Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Coordinators/Archive 3


 * Brief note (October 2, 2008) – Message from lead coordinator Girolamo Savonarola; discussion about WikiProject Films/Wikipedia 0.7
 * Topic workshop (October 6, 2008) – Early discussion to create WikiProject Films/Topic workshop (ultimately created later)
 * Belated welcome (October 12, 2008) – Agenda from Girolamo Savonarola
 * New business
 * Tag and Assess drive – Preliminary discussion about tag & assess drive
 * Task force coordination – Discussion about assigning coordinators to specific task forces; led to categorization of task forces' talk pages
 * Organizations task force – Proposed task force (possibly joint with WikiProject Companies and WikiProject Organizations), but not created
 * V0.7 revisions selection – Discussion about choosing revisions for V0.7, fully addressed later
 * Old business
 * Questionnaire – Preliminary discussion about issuing questionnaire (one was later issued)
 * IMDb guideline – Initial discussion about writing a guideline for referencing the Internet Movie Database; see WP:CIMDB and WT:CIMDB for extensive discussion
 * Character articles – Discussion about when character articles are appropriate, but no guidelines were formalized; reference this in future
 * Future films updating – Discussion about tracking future films as they are publicly released; led to WP:FUTFILM
 * Open tasks – Proposal for weekly, bi-weekly, or monthly open task collaboration amongst the members; inconclusive
 * Banner revision – Early discussion to add parameters to Film template; parameters later modified
 * Contests – Proposal for contest department to improve core articles; inconclusive
 * Peer review – Discussion to support transclusion of peer reviews
 * Style guidelines – Discussion for each task force to have style guidelines; inconclusive
 * Other comments – No new comments


 * Prioritizing discussions? (October 14, 2008) – Suggestion to address agenda's items by priority (such as V0.7 being highest)
 * 0.7 Assignments - DEADLINE IS OCT. 20 – Each coordinator assigned around 40 film articles to retrieve revisions for V0.7
 * Extra articles (October 17, 2008) – Notice about additional film articles for revision retrieval
 * Update (October 20, 2008) – Notice that revisions are listed at User:SelectionBot/0.7/F-1


 * Idea on new task force (October 15, 2008) – Proposal for race films task force; inconclusive
 * Future films organization (October 28, 2008) – Official notice that Film template will track upcoming films
 * Topic workshop, again (October 28, 2008) – Finalization of WikiProject Films/Topic workshop inclusion
 * Devolving peer review (November 10, 2008) – No peer review directly under WikiProject Films; reviews will be transcluded instead
 * IMDb...again (November 10, 2008) – Discussion to set up RfC for final consensus on citing IMDb as a reliable source; inconclusive
 * Community motivation and expansion (December 10, 2008) – Discussion to draft a questionnaire to hear from community members about their level of involvement and their thoughts related to WikiProject Films
 * Talk page sections and task forces (January 2, 2009) – Discussion about single-issue notifications at WT:FILM and consideration to move task force-related discussions to task forces' talk pages; some moving took place but did not catch on

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Not really sure - which I guess is why I'm asking. Hmmm, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * (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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Not a bad point, certainly, considering the list of things I've outlined below this! Since you seem to have some prior experience with this, would you be interested in coordinating this (in due time, of course)? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is definitely something I'd be interested in working on, but we'll see how busy I am next year. This is something our project needs to do, and hopefully a lot of planning and involvement will allow it to run smoothly. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I don't think that's exactly what he was suggesting, more a good way of watching the pages through the recent changes function. Consolidation of all the task force talk pages would work against the objective of having the task forces in the first place. Then again, I could well be misreading your reply. :) Either way, Erik's suggestion is a good one, and should be looked into. Steve  T • C 13:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I can add the category to the sidebar if it is desired, then. Just wanted to make sure there was not an issue with it. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 14:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All done; it already adds the project category for all pages in the Wikipedia namespace - now I've just extended it so that all articles in the Wikipedia talk: namespace go to the category you suggested. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There we go. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Agreed. I would be glad to work on this project. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * Probably should go into the style guideline considering how relevant it is to the project. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 05:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I know I am the odd man out, but I never agreed with the notion of IMDb as being unreliable. I've worked with IMDb in submitting information -- everything that goes to them has to be vetted by their paid editorial staff, which can take up to two weeks.  Not everything that is submitted gets published.  And I've found them very pleasant and reliable about correcting errors, too -- no media source is perfect, of course, but they strive to ensure their data is correct.  I am not suggesting that we change Wikipedia policy, but I do need to state IMDb gets a bad rap here. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't dismiss IMDb outright; we accept it as an external link. It is just not considered a reliable source, one that has a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight.  It's good that corrections can be made, but that has to be in place because the information is user-submitted.  It's like a gated wiki in that sense; we don't know where the information comes from, so we can't be sure if it's found the final correction or not.  I think that different parts of the website can vary in reliability.  For cast and crew information of recent films, I think that the information is spot-on post-release.  I've noticed inaccuracies leading up to a film's release because the information is a hodge-podge of user submissions; after the release, it's like an electronic copy of the credits.  I think that budget information can also be questionable since we don't know if it is truly and finally corrected.  Trivia pages are definitely questionable... the large majority of them are unformatted.  If the film's Wikipedia article is in good shape, trivia bits will be culled from it.  Like I said above, it's best used as a springboard. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 04:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nehrams2020, the imdb gets its news stories from an external agency, Studio Briefing, which is provided in digest form by a number of film websites. The question of its reliability is a different beast to that of the imdb's. On first glance, I'd say it's OK, though I'd have to look more deeply into it. I've been tempted to cite it before, but in all circumstances, I've found a better source elsewhere for the information. Steve  T • C 14:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don’t think an essay would be strictly necessary in order to get the point across, other than as a nice supplementary guide. I would prefer an explicit mention in the guideline to state that imdb should not be classed as a reliable source in most circumstances, with a brief explanation as to why. There are plenty of WT:FILM archive discussions we can draw on to point to a consensus on this. So yes, we should formalise it once and for all. Steve  T • C 14:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree - there's no need for something as long as an essay, nor would it have the kind of standing that a few sentences in the MOS would. Ambiguity as to its status is part of the problem to begin with, so adding an essay would not really be helpful in resolving this, IMHO. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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)
 * Well...those two articles are a good example of why they don't need to be split from the parent article - George Bailey is entirely plot recap (thus redundant to the film's plot synopsis) and no real world context, while Mister Potter's article is merely a much longer plot recap centered around him, with a very minor bit of real world context at the end which easily could fit into the parent article. Neither has much (if any) sourcing. Perhaps I should rephrase my question - are there any articles in a decent shape about characters who only appear in one work? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * That's also a very good point - these articles are substantially different in structure and content from the films' articles, and therefore will require their own MOS. (We might also want to look into some general discussions with other media projects about creating a generic character article MOS which would be independent of originating medium. Additionally, looking at some FA examples would be worthwhile.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Quick answer to the original question, only per WP:SUMMARY. If there is enough room at the parent article, there's no reason not to host the information there. Independent character articles should only exist if there is sufficient notability and either the character straddles more than one film or the parent article is too large. Steve  T • C 14:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the other thing that needs to be emphasized is that there needs to be sufficient and appropriately proportioned real world context. A character article that overwhelmingly consists of plot recap, with only a few crumbs of out-of-universe perspective, is not appropriate as a split. The Mister Potter article is a case-in-point - it's very large, but when the plot is excised, amounts to nothing that couldn't be easily merged. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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)


 * Perhaps we can pursue some minor date parameters, such as,  , or  .  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)


 * This is more of a banner thing, so those different ones you mentioned aren't particularly relevant. Really, it would be more of a,  ,   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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)

Banner revision
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)

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)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * I'm not certain that a signup is a good idea. For one, it's extra work for the editors to do this, and extra work for us to make them aware that they can/should. Furthermore, it is not uncommon for people to sign up for an article or two and not follow through. And that can have negative implications as well, since it may dissuade other editors from working on an article if they believe someone has already claimed it as "theirs". The Core and 0.7 lists are short enough that we can easily check the progress simply by checking the assessment levels of all of the articles sporadically; any which have changed for the better can then be checked against editing history to see which editors are responsible. That's my two cents, anyways... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those were some of the things I thought about too. Perhaps we could add a note though having editors contact the talk page or one of the coordinators letting us know when an article has reached a higher level. That way there would be no stress for them to be required to finish an article or prevent more than one person working on the article. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)

Prioritizing discussions?
While I'm glad to see all the topics laid out for the coordinators on this talk page, I was wondering if there was any chance that we could prioritize discussions. There are a lot of topics we can discuss at any given time, but I think we could sort them by importance. For example, the V0.7 revisions selection topic seems to need immediate response, though I have to wonder just what could realistically be accomplished in six days (with the deadline being Oct. 20th). — Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is a dilemma I always face, to drip them out one at a time or outline them all... These are all agenda items for the term, but they don't all require immediate action, and perhaps we'll create individual threads for each as they come into focus.
 * As for the 0.7 deadline...let's just take the lot and divide them amongst ourselves. I believe it's about 200 articles, which makes for about 28.7 per coordinator, which seems doable within six days. (Ultimately, any oversight will be better than none; I presume they will give it a final looking-over anyway, though.) I'll draw up a list momentarily. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I'll get to completing mine this weekend when I have more time. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

0.7 Assignments - DEADLINE IS OCT. 20
Okay, here they are. I've kept this simple - each of us gets 29 entries more or less, divided alphabetically by both coordinator and article title. I hope that's not a problem. Please also be advised to check all articles - even the FAs - to ensure that nothing inappropriate has snuck in. Many of these articles are not sufficiently developed to make us proud (yet), but as these articles will be representing us, finding the best extant revision is just as important. And if a few minor edits will go a long way, please don't be shy. :) Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:52, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As a heads up, I am traveling from 18-20 October and will have limited Net access. I will get this done prior to the 18th.  Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Initial observation I might recommend removing Shane from this list -- the article, I feel, is inadequate in regard to its editorial content. I also have to question whether the photo being used is appropriate -- it seems be a screen capture from a video.  Thanks. Ecoleetage (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there no workable revision? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it would need to be completely overhauled -- it is missing plot, production history and proper referencing. I have a full slate of real life stuff to handle this afternoon and I am leaving on a business trip tomorrow, otherwise I would do it for you. Ecoleetage (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Look again. :) Steve  T • C 17:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, that's even better than having Shane come back! I whipped up a quickie stub for Loyal Griggs to go with that (he was the film's Oscar winner, as cinematographer). However, I am going to remove the screen capture, for obvious reasons (it was taken off a Mexican web site).  Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Extra articles
It's been made known to me by Walkerma that we actually misapplied the "scope points". For the most part, this is negligible bc the formula I used accorded extra scope points to a very limited number of articles, usually in small quantities, and to articles already well within the 1250-pt window. However, apparently all of our importance-assessed articles (ie the core articles) should get an extra 99 points. The following articles therefore should be added:


 * Blowup
 * Vivre sa vie
 * M (1931 film)
 * The Night of the Hunter (film)
 * Wings of Desire
 * Intolerance (film)
 * The 400 Blows
 * The Crowd
 * Mean Streets
 * Do the Right Thing
 * Sweet Smell of Success
 * The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
 * To Kill a Mockingbird (film)
 * La strada (film)
 * The Conformist (film)
 * Fanny and Alexander
 * Shane (film)
 * Amarcord
 * Broken Blossoms
 * Kagemusha
 * I vitelloni
 * Notorious (1946 film)
 * The Blue Angel
 * Duck Soup
 * In the Mood for Love
 * The Quiet Man
 * The 39 Steps (1935 film)
 * The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie
 * The General (1927 film)
 * 1900 (film)
 * Rio Bravo (film)
 * Videodrome
 * Persona (1966 film)
 * The Conversation
 * My Darling Clementine
 * Visual effects
 * Bringing Up Baby
 * Nashville (film)
 * Rome, Open City
 * Throne of Blood
 * Crash (1996 film)
 * Fitzcarraldo
 * Ikiru
 * A Night at the Opera (film)
 * Belle de jour
 * Jules and Jim
 * Out of the Past
 * Screenwriting
 * The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp
 * The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (film)
 * MTV Movie Awards
 * L'Age d'Or
 * Farewell My Concubine (film)
 * His Girl Friday
 * Monsieur Verdoux
 * Scenes from a Marriage
 * Pusan International Film Festival
 * Atlantic City (film)
 * Touch of Evil
 * Golden Lion
 * Crimes and Misdemeanors
 * Nights of Cabiria
 * Atanarjuat
 * Don't Look Now
 * Raise the Red Lantern

So that's an additional 65 films, for a grand total of 266, which makes for 38 per coordinator (including those already on your lists). I'll add these accordingly in a bit. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Update
The selected revisions, as of now, have been incorporated into the SelectionBot subpage located here. Although today is technically the deadline, I imagine that it may still be some time before all of the revisions are checked, so if you haven't finished your list yet, please do hurry up and submit your article revisons on that page. Many thanks to those of you who already did most or all of your lists. Editors who completed theirs will receive the Silver Reel (Service Award, 2nd Class), while editors who had accomplished most of their list before the deadline will receive the Bronze Reel (Service Award, 3rd Class). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Finished... sorry for the belated performance; was too touch-and-go on Wikipedia lately to sit down and get this done. Guess I perform under pressure. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Erik! No worries - it still matters, regardless. Could I just ask you, though, if you could place them in their proper place now? The instructions are at the top of this subheading. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am checking in from a biz trip. Everything is in place -- all the articles check out.  I added and deleted where necessary -- my set is ready to go. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Added and deleted where necessary? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, GS. And tagged, too.  A lot of little bits of clean-up, but I also caught a real boo-boo -- someone insisted "To Kill a Mockingbird" was a public domain film (eeek, even Atticus Finch couldn't defend that!). Ecoleetage (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, it was just a bit unclear whether you were referring to the content within the articles or the 0.7 article list itself. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Idea on new task force
Question: does anyone feel there is a need for a new task force on Race films, the independently-produced productions made exclusively in the first half of the 20th century for African Americans? I've notice a great many well-known films from this genre are absent from Wikipedia, hence my asking. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What would the task force structure add to this which topic coordination, for example, wouldn't? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That is why I am raising the question -- what is the best way to provide proper coverage for this subject? What would you recommend? Ecoleetage (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Future films organization
As I've now announced on the future films department, we're very close to having the banner able to categorize our future films by release month and year, and to identify any articles lacking the parameters needed to accomplish this. Despite some last-minute hiccups, I anticipate that this will go functional within the next day or two at the latest. Much like assessment, although this will be somewhat burdensome at the start for the department, once all the current films have been appropriately tagged, regular maintenance will become vastly easier. In particular, new and untagged Future-class articles can be found immediately, and films about to be released or already released will be accessible through special categories created for this purpose. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Topic workshop, again
I've basically finished my topic workshop draft, and it can be started whenever the coordinators give their approval. For a sample of a functioning topic workshop, you can see the topic workshop for WP:ANIME, which I made about a month ago. Given that the film project has a good deal more members making quality content, I can see the film project's topic workshop being more productive, but it's a good comparison. Feel free to propose a few topics to fill up the page; the whole purpose of the workshop is to give visibility to possible topics, no matter how impossible you may think they are. Cheers, — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 06:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done! It looks far along enough that you should definitely bring it into the project now. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think Eco and Erik had potential topics they were thinking of doing, so I'll let them list the topics so the list of topics can be a bit more substantive before moving it into the project. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 07:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is very well done. I had mentioned race films as a potential topic, but I wonder if that would be too esoteric for many people.  Likewise, I was toying with the idea of a "great directors/overlooked films" -- having upgraded articles on several Orson Welles films and on Kubrick's "Fear and Desire" (and I am planning to upgrade George Stevens' "The Greatest Story Ever Told," too) I thought it might be interesting to focus on the under the radar stuff from the legendary filmmakers.  But, again, that might be too esoteric for some people. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved it into the project, and I'll put a notice on the announcements board and the project talk. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 04:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Coming back to this, I've been extremely busy as of late, so I haven't had the time to promote the topic workshop. Anyways, if you have an idea, even a remote idea of a topic, please propose it. If you know people that are working on a group of related articles, tell them about this. The whole point of the workshop is to encourage the creation of quality content. The GTs and FTs are gravy on top of this. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 08:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Devolving peer review
As per prior conversation, I'd like to propose devolving peer review back into the main PR. Our review department will continue to transclude film-related PRs from the general PR location at WP:PR, but we will no longer offer a segregated service. I personally feel that this is for the best, since it allows the PRs to have to full benefit of the new automated tools of the general PR process, gives them site-wide coverage in the main pool, and also eliminates a sizeable amount of bureaucracy from our end - and unnecessarily redundant bureaucracy at that. Please let me know your thoughts either way, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

IMDb...again
As anyone who has been following much of the conversation on the project talk page and the infobox talk page may know by now, the IMDb/RS question has again become very prominent in the weeks after I first raised this here. I believe that this reinforces ever more strongly the high-priority to thoroughly and unambiguously clarify the place that the IMDb does and does not have here. Since this debate keeps on being aroused in multiple locations (individual talk pages, the RS noticeboard, template talk pages, the project), this requires a centralized discussion. However, it probably would be advisable at this juncture not to simply impose this at a coordinator level, but rather to have a comprehensive, open, and transparent RfC on the matter. Many of our coordinators have had considerable experience in these discussions and have some striking insight and strong arguments on this issue, and it would be excellent if a clear, cogent, and penetrating case could be drafted up by them either collectively or individually. Having a healthy amount of input from both within and without the project certainly would offer an excellent mix of fresh perspective with experienced insight. Thoughts? (Not on the IMDb itself, but rather the idea of an RfC.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Playing the devil's advocate: what do we gain by having an RfC? Will this be the final word on the subject once the RfC is settled? And is there a signficant bloc of editors who are agitating for such an action? Ecoleetage (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Final final? No, of course not - nothing on wiki is - but definitive, yes it could be. Something with a large enough input which is clearly and fairly run would tend to settle the issue for an extended period of time, instead of these interminable rehashings of the question that rarely extend beyond a half dozen editors. Given the recent activity, I think that this is in order, and I am not the first to have proposed it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm conflicted. On the one hand, it would be good to see an end to this "once and for all", but I'm concerned that any RfC discussion would become bogged down in argument and pointless repetition in much the same way as the one at Template talk:Infobox Film did recently when all we were trying to do was remove the IMDb link. Too many cooks and all that. IMO, we have enough consensus in the WT:FILM and WT:MOSFILM archives to go ahead and add something to "our" guideline. I propose we simply come up with some wording and make one last post at WT:MOSFILM asking for comments on the wording. Steve  T • C 22:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if it is not final final, then I would not be supportive of an RfC -- the train has to stop someplace. I share Steve's concern about another endless debate and his proposed solution. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but my point was that this is wiki - nothing is ever final final - nothing. Even pillars like WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV can be (and regularly are) changed - albeit normally in minor ways. This would be, well, mostly final, assuming that we yield a sizable number of editors. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Community motivation and expansion
I have been thinking about how to motivate and expand this community since there is not much collaboration in the structure that WikiProject Films provides with article assessments and task forces. We have a good setup, but what value does it have if nobody uses it? We should survey members of the community to understand how they feel about WikiProject Films, as was brought up in a discussion above. We can ask questions like those of involvement at WT:FILM: (i) "Do you have Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films on your watchlist? Why or why not?" (ii) "Do you feel comfortable participating in topics at the talk page?" and (iii) "What do you think would make you feel more part of the community?" With a limited set of questions like these, we can assess the outside perspective and make changes to be more accommodating. This leads to my second thought, outreach. We can use the feedback to conduct a more active outreach campaign. For example, we can formalize the process and contact editors who have contributed significantly to film articles. It may be more useful to have a lighter template than the current one... design one that is lighter in color and more welcoming in tone. ("If you want to ask anything about writing film articles, please come by our talk page and do so!") We will not get everyone into the fold, but if we contact more potential community members, the chances of expanding our membership will improve. The questionnaire and outreach could encourage more involvement, which I think would help shape any bureaucratic tasks we have in mind. — Erik (talk • contrib) 18:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I like your suggestions so far, but perhaps a few more:
 * What does membership in the project mean to you?
 * Describe your film-related editing activities. How frequently do you do them?
 * Do you participate in project discussions? If yes, how often? If no, why not?
 * Do you participate in project activities, departments, or task forces? If yes, which and how often? If no, why not?
 * Does participation seem easy or difficult? Feel free to go into detail.
 * Do you work within other WikiProjects? If so, how does WikiProject Film compare?
 * What else could we do to increase your participation in the project?
 * Is there anything you think we should be doing differently?
 * Is there anything else you would like to add?
 * Some of these questions (or their follow-ups) are needed so that we can gauge the responses against general participation level on Wikipedia. If many of our editors are just simply not that active to begin with, our expectations need to be generally recalibrated. (Although obviously we can then focus on activities that are more likely to awaken "hibernating" editors.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * These questions are great! I only offered a few suggestions in my initial message, but I think yours is definitely very comprehensive!  I think that it would definitely help us figure out what is important to do for this WikiProject.  Here is another thought... we should ask some questions or provide some statements for which there can be a quantifiable answer.  For example, (1) being Strongly Disagree and (5) being Strongly Agree, and the levels in between.  If we did this for some of the more important questions, we could combine the quantifiable answers to see how it balances out as a community.  I think, though, that we should present the questionnaire as a pretty concise one so an editor is not put off by how many questions to answer.  Any thoughts on how to present it and how to gather results?  I'm trying to envision how the project space can be used in this fashion... — Erik  (talk • contrib) 02:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we're getting closer to sending this out. Do we want to send it along with the newsletter at the end of the month (not in the newsletter itself), or do we want to send it earlier? It seems we already have all of the questions we need, now we just need interested members to fill it out. Perhaps we could also raise questions to determine if editors are open to a collaboration of the week/month or are interested in participating in any drives. It was unfortunate to see not too much progress for the 0.7 list articles, and hopefully we can determine how the project can best serve its members in working on improving content to higher levels. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That reminds me, would it also be worth asking "Do you read the Project newsletter?" Steve  T • C 00:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Another factor that needs to be considered, I think, is that film is a topic that is more likely to attract "dabblers". When someone signs up to work on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, for instance, I would expect that they usually have considerable experience with the subject, including at least several years of post-college education specializing in the topic (or something close to it). My assumption is that this simply isn't the case with our project - if anything, we are more likely to have a lower average age of participants. Additionally, many of them may simply have signed up because they consider themselves film buffs, but may not actually do substantial editing work. This isn't a judgement on any of our members, but I think that the topic itself by its nature simply is going to have a lower average commitment. (I would imagine that this is also the case with similar topics, such as other large-scale pop culture projects.) If this is the case, then we have two (potentially divergent) goals: to foster new members towards more activity as well as to identify our most productive and valuable members and continue to help facilitating their work and make them appreciated. Both are a matter of nurturing, of course. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your assessment makes sense, Girolamo. I think the questionnaire could help determine what will hook some of the dabblers and see if they are interested in making major contributions.  I am not sure if I agree that the two goals are potentially divergent.  One goal seems to grow into the other.
 * Do we want to get this questionnaire out by the December 2008 newsletter? Do we want to hold it off until the January 2009 newsletter to fine-tune it?  I would prefer the latter because we still need to figure out how to best conduct it and gather results.  In rolling out the newsletter, we can modify the template used to mention the questionnaire in the message on the editor's talk page.  That way, the editor will know right away that there is something new and not overlook the newsletter for whatever reason.  Exposure on WT:FILM will work as well.  Should we look out for dabblers on "recent changes" pages for film articles and see if they can take the questionnaire, too?  Wasn't sure if that would hurt a "randomized" nature.
 * Also, how do we gather results? We can have a /Questionnaire 1 page, but should all editors' responses be aggregated there?  Or should there be subpages for each editor's response, maybe alphabetic range?  (A-M, N-Z, or a further breakdown.)  Also, let's try to set up some of the above questions so they are quantifiable, like how many people agree or disagree that the WikiProject Films talk page is too overwhelming. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problems asking people outside of the project, as this may help us indicate if we need to make changes to the project to encourage membership. I think we should send the questionnaire out with this month's newsletter since we seem to already have all of the questions ready and know what our potential group of respondents are. We should just develop several pages and split it up by portions of the alphabet so members can add all of their responses. Splitting it up by individual editors may result in too many pages, depending on the amount of feedback we receive. However, attempting to put all of the questions on one page will be a hassle or having a question per page may discourage members from answering all of the questions. But if we do one question per page, we can just put a link on the top of the page, guiding them to the next page to answer the next question. Anyway, I don't think we need to wait another month to send this out. We just need to develop the pages and advertise it as much as possible. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it too off-the-wall to consider a podcast related to this WikiProject? People love to talk about films, so it would seem like a natural subject. Of course, the question remains about who would host/produce it. But if we iron out those details, I think it could help spark interest in the WikiProject. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how a podcast would be received! I think we should work on expanding the size of the community first (with an outreach campaign) so our reach is not small. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Ambitious, aren't we? :) Let's create WikiProject Films/Questionnaire 1 (assuming that we see a future in these questionnaires), and maybe have a subpage for every five letters (last subpage being six letters with U through Z).  We could set up the questions on a separate page to be transcluded to the main page and the sub-pages.  The editor can copy and paste their copy of the questionnaire to the "top" of the sub-page and answer it.  Probably could just ask them to bold their answer in a quantifiable question, like this:


 * Or some other kind of formatting. I think it would be best to have all the questions on one page, especially considering how many we've suggested above. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That looks like it will work. We should encourage participants to include as much detail as possible to the responses to explain their rationales. Otherwise just simple approval/disagreements may not be that helpful in gauging the members' responses to our questions. I'd say go ahead and create the questionnaire as you described it and we can all help you tinker with it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have started WikiProject Films/Questionnaire 1. We can hold discussion on the questionnaire's talk page instead of here to prepare the questionnaire. If those interested in participating could please watchlist the questionnaire, we can focus on structuring, wording, and distribution. I was also thinking that once we have a rough layout, we can invite other editors through the community talk page to take a look at it. Perhaps there is some insight to be had that could be incorporated. — Erik (talk • contrib) 16:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * N2020, you sure about getting it out for the December 2008 newsletter? :) I had a feeling that the holidays would occupy most of us... — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:32, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that early January may be ideal - everyone starts returning/recovering from their holiday break fairly quickly after New Years', but typically workloads are light enough that it takes a while for things to return to full speed. That would be a good moment to ask people to donate a little bit of their time to answering a questionnaire, right? :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I lost this discussion in my watchlist. I'll still have the newsletter done in time, and I'll include an announcement for members to keep an eye out for the questionnaire whenever we're ready to distribute it. Maybe the first week or two in January would be best. Then we can shoot for the Tag & Assess to go for late January or February. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I've revised the set to have 11 questions, and I've set up a sub-page. Please let me know if there are any other questions that could be asked, and if the sub-page adequately guides an editor in filling out a questionnaire. — Erik (talk • contrib) 21:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I like how it looks. For the last question would we want to word it so that members can suggest new ways to better improve the project, such as "Do you have any suggestions for improving any part of the project?"? Or do you think that is too similar to #9? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno, I think your alternative might be too restrictive in scope - the more general an "anything else?" question is, the freer they may feel to discuss other thoughts which they want to say. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying. I had figured that the current wording would only have respondents mention elements of the project that they liked/disliked, comments about other members, experiences with the project, etc. With the wording I suggested I figured it would push them a little harder to be willing to suggest new improvements to the project. However, I'm fine with how it is currently worded if you guys are okay with it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:18, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So what's the status on this now? Are we about ready to launch? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I brought the setup of the sub-page into the main page. As far as I can tell, we're okay to go.  Do we need to provide any instructions to encourage distributing the questionnaire to members that may not be on WT:FILM or receive the newsletter? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe... Perhaps we can take advantage of a few places on the community portal to get word out. And a quick notice or note on the questionnaire itself that it's open to non-members, etc. What did you have in mind? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We could also add a notice to all WP:FILMS' respective pages like we had for the coordinator elections. In addition, if we could modify the film banner to mention that the questionnaire was open, perhaps some non-members may be interested in taking it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those suggestions sound excellent. We might also need some minor tweakage to the questionnaire's language to address the fact that not all respondents are members. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the current language looks alright. Should we be able to send this out in the next day or so? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's do it. I was thinking that I could answer the questions myself to kind of show the way... do you think that's necessary? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 23:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. I'm sure most can figure it out, but we're interested in hearing your opinions as well! --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to leave a comment on Cbrown1023's talk page, asking if his bot can send out the notice. The message will say:
 * "As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!"

Does that look like it will work? Feel free to tinker with it. Once I've got one or two approvals, I'll send it off for BrownBot to take over. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I left a message on his talk page. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He said he'll be sending it out later today. We can probably start adding those notices to the top of the pages like we did for the coordinator elections also. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk page sections and task forces
I've been a bit concerned about some of the task forces for a while now, it also seems like the main project talk page gets very cluttered with small items which are not necessarily project-wide concerns. I was looking over MilHist again, as they have a similar structure, and I noticed that the top of WT:MILHIST has this:

At the moment, I've been copying some of our recent sections which are more announcement-like and less discussion-based into the relevant task forces' talk pages, but it seems logical that if we actually move these threads instead of mirroring them, then they are more likely to both give the task forces a more obvious purpose as well as making it easier for editors who are only interested in certain topics to monitor the germane issues without a forest of other sections they may have no curiosity about. The project talk page would then serve for project-wide discussions.

Any thoughts regarding this? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is hard to tell how most editors feel about task forces. I think it is less about discussions being too centralized and more about editors not seeing the direct benefits of the task forces.  I do not think that WT:FILM is too overwhelmed with small items at this time.  They serve more as heads-up for an ongoing issue elsewhere.  If discussion took place on the talk page about an issue with a specific article, that would be problematic.  It's a way to get additional opinions, and we don't suffer from groupthink enough that someone would consider the heads-up canvassing.  I foresee better usage of task forces if we succeed in an outreach campaign and generate a higher rate of discussions, at which time we can fork the relevant topics to the relevant task force talk pages. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 01:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problems with the posts on the main project's talk page. It may inspire members to join a task force after a discussion. With many of our task forces only having a few members (and the members possibly not watching the talk page), putting the problem in the eyes of more of our members should assist in solving a problem easier and in a quicker manner. In addition, after this survey, we can get a better representation of what members think of the task forces to determine if we should be requiring the location of the posts to be on the talk page of the respective task forces. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)