Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Coordinators

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nehrams2020 (talk | contribs) at 02:00, 13 October 2008 (→‎Discussion: replies to each of the sections). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:WP Film Sidebar

Shortcut

Handbook

Open tasks

These tasks should be done as often as needed—ideally, on a daily basis.
Assessment
  • Monitor the daily assessment log. The main things to look for:
    • Articles being removed. This is usually legitimate (due to merges or non-film articles getting untagged), but is sometimes due to vandalism or broken template code. Also note that even though the banner and tags remain on the talk page, assessing a Future-class will remove the article from the bot's listing.
    • Articles being moved to "GA-Class" and higher quality. These ratings need to correspond to the article's status in the GA and FA lists, as well as our A-Class review.
    • All newly added articles should be quickly scanned to see if additional task force tags or other maintenance tags (such as "needs infobox") are required.
  • Deal with any new assessment requests, B-class articles needing review, and the unassessed articles.
Peer review
  • For each new peer review request:
    1. Add the review to the {{WPFILMS Announcements}} template.
    2. Leave a note on the main project talk page, and with each appropriate task force or contact (if any), using the following boilerplate: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators/Peer review notice|Name of article}} ~~~~
  • For each peer review that has been archived:
    1. Remove the review from the {{WPFILMS Announcements}} template.
    2. Check the talk page to see that the parameter has been changed from "peer-review=yes" to "old-peer-review=yes".
A-Class review
Featured content
Member outreach
Other
  • Fix the {{Film}} syntax on any articles in Category:Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Films articles. The main culprits are the following:
    1. Deleted peer-review or old-peer-review parameters. Restore as appropriate.
    2. No WP Films peer review subpage. This usually occurs when editors turn on the peer-review tag in our banner but use the main peer review page. Open the banner, click on the peer review redlink, and redirect the page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review/Foo film) to the original peer review page (Wikipedia:Peer review/Foo film).
    3. Changed page name. Do as above, but redirect to the wherever the original peer review was.
    4. Start or Stub articles that meet all of the B-Class parameters. Check the article to see if they actually do. If not, change the relevant parameters. If they do, then reassess the article to B-Class.
    5. A-Class articles which have not passed A-Class review. (To be effective shortly when the dormant parameter is activated.) Re-tag down to GA (if already earned) or B.

One-time tasks

These tasks are targeted housekeeping drives which require immediate attention only once or infrequent maintenance.
  • Task force tagging - several task forces are in need of comprehensive "search and tag" runs so that the vast majority of their articles are identified and tagged. Most notably the following:
    • War films
    • Film awards (well-tagged, but needs a more thorough follow-up)
    • Film festivals (well-tagged, but needs a more thorough follow-up)
  • Retagging all instances of {{FilmsWikiProject}} to {{Film}}. Very low-priority.

Toolbox

New task force

N.B.: Creating a task force involves a great deal of work, and is very time-consuming to reverse if an inappropriate or misnamed group is created. It is generally inadvisable to create task forces without prior discussion—particularly regarding the name and scope—on the project's main talk page.

Before a task force can be created, it is necessary to decide on a name for it. The process requires both a full name (e.g. "French cinema" or "Film festivals") and a one- or two-word or acronym shorthand used for some template parameters (e.g. "French" or "Festival"). The instructions below use the "Fooish cinema" task force (shortened to "Fooish") as an example; when creating an actual task force, remember to substitute the correct name, rather than actually creating the example pages.

  1. Create the task force page:
    1. Create the main task force page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Fooish cinema task force) with {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators/Task force|Fooish cinema|Fooish}} as the content.
    2. Fill in the "Scope" section on the new task force page.
    3. Create the task force talk page (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Fooish cinema task force) with {{WPFILMS Sidebar}} as the content.
  2. Add support for the task force to {{Film}}:
    1. Select an image to use as the task force icon. The image should be recognizable at a small size and reasonably representative of the topic of the task force.
    2. Add the task force display code (shown below) to the task force section of {{Film}}, in correct position among the task force parameters. If the name of the task force does not begin with a capitalized term—in other words, where the name would be lowercase if it were not a page title (e.g. "military aviation" or "maritime warfare")—an altname= parameter containing the lowercased version of the name must be passed to {{Film/Task force categories}}.
      {{!}}-
      {{#ifeq:{{{Fooish-task-force|}}}|yes|
      {{!}} style="width: {{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|28px|43px}};" {{!}} [[Image:Fooimage.png|{{#ifeq:{{{small|}}}|yes|28x20px|43x30px}}|center]]
      {{!}} [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Fooish cinema task force|Fooish cinema task force]]<includeonly>{{Film/Task force categories|name=French cinema|class={{{class|}}}|importance={{{importance|}}}}}</includeonly>
      }}
    3. Add {{{Fooish-task-force|}}} to the appropriate conditional statements in the template.
    4. Update the project banner instructions:
      1. Add "|Fooish-task-force=" to the example syntax, in correct position among the task force parameters.
      2. Add "* '''Fooish-task-force''' – "''yes''" if the article is supported by the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Fooish cinema task force|Fooish cinema task force]]." to the instructions, in correct position among the task force parameters.
  3. Set up the task force assessment infrastructure:
    1. Create the main task force category (Category:Fooish cinema task force articles) with {{WPFILMS Task force category|Fooish cinema}} as the content.
    2. Create the main task force assessment category (Category:Fooish cinema articles by quality) with {{WPFILMS Task force assessment category|Fooish cinema}} as the content.
    3. Create the assessment level sub-categories:
      1. Category:FA-Class Fooish cinema articles with {{WPFILMS Task force assessment level category|Fooish cinema|FA}} as the content.
      2. Category:FL-Class Fooish cinema articles with {{WPFILMS Task force assessment level category|Fooish cinema|FL}} as the content.
      3. Category:A-Class Fooish cinema articles with {{WPFILMS Task force assessment level category|Fooish cinema|A}} as the content.
      4. Category:GA-Class Fooish cinema articles with {{WPFILMS Task force assessment level category|Fooish cinema|GA}} as the content.
      5. Category:B-Class Fooish cinema articles with {{WPFILMS Task force assessment level category|Fooish cinema|B}} as the content.
      6. Category:Start-Class Fooish cinema articles with {{WPFILMS Task force assessment level category|Fooish cinema|Start}} as the content.
      7. Category:Stub-Class Fooish cinema articles with {{WPFILMS Task force assessment level category|Fooish cinema|Stub}} as the content.
      8. Category:List-Class Fooish cinema articles with {{WPFILMS Task force assessment level category|Fooish cinema|List}} as the content.
    4. Add the task force's statistics table ({{WPFILMS Task force assessment|Fooish cinema}}) to the task force statistics table in the assessment department.
  4. Set up the task force's open tasks listing:
    1. Create the task force's open task template ({{WPFILMS Announcements/Fooish cinema}}) using the syntax shown on {{WPFILMS Announcements/Task force}} as the content. At a minimum, the name= parameter must be set to "Fooish cinema"; optionally, some initial tasks should be located and added to the listing.
    2. Add the new template to the "Task force lists" section of {{WPFILMS Announcements}}; the column break should be moved, if necessary, to keep the two columns properly aligned.
  5. Set up the task force's userboxes:
    1. Create the task force userbox (Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach/User WPFILMS Fooish cinema task force) with the following content, using the same image as was used in {{Film}} above:
      <div style="float: left; border:solid #C0C090 1px; margin: 1px;">
      {| cellspacing="0" style="width: 238px; background: #F8EABA;"
      |-
      | style="width: 45px; height: 45px; background: wheat; text-align: center; font-size: 14pt; color: black;" | [[Image:Fooish_image.png|45x45px]]
      | style="font-size: 8pt; padding: 4pt; line-height: 1.25em; color: #000000;" | This user is a member of the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Fooish cinema task force|'''Fooish cinema task force''']] of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Films|WikiProject Films]].
      |}</div>
    2. Add the following to the userbox listing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach#User banners and userboxes, in proper order among the other task force userboxes:
      |-
      | <tt><nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach/User WPFILMS Fooish cinema task force]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki></tt>
      | {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach/User WPFILMS Fooish cinema task force}}
  6. Add the task force to the project's navigation system:
    1. Add a link to the task force to the "Task forces" section of the main project page.
    2. Add a link to the task force to the appropriate task force section of {{WP Film Sidebar}}
  7. Announce the new task force:
    1. Add an announcement of the new task force page to the "Announcements" section of {{WPFILMS Announcements}}, and to the discussion of the task force proposal on the project's talk pages (if any).
    2. Add the task force to the "Films" section of the WikiProject directory; add cross-reference links to any other sections into which the task force falls.

Boilerplate and templates

mostly "Film"-ified...

Notes

Project issues

  • Weekly open task collab
  • explicit IMDb guideline
  • character notability clarification
  • class-specific advice in the banner for how to get to the next level
  • "medal of honor"-level award reserved for coordinators to confer (coordinators will not be eligible to receive while in office)
  • next election round approaching, do we need more coordinator spots?
  • expanding the style guidelines to cover a broader range of subjects, massaging them in preparation for formal MOS review
  • specific future film tasks
  • implementing core contest; creating a contest dept for this and other tasks
  • member questionnaire?
  • A-Class review, dealing with current A's

Discussion

Brief note

I apologize for having not formally addressed the new coordinators yet - other affairs online and offline have prevented this. I hope to have time later today and rectify this with a proper introduction and comprehensive report on where we stand, as well as some proposals for future initiatives.

I also am somewhat sorry that the 0.7 contest was created without prior consultation, but the imminent deadline of the 0.7 release version's publication forced my hand; plans were already in the cards to apply something similar to the core department over time, so this will afford us a test-run. Nehrams had also laid the groundwork of a review table to identify individual article problems - the contest is merely a logical extension to this work. Please do not view the quick release as an attempt to prevent critique, however - I am happy to discuss any changes either here or on the contest's talk page. Adjustments made mid-stream are not ideal, but in this particular case, we'll have to make that sacrifice if need be. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 11:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work, it looks much better than it was before. I think we still need a section for the revisions, since we need to determine those by October 20th. If there are people that are improving the articles before then that should be fine, and we can start choosing revisions just a few days before the deadline. I believe we should see a lot of progress in the coming months for these articles. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I actually didn't realize we needed to be ready that soon. Should we create some sort of additional incentive to get the editors to focus on tagged articles? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's why I was in such a hurry to try and set all of this up. I really don't know why they gave the projects only a month's notice, especially for the projects that had several hundred articles to cover. What did you have in mind for the additional incentive? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really sure - which I guess is why I'm asking. Hmmm, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we could divert some of the awards for raising the classes to completing the revisions. Maybe use Tireless Contributor, Working Man, and Diligence barnstars but require a larger amount of revisions to be completed (first level could be 10-20). Whatever we can do to get people to help with the revisions will really help out for looking over the 200 articles. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my confusion, but to what does the December 1 deadline refer, if the revisions that are going to be used need to be selected by October 20? Steve T • C 19:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The December 1st deadline is just an indicator of how far the articles have improved in a few months (we probably didn't want to drag out this drive over a year, so three months away seemed like a reasonable ending point). However, based on the success of the drive, we may likely do similar drives, especially for our other core articles. Finding the revision is a separate thing then improving the articles (although if the articles improve before the October 20th deadline, we will have better revisions to provide for the 0.7 release). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That does clarify matters. The current wording at the 0.7 contest page ("...before the scheduled publication of Wikipedia 0.7 currently set for December 2008") makes it sound as if we have until then to improve/tag revisions of these articles for 0.7, when October 20 is the cutoff and December just an arbitrary end to the improvement drive. Thanks. As for incentives, does Wikipedia still frown upon cash rewards? :) Steve T • C 21:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, you may want to check out WP:REWARD. Not sure if that is anything we can formalize... I don't quite have the budget to persuade editors to improve some articles. :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question As one of the new coordinators, I should ask: what else should we be focusing on for our coordinator duties? Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my lack of promptness, which I hope to emend shortly after I return from a work commitment. This will be clarified, I promise. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topic workshop

I've been working on a draft of the topic workshop I made for WP:ANIME and adapting it for WP:FILM, and am nearly done. Any commentary on the workshop itself before I finish it and set into motion? Basically, the general idea is that you have a centralized place to propose topics, and they can receive input from the community, as well as garner more visibility and help. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a terrific start! My only major concern about the effectiveness of this topic workshop is that, well, it's really hard to get a group of articles under a topic up to Good Article status. Film series seem to be the only plausible approaches. I was also wondering about something -- you mention that any upcoming film article is inherently unstable (which I agree with), so if there was a topic related to an actor or a director, would an article about an upcoming film disrupt a featured topic? For example, my personal idea for a featured topic had been director Neil Marshall with Dog Soldiers, The Descent, and Doomsday, but if he began a fourth film, what happens? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. I actually suggested to WikiProject Alien last week to link together multiple articles into a good topic, since there are already several film articles that are GA/FA status. I'm sure it would fall under our project as well. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would echo Erik's observation. Does it make sense to be proactive and suggest possible subjects for consideration? Or should we be reactive and see what suggestions flow in? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(To Erik) Yes, topics are hard to produce (I know, I've made three), but this is why we have a centralized place to work on them. And if there was an upcoming film, it would be "audited", meaning that the article would go through a peer review with exhaustive commentary that would address any problems with the article. This would qualify the article as part of the topic. This is done in cases of articles/lists that cannot become good articles or featured lists for whatever reason (television series that has not finished airing, film in production, video game that has not been released). And if you made a topic on Marshall and he made a fourth film, then you would be given about three months to bring the article up to snuff so it can be audited and included in the topic. After the film is released, you would have six months to improve the article to GA. I'm just saying the difficulty is in the updating that you have to do and the work involved in keeping the topic up-to-date. As for what types of topics, yeah, beyond film series and filmographies, the only other potential topics that come to mind are awards-related topics (I have one posited around the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film planned). That said, with the way the workshop is set up, people are free to suggest their ideas, and can receive input to see whether it is a viable topic or not. In this manner, we're not necessarily static in the form of topics we can create (although a majority will ultimately be series/filmographies or similar).
(To Eco) Both are intended. Anyone can propose topics, so we can propose a few and leave it open for everyone to contribute. IMO, filling it up with too many topics dilutes resources, but we definitely shouldn't feel hesistant about bringing ideas forward. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I could propose a topic, I think we need get some serious editing on the films directed by Orson Welles. I've already done significant expansions on The Immortal Story and The Trial (1962 film), created a new article on The Dreamers (unfinished film), and I hope to sandblast the article on Macbeth (1948 film). I will probably do an expansion of Filming Othello, which I created as a stub some months ago. I've looked at articles on Welles' unfinished The Other Side of the Wind and his lost Too Much Johnson and both (I feel) are terribly written; the article on The Stranger (1946 film) could probably use expansion, too. For a filmmaker of Welles' significance, the level of scholarship on Wikipedia relating to his canon appears wobbly and often lacking. I wouldn't mind generating some sort of project-wide enthusiasm to clean up these articles. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another question as I consider possible featured topics... what about James Dean and his three films? He has been on stage and in television as well. Can the actor and the three films make up a featured topic or not? Just trying to understand the extent of the topic boundaries. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You define the scope of the topic at the start, and if you want it to be "Films James Dean acted in" (bad title, just a throwaway), then that's the scope you've set for yourself. Do note, however, that the main article has to establish a clear basis for a topic (aka, you can't cherry pick; for instance, "Films James Dean acted in before 1956", which would exclude Giant (film), is not appropriate). — sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Dean starred in three films, but he had small roles and bit parts in other flicks. That could be part of a James Dean happening here. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an FYI, I just did a massive rewrite of Orson Welles' lost film Too Much Johnson. I am a bit surprised that the non-Kane Welles articles have been problematic. I will get to "Macbeth" later next week. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that articles like these are problematic because the topics do not stand out as much. I think that our base of editors at WikiProject Films is relatively young, and if you look at our spotlight, there's a lot of recent films that achieve some kind of status. In addition, for older films that may not be highlighted by the media as much, research may be harder to conduct. You can see the lack of content in the WikiProject's core list with all the Stub-class and Start-class articles. I've considered creating a resources subpage to address this... to both list possible resources and to provide a forum so people can request assistance in researching a topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A central area to point out possible resources for articles would be a great idea. It would allow other members who have access to university databases, libraries, member-only websites, museums, etc. to be able to assist in providing sources in improving article content. This could further improve our numbers in GAs/FAs if members knew where they could find more information for a particular article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not certain about research problems for older films. There might be more of a comfort level in writing about more recent films versus a title from the 1930s. I believe Erik's idea of a list of resources is an excellent idea, since I find myself returning to a select number of online sources for many of the articles I write and edit. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As an FYI, I wanted to see Wikipedia's coverage of the Orson Welles unfinished film version of "Don Quixote," which recently had its US DVD debut -- and there is no article on the subject. I am going to create one, as that void is fairly remarkable and needs to be filled. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belated welcome

I apologize for not being able to make an introductory address to the new coordinators earlier - some unexpected offline commitments left me with too little time earlier to properly gather my thoughts and address you all with sufficient depth.

First of all - congratulations on being elected! I am deeply honored to be working with each of you, and I'm very pleased to see that we've yielded such a strong field of coordinators, all of whom I am familiar with as regular, thoughtful contributors to our endeavors. Perhaps the proof in the pudding is that you've already gotten off to a strong start, as the discussions already begun here clearly evidence! :) This is also, of course, something our expansion has helped facilitate, and I look forward to seeing the coordinator talk page truly becoming a place of collaboration, brainstorming, and initiative-taking.

Let me get a few of the sterner items of the agenda out of the way first:

  1. All coordinators must have this page added to their watchlist if they haven't already. We shouldn't have to be calling for you, and your self-nomination presumes that you want to be regularly involved here, so please do make it easier by keeping your eye on the discussions. (Contributing regularly wouldn't hurt either! ;)
  2. One of the responsibilities we've formally incorporated into the position starting with this term is that all coordinators are expected to perform a regular amount of service in the Review department reviewing items which appear there. The highest prior items are the A-Class reviews - this is because they not only require a minimum of three support votes, but also because coordinators are formally written into that review process to administer to it. This is particularly relevant at the moment, as we have three articles in review, one of which has been drawn out far too long - and we are all responsible for this, myself included. The A-class reviews must be processed faster, in order to keep them a useful option. The second priority is reviewing any items which have no garnered any critiques yet. Beyond that, just keeping your hand in is still important, as it keeps coordinators up-to-date on what deficiencies we're seeing in articles, and how we can address them ahead of time. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New business

Tag and Assess drive

This project has not yet undergone a Tag and Assess drive, which is quite unusual for a WikiProject of this size. Is this warranted at the moment? If so, how shall we proceed, and is anyone interested in organizing it? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may help to define a Tag and Assess drive. It seems like we have reevaluated our assessments (rejecting C-class and formalizing B-class/A-class), so I think we could use a comparison of what other WikiProjects have done in their own Tag and Assess drive. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is something that we should consider, but I'd recommend delaying it for now. We are continually adding new task forces, defining style guidelines, and taking on our curret 0.7/Core list. We usually see a new task force request once a month or so, so I'd recommend putting it off for a few more months until we have an established set of task forces (since we would be going through the articles and determining if they fall under any of the task forces). It's likely we will continue to add them, but at this rate, it would probably be beneficial putting them off. For the vast majority of the articles assessed, Cbrown1023, myself, and some other editors finished these almost 2 years ago. Our project definitely has come a long way since then, especially with new tags, task forces, and standards. I'd recommend starting our own drive (in a similar format to the Military History WikiProject) sometime in early/mid 2009. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Task force coordination

Would it be advisable for task forces to be directly under the purview of one or two coordinators each? This would give the task forces direct points-of-contact for any issues they need assistance with, and also allow the coordinators to regularly evaluate their needs and suggest common solutions here as need be. I also think that this may be crucial for upcoming tasks that we really need to finally get around to, such as style guidelines for articles that aren't about individual films, as well as assessment standards for those articles, notability and naming guidelines, and specialized infoboxes. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that it needs to be compulsory; there may be existing task forces for which there is not a coordinator who has a vested interest in its goals. Another approach could be to have coordinators watchlist the WikiProject's task forces and keep eyes open for any discussion that may either need to be centralized or could use an attentive response. Another thought about task forces... I was wondering how the WikiProject would assess the task force if there is not much activity within it or the articles under the force? Any kind of expiration policy in place so we don't get bogged down in too many branches? We don't have to be too strict with something like this, though. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, I don't think this needs to be anything formal. However, we should make sure that each task force talkpage is watchlisted by at least two (any two) coordinators (and maybe if you want to be more formal about it, that each coordinator is watchlisting at least two task forces), to see what issues are cropping up in the quieter corners. To that end, it might be useful to list the task forces here, in order to properly discover who's keeping an eye on what. Steve T • C 19:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way we can categorize the task forces' talk pages? We could follow its recent changes, like with their main pages here (currently shows only one edit from the past 7 days). Looking at the other WP:FILM pages, maybe we could put all the discussion pages under a centralized category. Category:WikiProject Films talk pages, perhaps? Or is that not a common approach on Wikipedia? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as for an expiration, you're talking about the possibility of closing inactive ones, right? As far as I can see, an inactive task force isn't eating up too many resources, so I'd prefer not to specify a certain length of time before a task force is closed; we can bring them up on a case-by-case basis if necessary and leave it to a good judgement call. Steve T • C 20:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, to clarify, my suggestion was in response to keeping an eye on the WikiProject's various talk pages. I'm not too worried about expiration dates at this point, but I just predict that we might have a number of quiet task forces down the road. Going back to watching all the pages, I had another thought... if we can add Category:WikiProject Films to {{WPFILMS Sidebar}}, we could capture both project pages and project talk pages' recent edits. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erik's recommendation for consolidating all of the talk pages would be a great way to keep an eye on potential discussions. I would be more likely to look over these discussions if they were gathered as suggested. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations task force

I'd like to create a task force to cover articles on Organizations, Schools, Institutions, Companies, etc. Much of this is currently tagged under the Filmmaking task force (although not all are), and it seems to actually be more appropriate to group these together, as they will have a more common structure and content. This could also be a joint task force with other relevant WikiProjects such as WikiProject Companies and WikiProject Organizations. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a good idea. Would it be safe to say that style guidelines could be developed for these kinds of articles under this particular task force? I'd be happy to lend my support to this task force, especially in drafting the guidelines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that would be key to it being successful. And again, with some help from the other WikiProjects, it might not require too much in the way of style guidelines which they don't already cover. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:54, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This would be a good idea for a task force. I'm sure this would have to be part of our developing new style guidelines in relation to articles covering characters, festivals, etc. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V0.7 revisions selection

This is urgently looming, since we have a deadline of October 20th, IIRC. Anyone interested in helping out with this will be greatly appreciated. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really wanted to get this off the ground, but it seems like there are delays in getting the list approved still. Unfortunately, I'm really busy for the next few weeks (large tests while simultaneously studying for the GMAT), so I won't be able to go through and find the reliable revisions. If we can somehow convince a few editors to help out finding revisions, I'm sure we have some immediate awards we can give out. These revisions will show the quality of our project and it would be a shame if we can't select them ourselves. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old business

(Much of this is verbatim from the last time these were brought up.)

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. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good idea to find out what would attract some of the more distant members of WikiProject Films. Maybe it's just me, but I included two pretty major discussions in recent newsletters (such as external links in film infoboxes) and did not find much response through that venue. Perhaps we could start by assessing if people watchlist WP/WT:FILM and see how they feel about being involved. Factors could include feeling overwhelmed or intimidated by the types of discussions, and we could find ways to assuage these factors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I second that emotion. The coordinator election brought out a relatively low number of editors who opted to vote. People were aware of the election but opted not to participate. I am curious to know what people think of this WikiProject. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend developing a subpage with your questions, and we can probably add to them as well. I'm curious to see how many people actually look over the newsletter (just like Erik, I've seen limited response to some of the stories recommending action). We could mention the questionnaire in the upcoming newsletter or send out an independent message to all of our active members (currently at ~120, down from over 250 before the roll call). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb guideline

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? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should go into the style guideline considering how relevant it is to the project. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The best approach may be to write an essay about using IMDb. Using content from WP/WT:CIMDB and additional discussions, we could establish how IMDb could be successfully be used. I think it is pretty clear that IMDb is not considered a reliable source, in and out of the WikiProject. It could still be used as a springboard, though. Information about the cast and crew can be cross-checked with other websites, and bits like trivia could be further researched to find a more reliable source for inclusion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would the news stories on the site be considered reliable? I've used those in the past since I couldn't find similar stories elsewhere online. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Character articles

Do characters who only appear significantly in one work actually justify independent articles? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they have enough coverage to satisfy the general notability guideline, then I see no reason why they shouldn't have articles. How many serialized works is largely irrelevant in comparison to the notability the article asserts. You could have a character present in one media that is notable due to sufficient coverage and have a character present in five media that is not notable due to insufficient coverage. The only implication that appearances in several media conveys is that there is a greater possibility sources can be found to assert notability. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if they only appear in one work, what can be said that requires a separate page, instead of being noted within the source material's article? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should observe whether the material would be better suited for the primary article in order to not give undue weight to the character through an article, but the cases in which an article on the character is justified are when there is significant information on the creation/conception/production of the character, as well as a boatload of reception via critical reviews. A good sign is when trying to incorporate the production and reception into the main article creates an undue weight problem by placing too much emphasis on the character; at this point, having a separate article for the character is justified. I know this seems arcane, and in the long run, it will be a case-to-case basis. That said, I wouldn't necessarily prohibit articles on characters that have only appeared in one media. A note that the character does have to be sufficiently notable is sufficient in my opinion. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 06:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sephiroth that it is likely to be a case-by-case basis. I think that one thing we could determine is "significant coverage" for a character. For example, reviews may tend to focus on how a main character is written in a film, or how an actor performs the role. These reviews, though, tend to be contemporary and borderline newsy. Like I mentioned in my comment below, we should look at examples... one could be a character being considered the "epitome of masculinity" as retrospectively covered by academic sources. That kind of thing. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I don't see how much undue weight there could be if the only primary source is the film - I mean, any acceptable secondary sources would be reviews or critical studies, which would be fair play. Any character garnering that amount of attention will be a key player, and thus worthy of in-depth discussion within the reception section. Can you think of any particular examples that would cause a problem? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is unlikely for the most part, and it seems like some time would need to pass to properly assess a character's importance beyond his or her solo film appearance. There may be some prominent stand-alone films whose characters have been heavily studied... we probably should look to not-so-recent films and see if there are any such characters we can identify to help shape consensus. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth looking at AFI's 100 Years... 100 Heroes and Villains and identifying fictional characters who appear in only one film. A couple of examples include George Bailey and Mister Potter. Quite a few possibilities simply redirect to their respective films' articles. We could do a few search engine tests to see if any of the characters have significant coverage of themselves with the film only in the background. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be reasonable to put all of the characters under a task force? Similar to the proposed organization one above, by compiling the characters we can determine which of the ones are likely non-notable and also list the style guidelines for improving these types of articles. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future films updating

We've discussed adding additional parameters into the template to identify a Future-Class film's release date, so as to help automate re-assessment, especially for less-mainstream releases. This is also crucial since Future-class articles "go dark" on the assessment logs, which makes it difficult to track them otherwise. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can pursue some minor date parameters, such as festival=, limited=, or wide=. I have to admit, though, I am not clear on how they could be adequately tracked for reassessment. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of a banner thing, so those different ones you mentioned aren't particularly relevant. Really, it would be more of a year=, month=, day= which would be used by the template to automatically categorize it as Category:Future films releasing on October 12, 2008, for example, or Category:Future films releasing in October 2008 or Category:Future films releasing in 2008 if more specific dates aren't specified. Any Future-Class articles without at least a year filled in would go to Category:Future films needing release date. Now, the point of all of these categories is so that as soon as a film is released, it goes to a normal assessment class. Additionally, films with somewhat unclear release dates can be re-checked closer to their release to ascertain their current status. To me, this means something public and openly accessible: ie, limited or wide, but not festival release. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a great idea! I'd support the addition of these parameters. I can work on the future films department's page to mention these parameters and keep an eye on what needs to be reassessed. Is it going to be easy to work in the parameters? Seems like the big challenge would be looking out for non-English releases. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we already did this, but I guess not. It would probably be best to list films by their month and year release (October 2008), which would allow us to easily clear the list out at the end of each month. If each month is too hard to keep track of, we can probably go by the quarter (Jan-March). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open tasks

Would it be worth exploring the option of having a weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly 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? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is something we should bring up in the questionnaire, to determine how active members would be in working on a collaboration. Either way, I think it would be best to go with a monthly one, and if progress goes well, we can consider going to bi-weekly. For the banners are you asking if we should replace each banner and update the main film banner with the "|needs-x=yes"? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that Erik had proposed adding some additional "needs-X" parameters to the project banner. Additionally, Nehrams and I discussed expanding the "how to get the article to the next class" sub-templates to include more than the Stub and Start classes. And as per above, non-film articles will require these to be re-written for their type of content. (This can probably be handled in conjunction with specific task force parameters, such as Festivals, Awards, or Filmmaking.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion can be found here. Looks like I need to get around to these concise messages. If anyone else wants to pitch in, feel free to do so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes to the banner look fine to me. The class improvment templates for the characters, festivals, etc. could be improved once guidelines have been established for how to improve the articles. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contests

The contest department may 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. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should add a parameter to the Core/0.7 lists that shows if any members are currently working on improving a specific article. This would allow us to track their progess (right now we don't know if anybody is attempting to improve these articles). They could just list their name along with how far they plan to improve the article. Again, based on the questionairre, we can determine how often our collaboration would be held, which would determine how part of the contest department would be set up. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

The wiki-wide 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 us maintaining a wholly separate process, or should we just transclude the general PRs within the Review department PR section? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. Having one peer review in multiple places increases the visibility and doesn't split discussions. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be best to have more people be involved with the peer review, so we should consider transcluding to the general page. I know we have some editors who focus on these reviews, but if it was centered elsewhere, more people could help out. In addition, it would probably also let us center more on our A-class reviews as well, which are currently backlogged. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to clarify what kind of task forces would warrant style guidelines. For example, task forces focused on geography or genre may not necessarily need to have style guidelines beyond what already exists. For film organizations, film history, or filmmaking techniques, though, style guidelines could be useful. We could check to see the norm for these topics on a more generic level (organization, history, technology). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is something we definitely do need to develop. We have so many different types of articles under our scope now, and if we want to continue to advance to GA/A/FA for these other types, there have to be guidelines to help out members. We've already had some awards/characters reach these higher levels, so looking to these may be beneficial for determining how to expand the guidelines. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

Please feel free to address them here.

Again, I look forward to seeing everyone work together here, and I have very good feeling that we'll get a great deal accomplished! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Girolamo; it is nice to see a growing number of coordinators, and I hope that we can all come up with some great ideas about how to move this WikiProject forward! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad we have new faces, and I hope that our discussions continue to do well with so many people joining in. I unfortunately will be really busy for the next few weeks, but will try to keep up with the discussions if I can. In November, I should have much more time for helping out. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Coordinators&oldid=244898118"