Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Coordinators/Archive 5

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Video Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Coordinators/Archive 5

Selection results

The selection is now completed and the new coordinators (and back) are: Collectonian, Erik, Girolamo Savonarola, Lugnuts, Nehrams2020, PC78, and Sephiroth BCR. Congratulations to return members and welcome Collectonian and Lugnuts! As a result of Erik receiving the most votes, I have not put Girolamo Savonarola as the main coordinator on the main page, if Erik wants to hold that position. I'm assuming the same thing will happen like last year, but will allow it to be sorted before it overcomes my limit. I look forward to working with everyone again for the progress of the project. Keep up the good work and happy editing! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:04, March 29, 2009 (UTC)

Third time is a charm, I think. I will assume the role of lead coordinator at this time. Regardless, I anticipate all the coordinators to engage in discussions about upgrading WikiProject Films and willing to bring new ideas to the table. We definitely had a great meeting this time! - Erik (talk o contrib) 05:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome! I look forward to participating and working with you all! Ã, :) - AnmaFinotera (speaking Ã, Â · contribs) 05:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations to all, and look forward to working with each of you in the next six months. Added congratulations to Erik - you are more than worthy of a position, and I really hope to be replaced by someone with your clear ability. I'll be back home and with more internet access by the end of next week and I'd love to join that discussion. :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, welcome back to our return coordinator, congratulations to the Collectonian and Lugnuts, and good luck to Erik for assuming our main coordinating post. I look forward to the next discussion on this page. Cheers, - sephiroth bcr ^{( converse )} 08:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations and welcome to all! Ã, :) Can I point out that this election has seen our biggest number so far? Some quick statistics for you:

Go forward and up! Ã, :) PC78 (talk) 11:19, March 29, 2009 (UTC)

That's awesome to see, PC78! I am glad to see the election getting famous. I look forward to working with everyone to keep WikiProject Films powerful! The thought is running in my head right now about our WikiProject mission. I will share my initial thoughts within the next 48 hours about what we can do this time as a coordinator, and I hope others will also bring their ideas to the table. Again, congratulations, everything! - Erik (talk o contrib) 20:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to seeing it. However, since we just got out of the election, may I propose that we adopt nomination rules to create some sort of minimum account edit requirement to prevent further new editors distract from the process? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:22, March 30, 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that. Probably around 200 edits and/or 3 months with the project? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:42, March 30, 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I'll make it tighter. Maybe 750-1000 edits together with 3 months. We have to set a realistic boundary. - sephiroth bcr ^{( converse )} 07:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest those numbers (think of it as a requirement to vote in Wikimedia Commons from this year's contest) but for this position, you are right, something more important will be better. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:48, March 30, 2009 (UTC)

I also suggest that the edits become deadlines during the announcement of the election, thereby preventing the potential for editing counts. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:55, March 30, 2009 (UTC)

I support all of this, although we have to accept editors that have previously edited in the previous account but do not have sufficient edit amount on the new one. (Of course, previous accounts must be in good standing.) Overall, do not take this as a big deal because nothing really happens. I think we are able to keep an eye on ourselves, with or without this proposed threshold. - Erik (talk o contrib) 17:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

To qualify as a candidate

Because we are interested in setting a threshold for editors to qualify as candidates, we need to reorder the "Options" section of WP: FILMC. Currently it reads, "Every member of the project can be a candidate, this includes the current coordinator, who can be re-elected indefinitely." Based on the comments of others above, I suggest a threshold to be 500 edits (average suggestion) at the time of the announcement of the election. Currently, I do not think we need to include additional criteria. What we experienced was the repetition of the situation with the same party, so we did not have to be so reactive. Besides, can he go without saying that a dangerous sockpuppetry is the reason for an exception? Also, do we need to justify in the design reason for the threshold? Here is a redesign I propose:

"Any editor with membership on WikiProject Films and with at least 500 edits with the announcement of the election can be a candidate.This includes the current coordinator, who may be re-elected indefinitely."

I welcome feedback. After we finish the draft, let's describe the problem in WT: FILM becomes transparent with everyone and see if the qualifying threshold is acceptable. - Erik (talk o contrib) 14:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"Re-elected indefinitely"? Man, we will do this role for the rest of our lives! No, the 500 edit limit seems correct and and the words look good to me. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I decided to be brave and put in a new draft. - Erik (talk o contrib) 15:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the minimum 500 should be good, though I would also be leaning towards 1,000 (also my min for RfAs LOL). I think it should also be clear that 500 edits can not just all editing user spaces, or the like, and should at least be a good part of actual article editing. I also think it must be clear that they must be an active member. Just putting your name on the members roll should not be enough. - AnmaFinotera (speaking Ã, Â · contribs) 15:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

There are many criteria we can apply, but we must be at least here. As long as we have more candidates than slots, editors can organize themselves in choosing who they believe to be the most qualified coordinator. The pool of voting voting this last election seems quite diverse, and there are questions we can ask about the extent of the involvement of candidates with articles relating to the film. - Erik (talk o contrib) 16:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Maps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Coordinators/Archive 5

Household

Hello all! I decided to be brave today and make some adjustments on the page associated with the coordinator. My edits are summarized below: The

1. "Handbook" section is exported to WP: FILMC because it is not directly related to the discussion
2. WP: FILMC has been edited to have a short lead section, and edited section title to familiarize the previous section and the new section (from "Handbook").
3. Older discussions of "Userbox" are archived; Tranche III has 240 KBs of discussion! Due to incomplete archiving, I tried to re-enter the unarchived discussion in the archive timeline when it first started.
4. After massive archiving, I divide/Archive 3 into/Archive 3 and/Archive 4 (each around 120 KB). In the future, especially with our ever-evolving circle of coordinators, we need not hesitate to have multiple archives for each particular stage!

Please let me know if this change is approved. I plan to send "A message from the main coordinator" to all coordinators to officially welcome everyone and to create an outline of goals for WikiProject Films. (For the sake of transparency, I have a lot of thoughts written in Users: Erik/Coordinator.) In the meantime, let's draw up the requirements for the election candidates as discussed above! - Erik (talk o contrib) 13:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! When I first came to this talk page, it was a little scary with all the old conversations. And having a handbook in the easy-to-find section of the main page is also very useful. Am I stupid if I have to ask what is Tranche? - AnmaFinotera (talk Ã, Â · contribs) 13:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Girolamo Savonarola copies the selection settings from Wikipedia: WikiProject Military history/Coordinator, so I assume that the definition of "tranche" is brought in this setting. To be honest, I think we can use better words - something that sounds less tough. Any idea? - Erik (talk o contrib) 14:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

How strange... some money or bonds? We paid ?? ;-) Is it basically referring to long-term discussions? Is that so, why not just "term"? - AnmaFinotera (speaking Ã, Â · contribs) 14:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

"The term" works for me! What we can do in WP: FILMC # History is changing the name "Tranche" to "Term" (or whatever can be decided) and to rename "Term" to "Date range". Simplicity is the key here. - Erik (talk o contrib) 16:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Further arrangements: I summarize every discussion from/Archives 3 and/Archive 4 into one or two sentences. This summary is listed at the top of each archive page and has link links to specific discussions. Please take a moment to briefly review what topics were discussed in the past; if you see any topic worth reviewing, remember for an upcoming brainstorming session! - Erik (talk o contrib) 16:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Message from main coordinator

Hello, everyone, and congratulations are selected as coordinator for WikiProject Films! As the main coordinator, I hope to help set the agenda for WikiProject for this term and so on, and I hope you will actively participate in working through our agenda objectives. I ask you to take a moment and review the purpose of WikiProject Films (listed on the front page of WikiProject and re-emphasized here):

• To standardize a movie article on Wikipedia
• To increase Wikipedia coverage of movies by adding, expanding and improving movie articles
• To serve as a central point of discussion for issues related to Wikipedia movie articles
• To provide the necessary framework to help bring all articles within the scope of the project to the highest possible quality

Thank you all for introducing yourself! Hopefully you all have a chance to read about each other to know where we all come from and what we want to do here. - Erik (talk o contrib) 17:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Questions about Class-coded encoding errors

Hope this is the right place to ask. I'm going through Category: Movies with incorrect Classroom Encodings to fix all entries, but I'm not sure how to fix problems that will happen if no release year is set, but the article is sourced enough not to be pushed or has survived 1-2 AfDs. Also, for clearly canceled promotions, should they be routed to regular classes? - AnmaFinotera (speaking Ã, Â · contribs) 05:53, April 7, 2009 (UTC)

Can those without the release year not be left alone for a while? For "canceled promotions", I assume you mean Death Walks the Streets ? I think the contents of the planned film can be moved to a prequel comic article... a bit of cleaning is needed, though. - Erik (talk o contrib) 15:28, April 7, 2009 (UTC)

They can, and what I do, I just want to make sure it's true :) - AnmaFinotera (speaking Ã, Â · contribs) 15: 59, April 7, 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Guidelines for Coordinator-related discussions

Hello, I would like to set up a guide for coordinator-related discussions on this talk page. My goal is to outline the agenda for display on WP: FILMC. As I review the discussion of the previous term, I think that too much can not be concluded. I would like to discuss what approach everyone would like to have an active discussion and draw conclusions from everyone's comments. Below, I list some related points by figuring out how the coordinator prefers to discuss goals on the agenda we will ultimately set, and I expect feedback from everyone.

• Not everyone will participate in the discussion, even the main ones. What's the reason for this? Do not have time to comment when you first meet the discussion, then forget later? Feel that the discussion is not related to your area of ​​expertise? Do not have a special opinion and are okay with what has been decided?
• Since coordinators dedicate themselves to WikiProject related matters more than any other editor, hope for them to participate in higher discussions. Is it any good to notify the coordinator on their user talk page about active discussions and ask for their feedback? How notifications work - wait 48 or 72 hours after the last comment before contacting those who have not weighed? Or ask for input for specific discussion every week? Or at all?
• I do not expect everyone to comment thoroughly for any discussion. I think that maybe everyone who may not have strong opinions can leave a note saying something like, "I do not have strong opinions, and I'm fine with what others decide." We do not know who is reading what discussion, so this note from those who basically say "present" can tell other editors, "You do not have to wait for other people's opinions, do not hesitate to move forward."
• Notifications and "current" notes may apply only to discussions that are directly related to the agenda's goals. For example, the above Collectonia discussion about future movie tagging does not require everyone's input, so "current" notifications and notes are not required. For a discussion on how to take care of an article that has no knowledge, such an approach can be useful to reach a conclusion.
• Is there any time of the month, week, or day when active discussion among coordinators is best done? Weekends, for example?

Below, I propose guidelines for discussions related to the coordinator we can include at the top of the talk page. They do not mean policy, but they approach me encourage everyone to obey the best of their ability. I asked for feedback to adjust it so that we could establish some basis for effectively discussing the agenda objectives and to discuss other topics as well. For example, better words, such as what it means to "identify" such discussions. (I personally think of a line in italics before the discussion.)

• Watchlist WT: FILM and WT: FILMC to keep discussing both and check the occasional page history to see which discussion has recent activity
• Include "Agenda:" in the discussion title if this is related to the coordinator's agenda
• When creating a proposal, make the proposal a tangible product (e.g. a crude concept of the proposed keyword structure, sandbox template) to serve for further input and refinement
• If the discussion requires more input, include the coordinator who is not involved with the talk page message to participate
• If you do not have strong opinions about the proposed tasks in achieving the agenda objectives, say so to let other coordinators know you have read the discussion and moved to resolve the consensus

Your thoughts are accepted! - Erik (talk o contrib) 17:10, April 13, 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The only suggestion I will make is that we show the agenda discussion in the title section, which is == Agenda: Should we get paid for the show? == . PC78 (talk) 19:21, April 13, 2009 (UTC)

Yes I agree with PC78 and as I said above, it would be great to include in the header the importance/category of discussion in the title itself. Anyone can feel free to bother me if I miss a discussion or if I have not replied in a few days. This guide will help improve the quality of our discussions. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:43, April 13, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I changed the organizer's sentence. I also included watching two pages of talks. We have been instructed to watch WT: FILMC before, and I think it's fair to ask the coordinator to at least realize what's going on in WT: FILM. Thought about the change? (And speaking of the agenda, I've put one together in User: Erik/Coordinator; will give it a final look immediately before putting it in WP: FILMC, where we can all tinker on classic-style wikis.) - Erik (talk o contrib) 21:43, April 13, 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. :) - AnmaFinotera (talk Ã, Â · contribs) 23:31, April 13, 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Showcase/Highlights

I will ask here because I know some of you are looking after them: the Showcase section of the main project page seems (to me) to be redundant to the wider Spotlight page. Maintaining the same information separately on two different pages must be a duplication of unnecessary effort. Will there be any objection to remove Showcase and merge it into Spotlight? PC78 (talk) 15:27, April 16, 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, and I think the link should be given to the highlight page. However, I wonder, can anything be transcended there as we do elsewhere on WikiProject? - Erik (talk o contrib) 15:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

A transclusion would certainly be possible, although to be honest I think that the main page could be done to be a bit slimmer. PC78 (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean to just link to the spotlight page and be done with it? That makes sense to me, too. :) - Erik (talk o contrib) 16:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Launches the original agenda

What you put looks good. To offer my thoughts on the issues you identified as "High Priority":

• Rating . I definitely support more running bots to mark and rate articles (and it would probably be a good idea to re-enable the | auto = parameter in the banner to better track things) , but I do not think we should pursue this until we have completed the current rating backlog. I spent some time in this past week and cleared about 500 articles, but it still leaves over 2000 to do. Regarding the list of articles that may need to be split, I'm pretty sure there's one somewhere. Giro may know, maybe in the user space.
• Upgraded core articles . This is something I want to do; I have some specific ideas, but I will keep them until we are ready to discuss them properly. If this is the project drive, will it come after the tag often called & amp; rate the drive, or will tag & amp; judge will take the back seat?
• Article cleaning . More than ongoing tasks. Is there much we can do about this? Articles with the most number of categories of cleaning may be good collaboration candidates, if nothing else.
• Reach . Again, something else I am interested in pursuing this term. We need to find ways to improve our membership and increase participation rates, but we also need to keep our membership active, so it's related to drive and project collaboration.

Appreciate all feedback! I have been a bit hectic in real life the last few days and it seems like some of the next people too but I will try to respond to everyone. Please edit the agenda itself if you think your suggestion has benefits. After all, I doubt we will go to war edit here! Ã, :) - Erik (talk o contrib) 16:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC) (Responding to everyone above. - Erik (talk o contrib) 16:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Re Re-Class Reviews (or any form of review), I never felt that the coordinator had a role to play - it was more of my idea that they should have the responsibility to engage primarily in reviews that had little or no there is no input, and thus requires more eyes to be valuable to the sending editor. In the case of the A-Class it is even more prominent because the article requires at least three votes of support before they can be skipped - so the two reviews are insufficient for the process.

As for the task force, I want to reconcile my opinion that the discussion area will be supported if we take all the specific discussion topics for areas that have only one or two task force forces and move them to the task force. 'talk page. This is standard practice in larger projects like MilHist which has many task forces, and helps keep them active. The main project talk page then will only contain the threads related to the overall project problem. We can still keep members alert for important taskforce discussions by creating a notification thread where there are elements. And as mentioned above, I also support the idea of ​​using the coordinator as a project liaison with the task force; this is very valuable in the task force we share with other projects. Mind? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically, I agree with the idea, but in practice, I wonder if it really will lower the discussion on the main talks? Can you give some examples of our current discussions about people who might be moved so I can get a better idea? - AnmaFinotera (speaking Ã, Â · contribs) 06:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be worth discussing migrating task-related discussions to their talk page from WT: FILM so long as we use {{Move conversations}} template to direct public visitors to this discussion. Is there a generic notice template that can be used by editors who start discussions on the task force page and may want more eyes? - Erik (talk o contrib) 18:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not against the idea, but is that really a big deal? I also want to know which discussion will be affected by this. PC78 (talk) 12:42, April 28, 2009 (UTC)

This is not a problem; this is a way to make task groups more active with discussions added to them. For example "Attention needed for Cinema of France" can be transferred to French cinema task unit. "Announce that celebrities are expected to be photographed at the Tribeca Film Festival" can be moved to the film festival task force. "Ran" can be transferred to the Japanese cinema task force. To compensate for a moving discussion, the discussion itself should be better titled. For example, "Ran" should be titled "Review of Featured Articles Ran". - Erik (talk o contrib) 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

One of the items under Rating articles that are not knowledgeable is "Request a bot file to find articles using {{Infobox Movies}} and less {{Movie}} on their talk page and for article lists". If anyone missed it, User: Jarry1250 released two scripts to help find the article (as requested PC78 :-)) that was marked as needing an infobox but having one [1] or marked as needing an image but having one [2]. I run the first top Category: Film article that requires infobox and back with more than 500 articles. [3] I did some random checks and it seems pretty accurate, so I took that list and cleaned it up for easy importing into AWB. I have been staring through them and deleting parameters. Anyone want to join? :) Well then, I've come to K so far. The list of cleared of the remaining is in User: Collectonian/WIP2.-- AnmaFinotera (speaks Ã, Â · contribs) 05:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I finished L through P. Go to bed now, but it will work again later today. - Edit live! Nehrams2020 (talk o contrib) 08:56, May 6, 2009 (UTC)

Everything has been updated. - Edit live! Nehrams2020 (talk o contrib) 23:12, May 6, 2009 (UTC)

Sweet! Thank you! I am just going back there: P - AnmaFinotera Ã, (talk Ã, Â · contribs) 00:49, May 7, 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Work force proposal

I am in no hurry to discuss this, but I might as well mention it now as the new task force is being discussed in WT: FILM. I would like to suggest setting up a "task force department" (or whatever you want to call it) to oversee the task force. It will not be anything new, rather a reorganization of what we already have, things on the main project page and the coordinator page, to a more centralized location. What I would like to add is a special page for filing and discussing a new task force, rather than doing it on WT: FILM.

Also, what should be the threshold for setting up a new task force? Giro says about five editors are interested, but is that enough?

Thoughts above? PC78 (talk) 10:20, April 19, 2009 (UTC)

I do not know - I think it's useless. The talk page is a natural place to discuss, because we want the maximum project outlook on the proposal. As for the department, it's not very natural for me - setting the task force is our sphere, and it only takes about 15 minutes. After that, the natural place to manage it is from within the task force itself. Meta-things can be brought to the project talk page, here, or Board page, depending on the most closely. What will the department do to fix this? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The improvement is in the restructuring, the depiction of the pieces that are currently scattered throughout the project. I do not think it will need a separate talk page, but it will help to streamline the main project page a bit more (for which my long-term thinking is a facelift similar to what they've done in WP: MILHIST, though that's not really a problem here). I do not agree that the main talk page is a natural place for discussion; the proposal can get lost among other discussions, then taken away to the archives. A separate, more permanent and formalized discussion area will be better prepared to measure long-term interest. Not long since the Soviet task force was formed, and it had only one registered participant; we need to ensure that each proposed task force has a sincere and sustained interest. And do not forget that we are still stuck with the need to mark articles for the American and British task forces. I also think that it's less us eyes that need to be in this discussion, and more other projects we will collaborate on (and that we need to try and gain their weight a bit more). Transcludable proposals that we can have in many places will attract more attention, no less. PC78 (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the departmental page for the task force is a good idea. We only have a section of the main page for the task force, and we can describe the use of task forces better. We must remember that we have mastered the learning curve in terms of editing and collaboration, so that it can help provide documentation that may seem simple to us. For example, to explain how to find like-minded editors for collaboration and more specifically how the power of a task can be used. - Erik (talk o contrib) 16:19, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

src: upload.wikimedia.org

Christian film task force

I think this needs to be addressed immediately, as they are now collecting five support from a legitimate editor. (Two of the seven currently signed do not have a significant editing history before or after the signing.) Some editors become impatient, and while there is no rush in theory, at the moment we seem to ignore it. I will handle it by myself, but I just want to bring it up with other coordinators first to measure their thinking. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to follow the discussion, but it looks like they're still not quite sure what to put in the task force, what is the meaning of "Christian film." Are movies with Christian elements, films from Christian production companies, self-identified Christian films, etc.? In addition, they have five supporters who seem eager to work on this part of the movie, so I tend to say it, if anyone is willing to keep an eye on things. - AnmaFinotera (speaking Ã, Â · contribs) 06:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I have advanced and created it. Any worries or objections? Feel free to broadcast them... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:21, April 26, 2009 (UTC)

I have no concerns or objections. I think it's good that the interest rate is very high. I am attaching myself to the task force to provide some guidance. I make suggestions to keep the scope great but also tell them this does not mean they have to work on articles across the scope. - Erik (speak

Source of the article : Wikipedia