Wikipedia talk:Cinema Collaboration of the Week

Pruning
Do you think this will work? Jun-Dai 19:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * possibly, but i think you need to define the number of votes better like in the other COTW. Say it needs to get 3 votes a week or something alongs those lines. --ZeWrestler
 * I tend to agree; the current system is somewhat too generous in the retention of nominations, and could lead to serious clutter. It's probably best that we adopt the somewhat standardized 3 votes per week for topic-specific collaborations, given that this page is attracting significant interest and at this early stage two topics have already attracted at least 3 votes.  Of course, if a nomination does fail it can always be renominated.--Pharos 04:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * This is what should be done IMHO. As you stated, what is happening now is way too generous. I suggest this collaboration look at WP:GCOTW, which does pretty well with a 3 vote per week system. K1Bond007 19:48, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

 I updated the pruning rules so that they would only take effect if there are more than three candidates on the list (as there are now). The idea here being that if there are only one or two people working on the collaboration, the "system" can still be functioning legitimately. Not that that really matters if there are more than one or two people. Ach well. 

Reboot
I recently rebooted this COTW due to the lack of general rules that all COTWs really go by. The rules, in my opinion keep the COTW going by knowing when nominations have had enough time and etc. Seeing Mr. and Mrs. Smith on there for coming up on two months, the lack of people really using this COTW and etc, all added up to my decision to take this time to star over.

All my changes, I suppose, are not for the best so please take the time to read most of it over and make any corrections or changes you believe would be beneficial for this COTW.

...and if for some reason you absolutely disagree with this, by all means, revert. I'm merely attempting to make this COTW more lively. K1Bond007 06:44, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Updating
Children of Paradise has been the COTW for over a week now. Is it time to update? - AKeen 23:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be much activity around here? Why? And what should we do? NuclearFunk 14:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would help to put a notice on the talk page of everyone who voted for the CoTW. I think that used to be done - AKeen 16:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

fortnight?
Should you make it collaboration of the fortnight as some other collabs have done? Maybe it could have more movies which are out in the cinemas at the moment to spark some more interest? Astrokey44 22:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe fortnight would be better - it seems interest is dwindling. The last two CoTW Broken Blossoms (which sadly didn't improve much) and Children of Paradise and the upcoming Andre Bazin are all pretty esoteric, though very important. I guess in the end it relies on the noms. - AKeen 08:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Should we update the collaboration to a new topic? - AKeen 04:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with turning it into biweekly and changed the project page. I also believe that nominating new movies that are in the cinemas now might be a good idea. --Fenice 18:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

2 votes?
I think 3 votes per week is too much for such a small project, I suggest switching to two votes per week.--Fenice 18:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Or maybe better to just one vote per week for the time being?--Fenice 08:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Good movie sites
You might want to start of a list of "good" movie web sites, maybe based on existing Wikipedia article usage. Obviously, imdb.com. Also Rotten Tomatoes. I think that Roger Ebert's ite, filmsite.org and sensesofcinema.com are good. I have created Template:filmsite, Template:rogerebert and Template:senses. I think that we should strive to have the templated links clustered together. I know the links look repeatative and boring, but it maks them easy to scan through. I am surprised that someone afd'ed the filmsite.org page. Could some of you please go over there and vote on that page? Thanks. -- Pinktulip 02:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Selection
It says that the new collaboration of the week would be chosen on January 28, but it is now February 10 and it is still Billy Wilder. I would go ahead and change it, but I'm not sure how the voting system works, or who is in charge of changing the selections every week. Estrose 17:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought the same thing. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 23:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Article assessment
Article assessment is currently accepting submissions for "1980s comedy films". Next week all the submissions will be assessed. Please consider adding a submission and helping with the assessments next week. violet/riga (t) 10:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Criteria
I removed the following criteria: The first three fall under WikiProject Biography and the last one falls under WikiProject Filmmaking. I added: Since it now says that in the project tag.--Supernumerary 04:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A film director
 * A cinematographer or other filmmaking collaborator (writer, editor, producer, etc.)
 * A film critic or reviewer
 * A technical film term, or a technical aspect of filmmaking (e.g., Montage, Split-screen, Green screen)
 * A film character

Maybe useful to know up front
When some members vote and therefore intend to contribute, do they start discussing or should each voter shortly suggest the area one may try to improve? Hoverfish 18:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * When the article is selected perhaps the contributors should create a to-do list on the article's talk page and fill it out with everything the article needs. Then they can pick which task they would like to do from that list. Also if they don't finish everything on the to-do list (which is likely since the goal is to bring it to a featured-level article in one week), the list will be left as a guide for other editors.--Supernumerary 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we should start soon this list, because after hovering back in history, peer reviews etc, the hardest part will be to define the items of the list. Or do we have some expert in the field among us? Hoverfish 22:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Redefining Collaboration's aim?
I agree that it is much more rewarding to start from a quite developed article and help it reach GA or featured. Maybe we should rephrase the aim ("to take an undeveloped or underdeveloped film-related topic and improve it"). The reason I have proposed Clockwise was that it is underdeveloped, but surely Blues Bros will be more fun collaborating. Should we state that we are looking for rather developed articles that happen to be in a mess and are worth a better fate (or something in this direction)? Hoverfish 14:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Also about taking one week per film and continuing while another is running, will this not dissipate the focus? We are not so many in number (although one of us being "Supernumerary" may suggest the opposite). Hoverfish 14:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think something's got to be done. Seems there ain't much contributin' done on COTW projects. Look at current Blue's Brothers. [sic] Very low partissipatin'. [sic] ~ Feureau 03:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we should make the collaboration longer than a week? That way it gives people more time to vote and more time to work. I'd recommend two weeks as a comfortable length.--Supernumerary 20:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If we do change it to two weeks, we should redirect this and rename it "Cinema Collaboration of the Fortnight" like WPBIO. Cbrown1023 21:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of how we name it, 2 weeks would be better AdamSmithee 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A change to 2 weeks would be an improvement -- the film COTW is less active than others Australian Matt 03:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Start of next collaboration
I have made some changes to reflect our current practice of selecting a film. It is logical that since we have only one collab at a time, the next collab will start at the end of the current one. If every time someone adds a nominee, there is a fixed period of time after its nomination (7 or 14 days) to its becoming an active collab (or not), then we would have many parallel collabs running. Hoverfish 08:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't change the title of the page, because of historical reasons and because another decision may be taken. Hoverfish 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, please someone who has more technical know how, add in the main page some info on placing in the talk page and filling up the "to do" template once a collaboration has been selected. For Blues Brothers I had some difficulty filling it up properly. Hoverfish 09:07, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Take a look and tell me if it needs anything more.--Supernumerary 18:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Nov 25 makes sense for selecting the following collaboration (in keeping with the 2 weeks time span for one colab). However, I have a personal problem in that, even though I nominated Psycho, if it becomes the new collab I won't be able to contribute. The thing is that probably I won't be able to edit WP for the 2 weeks starting on the 26th (not by my choice). Sry guys AdamSmithee 22:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to fix any rules. I just thought it didn't make any sense without some set date. If the Psycho team is ready and the Blues Brothers team is ready, let's move on. I mean the work on Dr. Strangelove is still going on. Maybe it could be a week "officially" on and then the team carries on. Enthusiasm and creativity is what really counts here. Hoverfish 23:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The instructions on the todo look fine, thanks. Hoverfish 23:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Change in COTW placement
Just wanted everyone to know about this change:. I abstained from reverting it but I see the template put in the article page, so one of the two has to be corrected. Hoverfish 22:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's article page. I'll fix it. Cbrown1023 22:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It belongs on the article page, that's why it is so small (font and whole size). Cbrown1023 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Community Portal
This collaboration appears to be inactive so I am removing it from the community portal. If this becomes active again just add it back.--Banana 04:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)