlooked these for so long? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm looking to close this shortly, as it appears tipped close to sufficient support. At the moment, there are three reviewers and two supports. We either require the outstanding reviewer (Bzuk) to conclude his review and indicate support, or for a new reviewer to join in, so I'd like to ask Bzuk to please look at this imminently or for either or both of the remaining coordinators (Erik and Limetolime) to join the review so that we can conclude it in an orderly fashion. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'm getting kinda antsy - being as it's been a month, I think that's enough time, so if Nehrams and Erik could please wrap this up, I'd be very grateful. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking we should extend this another month, it's quite a fun process. Actually, Erik said he would be going over the image issues today, so hopefully it's done by today or tomorrow. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Discussion on the use of Wiki Autodating format
There is now a ongoing discussion "string" on the merits of the present wiki autoformating of dates. Some change in the wording in the MoS has now incorporated the trend that dates do not have to be wikilinked. Some editors have become "champions" of the new direction and have take this style revision to the articles they have edited. See the following comments by one of the editors involved:
Proposal to remove date-autoformatting
Dear fellow contributors
MOSNUM no longer encourages date autoformatting, having evolved over the past year or so from the mandatory to the optional after much discussion there and elsewhere of the disadvantages of the system. Related to this, MOSNUM prescribes rules for the raw formatting, irrespective of whether a date is autoformatted or not). MOSLINK and CONTEXT are consistent with this.
There are at least six disadvantages in using date-autoformatting, which I've capped here:
Disadvantages of date-autoformatting
(1) In-house only
(a) It works only for the WP "elite".
(b) To our readers out there, it displays all-too-common inconsistencies in raw formatting in bright-blue underlined text, yet conceals them from WPians who are logged in and have chosen preferences.
(c) It causes visitors to query why dates are bright-blue and underlined.
(2) Avoids what are merely trivial differences
(a) It is trivial whether the order is day–month or month–day. It is more trivial than color/colour and realise/realize, yet our consistency-within-article policy on spelling (WP:ENGVAR) has worked very well. English-speakers readily recognise both date formats; all dates after our signatures are international, and no one objects.
(3) Colour-clutter: the bright-blue underlining of all dates
(a) It dilutes the impact of high-value links.
(b) It makes the text slightly harder to read.
(c) It doesn't improve the appearance of the page.
(4) Typos and misunderstood coding
(a) There's a disappointing error-rate in keying in the auto-function; not bracketing the year, and enclosing the whole date in one set of brackets, are examples.
(b) Once autoformatting is removed, mixtures of US and international formats are revealed in display mode, where they are much easier for WPians to pick up than in edit mode; so is the use of the wrong format in country-related articles.
(c) Many WPians don't understand date-autoformatting—in particular, how if differs from ordinary linking; often it's applied simply because it's part of the furniture.
(5) Edit-mode clutter
(a) It's more work to enter an autoformatted date, and it doesn't make the edit-mode text any easier to read for subsequent editors.
(6) Limited application
(a) It's incompatible with date ranges ("January 3–9, 1998", or "3–9 January 1998", and "February–April 2006") and slashed dates ("the night of May 21/22", or "... 21/22 May").
(b) By policy, we avoid date autoformatting in such places as quotations; the removal of autoformatting avoids this inconsistency.
Removal has generally been met with positive responses by editors. Does anyone object if I remove it from the main text in a few days’ time on a trial basis? The original input formatting would be seen by all WPians, not just the huge number of visitors; it would be plain, unobtrusive text, which would give greater prominence to the high-value links. Tony(talk)13:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
As the dates are slowly creeping up, I wanted to convene the current coordinators well enough ahead of time to discuss our thoughts on matters regarding the position itself and the election so that we can propose changes to the membership at large before starting the election cycle. These are points that have been on my mind: please feel free to discuss these and add your own into the mix.
First of all, I would like to propose another expansion of the number of coordinators for the upcoming tranche to a grand total of seven. While this current tranche's group of five has been wonderful to interact with and has dealt with a good deal more work than the first group of three, I still feel that the body has the potential to become far more proactive and innovative, and with a larger number of coordinators, more can be done at less per-capita cost of time. Furthermore, it will allow in a few more of our most noted contributors, and potentially could allow us to more easily defer to some of the coordinators' pre-existing strengths and interests within the project (such as particular talents, tasks, expertise, departments, or task forces). In truth, I'd eventually like to scale the group up towards nine or eleven coordinators altogether, but I feel that gradually incrementing it two at a time allows us the leisure to scale our roles gracefully, help new coordinators fit in, and remain alert to potential growth-related issues as the number of coordinators increases.
Secondly, I believe that while the current position discusses "responsibilities", it does not enumerate them as well as possible, which leads to two contradictory problems: one, some excellent potential candidates seem "scared" away by the perceived burdens of these responsibilities (even though many of them are already doing as much similarly substantial project work as the coordinators are); however (two), newer coordinators can sometimes feel that there is nothing to do in their position except wait until called upon, due to the vague responsibilities.
This leads me to two things I want to add with regards to responsibilities - an abstract one and a concrete one. Ideally, what we want out of our coordinators are a combination of brainstormers, architects, and gnomes - not necessarily spread out equally in each editor but amongst the collective. Proactivity is an essential quality - as well as a clear sense of the history behind past decisions, and a clarity of foresight with regards to potential issues that new changes may bring about.
Now, if your eyelids haven't already begun to feel heavy, what am I proposing concretely? I'd like to formally incorporate a modicum of duty towards the review department for all coordinators. This is not to say that coordinators would be required to comment on all reviews, or even most of them necessarily - I don't have a hard number or percentage in mind, nor do I believe it's necessary - but I think that it is fair to ask that coordinators all pledge to comment in what they consider a substantial number. This is productive for several reasons - we are formally written into the project only for A-Class review closures, so we need to have a stable and constant presence there, especially if it is to be considered of any usage in the road to FA, and also so that coordinators become and remain familiar with the nuts of bolts of article editing and in so doing, learn the project's guidelines inside and out. This will also aid coordinators in long-term pattern recognition of potential problems and revisions which we may encounter. Reviewing can be in any area - FAC, PR, A-Class, FAR, FLC, PPR, etc. It also bolsters our review department and hopefully will continue to strengthen both the community and the articles at large.
Finally, the elections themselves - I'd like to propose for the sake of simplicity that we keep them confined to within a single calendar month, and therefore I'd like to push the elections forwards two weeks, to start with a nominations period from September 1-14, followed by a voting period from September 15-28. If anyone has any suggested changes for the election procedure itself, please voice them now, otherwise we'll keep to the same ones as last time.
I agree with your assessment on re-defining responsibilities since the coordinator position does seem like a burden. With a larger number of coordinators down the road, the responsibility can be spread more evenly. Seven sounds like a good number for the next election, but have we considered the possibility of not having at least seven candidates? Also, I am not sure about having the elections in one calendar month. We need to consider outreach for both the nominations period and the voting period. Looking at my talk page archives, you messaged the editors in the middle of March about nominating themselves, and we later mentioned the voting period in the March 2008 newsletter at the start of April. Is it necessary to deviate from this setup? We should figure out the most efficient outreach, for both explaining the coordinator position to editors and to later invite them to vote for the candidates. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:28, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You raise a good point, but the problem with the newsletter last time (IIRC) was that it only mentioned the voting stage - it was too late to get people during the nomination stage, which I believe probably was a contributory factor in our having to extend the nominations through the voting period for both of the previous elections. If we had a full coordinated alert from the start - thru the newsletter, a banner on the main page and talk page, the announcements, and individual talk pages - then it is more likely (IMHO) that we will vet a larger group of nominees within the nomination period, and therefore have a more fruitful election cycle.
Additionally, we should also consider that adding two more positions may actually help, not hinder, us getting enough noms. It may very well be that when the number of open spots is lower, many editors are less likely to sign up for a variety of reasons: rejection fears, belief that too many other editors are better for the job than them, concerns over the amount of work per-coordinator. Therefore, a larger number of open seats may actually seem more inviting. We probably also need to do some more research to figure out why many of our best editors seem to be declining the opportunity. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Are we stuck with choosing between advertising the nominations period and the voting period in the newsletter? When you advertised your own message about the nominations, how wide of an outreach was it? It just seems that if we do switch the newsletter's focus on advertising the nominations period, we may not find as much attention for the voting period in the middle of the month. Considering that the voting period involves the participation of the community (editors more likely to vote than to be a candidate), could we set up a bot nomination for the voting reminder? Or is that too much? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I actually messsaged everyone twice - for the start of each period. I suppose it could be done by bot, but I'm silly enough to have done it with the old copy-paste... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Girolamo, you have already echoed some of the very concerns that I had as I am still finding my way in the very different arena of film article coordination which has coincided with other work that I have taken on in one other project group and now at the main project. These other activities have sapped a lot of my time and I was quite concerned that my lack of attention to film articles would be a detriment to the film project. Regardless, I was about to address some of these concerns with a proposal that is much like Girolamo's, an increase in the numbers of coordinators as well as continuing the close dialogue and discussions that have already taken place. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 05:36, 15 August 2008 (UTC).
This is an excellent idea, and we definitely should try to be more coordinated in our efforts of conducting the election. I see no problems in expanding with a few more coordinators, there are many capable candidates out there. Anything that helps to further the discussion on these pages and work on improving the project overall would definitely be a benefit. I hope that our efforts get more people involved in this election compared to prior ones. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Should there be a modest barrier to candidacy? I'm mainly thinking in the context of the Creamy3 issue, where perhaps a few otherwise negligible minimums of experience would have prevented what was, frankly, a somewhat embarrassing turn of events. If so, what should they be?
It's been about a year since our last roll call, but perhaps we could kill two birds with one stone and combine this with the signup period notice when we do the user talk notification?
Who should get the user talk notification? Obviously all of the active users, but should all of the inactive ones, too? Many of them are blatantly inactive. I'm proposing that we cover all active users and all inactive users who have been otherwise active on-site within the past three months.
I will try to draw up a draft of the new, more formalized coordinator responsibilities in the next few days.
The only concern I might have is that some users actually profess to "watch" and not add submissions, so it may be hard to actually classify an editor as "inactive." Recently, a previously unknown IP editor made some major changes to a template and due to a lack of contributions, immediately received attention from a number of veteran editors, only to be informed that despite a lack of activity, that is no indication of the user's actual participation as an observer. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC).
That would be fine, except that the roll call is a self-identifying measure for determining activity which requires minimal effort. I'm not familiar with the circumstance you're bringing up, but I'm assuming it wasn't related to this project? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I really have no idea what's the best solution to the current situation, and no one else from the project seems willing to discuss the matter at length - any fresh perspectives on the task force's talk page would be welcomed. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Gold
Silver
Bronze
