Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/todo

some daily tasks

 * manage the Current Nomination page
 * edit/clean up incoming nominations (if necessary)...create links, fix grammar/syntax/punctuation...normal editing procedures. Make it presentable.
 * change "noping" (if used by nominator) to to make vetting easier for seconds


 * add the new nomination to the Nomination Talk page
 * create Nom/Second/Comments slots for any new nominations. Easiest way is cut-n-paste to get the time stamp of when the 2 weeks seconding period starts
 * monitor 2 week seconding period and move to Accepted Nominations when achieved. If no seconds, consider why and if nomination is a "good" candidate. Happens rarely, if at all.
 * before moving, incorporate any seconding comments or pertinent info into the Nomination statement.

Buster Seven   Talk  19:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Some clarifications need to be made:
 * What should editors look out for specifically? How should users edit/cleanup?
 * Change what to ? The section title of the nominations?
 * How should seconding comments be incorporated into the Nomination statement? Should they simply be appended below the original nomination? Is the reasoning behind this so that the nomination permalink, which will eventually be included in the recipient infobox, can capture both nominations' comments?
 * Once these clarifications are made, I can make a new todolist for the daily tasks on the todolist page. Also, we can include collapsable versions of the todolists on the main project page (simply labeled as daily, weekly, and backlog respectively). I have also updated the todolist page to include a list for weekly tasks (i.e. announcing the recipient). Feel free to raise concerns/clarifications as needed. --JustBerry (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


 * The first two I answered by elaborating above. See my changes.
 * Re:Seconds. Incorporate them in a normal editing way. Before, I would just combine the seconding comments into the nomination. Not as an addendum or below or separate but as a part of, basically enhancing and creating a better, more descriptive description of the editor being nominated. Buster Seven   Talk  23:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that basically be feeding words into the original nominator's mouth? --JustBerry (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The last sentence at the current nomination page states: The nomination may be altered, changed or added to based on the discretion of the "WER clerks" in order to incorporate comments made during the seconding period. It has been that way since the beginning. Buster Seven   Talk  23:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ethically, I would put either the names of both nominators at the end of the passage or neither name. Is this not changeable? --JustBerry (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I honestly and ethically don't see a problem. It's editing. It's what we do. We make the nomination better just like we do with articles. Not one nominating or seconding editor has ever complained.  Buster Seven   Talk  23:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind, but I will ping a few people to give their thoughts on this matter Kindly see the discussion.. I briefly brought up the discussion over IRC. Feel free to do the same. As much as I'd like to not change up the innerworkings of the project, I feel it is important to reason this issue out a bit. --JustBerry (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The recipient notification template was designed to literally quote the original nomination statement, so it contains the text, "ZZZ submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week", followed by the text. This provides a personal connection between the nominator and the recipient, which is typically gratifying. I viewed the infobox as a place to craft a description of the editor, however there is a practical limit on the length of this text. That being said, I don't have an issue with changing things up. The template could be modified to handle multiple quotes, as well as just a paragraph describing the good work that is being recognized. I can make the changes as needed. isaacl (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Isaac, that seems better. The whole concept of altering others' nominations (although well-intentioned) just doesn't seem right, even with indirect consent. Isaac's proposal for incorporating multiple quotes will leave more transparency in the process from how I see it. --JustBerry (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note my reply was to Buster7's comment, and not the post that it appears to reply to now. isaacl (talk) 00:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Better now? --JustBerry (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just an editorial note; I realize the options aren't great for adding a reply to an earlier post once the outdent template is used. isaacl (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I support Isaacl's comment: That being said, I don't have an issue with changing things up. The template could be modified to handle multiple quotes, as well as just a paragraph describing the good work that is being recognized. I can make the changes as needed. Buster Seven   Talk  22:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Issacl's proposed change. Should we be ready to go by Friday with the new template? What do you think? If not, it's okay... just trying to gauge progress. --JustBerry (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2017 (UTC)