Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Coordinators/Archive 4


 * New department proposal (January 6, 2009) – Discussion that led to the creation of WikiProject Films/Resources
 * Rather extraordinary episode with Eco (January 16, 2009) – Ban of coordinator led to  being co-opted by other coordinators
 * Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Article alerts (January 21, 2009) – Notice of WikiProject Films/Article alerts
 * Peer review question (January 21, 2009) – Clarification about WikiProject Films and its relationship with Wikipedia's peer reviews
 * Unassessed articles (January 24, 2009) – Discussion about over 1,500 unassessed articles; unclear of outcome
 * Talk:By the Sword (film) (January 25, 2009) – Issue with removal of Film template from Talk:By the Sword (film), leading to discussion about improving the appearance of the template depending on the filled parameters (such as Stub-class)
 * Banner – Notice that banner coding was updated to enable "small" presentation; see Talk:By the Sword (film)


 * Concluding the questionnaire (January 27, 2009) – Discussion to extend the questionnaire and to advertise it through Film template for a short time
 * Final straw (January 28, 2009) – calls unsuccessfully for Girolamo Savonarola's head on a platter
 * C-Class revisited (January 31, 2009) – Discussion to include C-class assessment on the coordinators' side; C-class was not added
 * New toys (February 2, 2009) – Presentation of tools that give a better look at articles in the scope of WikiProject Films
 * Revising the parameters (February 4, 2009) – Discussion to revise parameters in Film template
 * Update


 * Core anniversary articles (February 6, 2009) – Proposal to improve core articles for their anniversaries and to reward primary editors with specific barnstars; inconclusive
 * WP:NFF (February 9, 2009) – Discussion about WP:NFF being challenged at AfDs of films not yet being produced; inconclusive and does not seem a critical matter
 * Archiving peer reviews? (February 14, 2009) – Query about WikiProject Films and peer reviews
 * Suddenly, elections... (February 21, 2009) – Discussion for new election and changes to the process
 * Questionnaire results (February 23, 2009) – Notice of questionnaire's results being tallied and presented
 * Coordinators' working group (February 26, 2009) – Notice about WikiProject Council/Assessment working group
 * Scrubbing task force membership lists (March 8, 2009) – Discussion to separate active members from inactive members by September 2009 election and discussion about listing task force members in main list
 * No incumbents running? (March 8, 2009) – Discussion about advertising election and modifying Film template to advertise it
 * Renaming the banner? (March 9, 2009) – Discussion to rename Film to WikiProject Films; see Template talk:Film
 * B-Class checklists (March 14, 2009) – Comment about B-class checklists being filled; notice about existence of WPFILMS B-Class review
 * Possible vandalism? (March 16, 2009) – Issue with coordinator candidate (indefinitely banned later as sockpuppet) canvassing other candidates for !votes
 * Userbox (March 19, 2009) – Discussion about userboxes for coordinators; did not reach conclusion
 * A-class assessment requests (March 20, 2009) – Request to assess articles for A-class status

New department proposal
After recently looking at WP:MILHIST, a project that we have borrowed many ideas from (as well as improved on them), and seeing the new personal library department they added, I think we could use a similar department as well. I've been thinking about adding something like this for a while, and have seen discussions in the past about listing potential websites members could look to for sourcing articles they were working on. With the advent of VHS, DVDs, and now Blu-rays, we have a vast amount of information available for sourcing material on Wikipedia. Special features including commentaries and featurettes provide background on a film's production history, marketing choices, obviously plot, as well as other aspects of a film.

Within the department, each member could provide a link to a list of VHS/DVD/Blu-rays that they own (along with mentioning specific editions since some features are only present on a few editions of a home video release). Each member could list them on a subpage or link to a website database (we can mention suggestions of free sites). Members would be able to contact one more members (if necessary) that own the respective home video format and request information about plot summaries, special features, commentaries, and/or screenshots. Each member's library could also include (or on a separate sub-page) a list of film-related books, journals, magazines, and/or library/website subscriptions they have access to. We could invite the possibility of members lending home video/books to another member, but that's obviously going to have to be at the owner's discretion. On the department's talk page, members could request information about a home video/print source and if it is watchlisted by many members, they could help the member find information for their respective article.

In addition, this department could include lists of various websites that are reliable and can be used to source/find information. It could include basic sites that are used in most articles (such as Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes, etc.) This could be beneficial, especially for new members, for expanding articles. We are always having problems with having new members sourcing material from IMDB or other non-reliable sources, and if we provide a good starting point, we can gradually shift away from this. Sites could be listed by the respective sections (production, awards, box office, reception, etc.) which will guide editors in improving/adding new sections to articles.

We would want to stress that this would not be a place to buy/sell/trade. If we get enough participation, every year we can check to make sure that the lists are up-to-date based on active members. Who knows, maybe we can create a new award (or give one of our current ones) for someone who goes out of their way to help members with home video/print sources. I think this would be a great way to increase involvement/coordination among members while also improving the quality of our articles. I wanted to run this by you guys to see what you think and determine if it is a reasonable thing to do for our project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. I particularly agree with your suggestion of making this a guide for reliable sources (similar to say WP:VG/S). — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 08:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been keeping an eye on WP:MHL with an view towards something similar. Should we maybe expand the idea to a larger Resources department, with a Libraries section? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I definitely think that we could use a "Resources" page with the "Libraries" section. There are websites like FilmReference.com and the Media Resources Center Movie Database that deserve more attention.  I have access to some databases, too, so I'd be happy to help people find any useful nuggets from them, as I've done sporadically with a few members. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll try to start something later tonight (unless one of you guys want to start it). Then we can go from there. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have this which definitely could use some more expansion. Feel free to change anything and everything prior to moving it to mainspace. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you think of more sites to add to the list? Also, feel free to add your libraries so that members will have a better model to go off of. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There's IndieWire and Filmmaker Magazine  covering independent films. — 97198 (talk) 05:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, added both of those. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I started the page, which can now be found at WikiProject Films/Resources. It still can use additional sources and members' libraries. I'll leave it open for a few more days if you guys want to add anything else to it and then I'll mention it in the announcements for all members. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rather extraordinary episode with Eco
Well, we're minus one coordinator after Ecoleetage decided to call the employer of a person who voted "oppose" on his RfA to claim that he was harassing him. As such, Eco has retired and for that matter, been indefblocked. See the ANI case here. As these are rather serious allegations, I doubt he'll be coming back to Wikipedia anytime soon. In any case, we have a coordinator slot open. In the recent election, Limetolime received the next-most votes, but then again, as he was the only other person (and received lackluster support dealing with the fact that he's rarely active), it's not really a big feat. In any case, do we simply want to offer him the coordinator job or hold another mini-election? IMO, I'd prefer the latter and we possibly could get a better variety of options for Eco's slot. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 22:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be too much effort to hold a mini-election, especially with a questionnaire being underway. Let's see if Limetolime has any interest in filling the slot.  If not, we can see what other options can be explored. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 23:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that we have the prerogative to co-opt coordinators at our discretion - this happened before with Creamy3's blocking, IIRC, and has also been standing precedent at several other coordinator-run WikiProjects. Why not pick someone who we already work with often and who has also shown considerable initiative? As such, I'd like to nominate, who's done a lot of great work of a coordinator-worthy nature for some time now, mainly in the background. His recent efforts on WP:BOTREQ are worthy of an award, regardless. Thoughts? Other nominees you'd like to put forward? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to say, since I had not really reviewed WP:FILMC in a while, I had this vague notion that PC78 was already a coordinator like us. :P I think that PC78 has been a good participant in discussions and has provided a few useful tools for the future films department, which is a plus in my book.  I have no problem with this.  Ultimately, though, I don't want this to be such an exclusive circle... it would be nice for others to drop by with their thoughts about certain topics. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 04:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Exclusive circle? I thought our secret fortress behind the Hollywood sign in LA was open to anyone. I guess we won't need those decoder rings anymore. I'm fine with including PC78, I don't see any reason for opposing the idea. He's a really great editor and has been doing some amazing work for the project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (re Erik) Well, which others and how should we decide them? I understand your concerns, but ultimately we have to choose on some principle, and a meritocratic one seems - IMHO - obvious. By that nature, it inevitably will be someone whom we work with frequently, but I don't necessarily see how the leap to "exclusive circle" is made, unless I'm not aware of some other extra-WikiProject associations between our coordinators. Editors define their level of involvement by if and how they choose to participate, both in this project and this site - in that sense, we're not choosing them as much as they are choosing to make themselves into prime candidates by virtue of their contributions. I'm not wedded to my proposal, but I'd like to see an alternative idea (aside from Limetolime, unless you wish to discuss that further) floated if you have one. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that PC78 would be a fine choice, should he wish to make what he pretty much does already more official. Alternatively, it's only March when fresh elections will be rolling along, so it's not too long to wait if we want to just carry on as we are. Steve  T • C 09:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * True, but since those elections won't be concluded until the end of March, we're talking about something between a half and a third of the term. Two and a half months is a large enough timeframe to make filling the spot desirable, IMO. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * GS, I was trying to foresee how such an appointment would be perceived by others. For all we know, there may be editors who are interested in helping out but have not been within our sights.  I don't know a better course of action, though, so it is just food for thought.  Like Steve said, new elections are not so far away, so we should treat it as an interim position.  If PC78 is the valued choice, then let's ask about his interest, and we can make an announcement about the replacement, both on WT:FILM and in the next newsletter.  Transparency is the way to go, and we'll see if there are any unforeseen issues with our conduct that surface.  Perhaps in the end, I am just being paranoid about reasonable treatment for how these silly titles are handled. :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns, but I think that we are within our rights, and as this conversation has been held entirely on-wiki, we have transparency. It would, of course, be an interim appointment, as all of our mandates only extend until the conclusion of the next election. We should probably more explicitly formalize some of this on the coordinator page before the next elections round, in consultation with the community. At the moment, we now stand with six coordinators, four of whom support this appointment, with no opposition (or other comment) from Sephiroth or Bzuk. Is this sufficient to go ahead and ask PC78? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Reviewed his contributions and he looks pretty solid. As to whether it's "within our rights", I would say that it is. We were chosen by the members of the project because they thought we had the ability to do something like this. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 08:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Offered and accepted. Welcome to the coordinatorship, PC78! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Giro and indeed everyone for the kind words! It's nice to be appreciated and so when the offer came in I didn't really think twice about accepting. I'm looking forward to pitching in and doing whatever it is we, erm, do! :) PC78 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Is someone thinking of making an announcement at WT:FILM, y'know, before someone says "Hey! When did that happen?" or something? :) PC78 (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We could do that. I was okay with just announcing it in the newsletter. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That works too I guess. I'd just rather not have other members feel like they were left out of the loop, as it were. PC78 (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Films/Article alerts
This is just something I stumbled across earlier today, so I decided to set one up for our project. It's an automated listing of article discussions relevant to this project, controlled via the template I added to the foot of the main page (like the similar cleanup listing we have). There's a couple of adjustable parameters should anyone feel inclined to tinker; currently it's set to the default, which lists all open discussions and keeps any closed discussions on the page for 14 days. If need be I believe we can set up similar listings for each of the task forces. Should come in handy for keeping track of things! PC78 (talk) 00:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's incredibly useful; thanks! Worth publicising at WT:FILM? Steve  T • C 00:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, incredible indeed! Very much worth publicizing (although I think PC78 is already one step ahead of us...) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone wants to mention it at WT:FILM they can; I mentioned it here because I figure we're the ones who will get the most use out of it. :) I've already slipped a link into the project sidebar, and perhaps Nehrams could put it in the newsletter? PC78 (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me! I was wondering, how often will that page refresh?  Also, I've been thinking, maybe we could develop some kind of portal template in which the major links are instantly viewable... kind of like an expanded sidebar for the whole screen?  All these spiffy tools are cool but not really the kind to follow on one's watchlist, which is why I think having a template would help with immediate accessibility, especially for coordinators. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it's updated daily. :) As for your idea, do you mean like a contents page for the project? PC78 (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you know if A-class reviews could be added to the page? That would be helpful for keeping track of as well. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I've asked. I would guess that it might be a problem in that there is no central venue for A-Class reviews, unlike WP:AfD or WP:GAC or whatever, it's just something we host ourselves. PC78 (talk) 02:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Peer review question
Regarding a comment posted by Giro above ("Devolving peer review"), am I to believe that we no longer host our own peer reviews and instead direct people to WP:PR? I ask in relation to WikiProject Films/Peer review/Pankh (film), which, if I've got this right, shouldn't be there.

Also, looking at that article's talk page, it seems there has been a bit of tussle between Giro, who first gave it a Start-Class assessment and then Stub-Class, and User:Legolas2186 who has since changed it to B-Class. The article itself, however, suggests that the film has not yet been released, which would make it Future-Class. PC78 (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hadn't noticed that, actually! I just downgraded the B-class since it had failed B-class criteria. But if it hasn't been released, then no, it shouldn't have any classification other than Future. I noticed that this film didn't follow the PR procedure, but I didn't feel like starting a proper PR on someone else's behalf, so it's been handled old-school-style. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I considered moving it to the proper venue myself, but decided it wasn't worth the trouble. It's not so much a request for peer review anyway, more a request for B-Class assessment. As for the article, I've given it a Future-Class rating and made a note on the talk page. PC78 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Unassessed articles
I don't know if anyone has noticed yet, but a request I made the other week to have a bot do some tagging for this project finally kicked in, and as such we now have about 1500 unassessed articles. Naturally I've been doing a bit already, but getting this number back down to zero will be no small task. I'm just wondering what people's thoughts are, whether this is something that should be prioritised or not. PC78 (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Very high priority - as they've gone unnoticed this long, there's a good chance that many of these articles have serious issues. Perhaps we could use this as an opportunity to re-engage our members in an open group task? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cock, it's still going (now around 2200); I've asked to be notified once it's finished. Do you think it's something that could be tied into the "tag & assess" drive that's been mentioned above, or do we need something else? PC78 (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How exactly is it finding these articles? It looks like it may be that a large proportion are mis-tags (such as plays or redirects). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was going to suggest as PC78 did of having it be tied in with the tag & assess drive. Perhaps when we do the drive we can add a parameter to the banner that indicates the last time the article was reviewed? In the future, that would help us keep track of articles that have been reviewed a few years back that should probably be revisited. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's based on their categorisation in a "year film" category (seemed like a safe bet when I made the proposal, but I honestly didn't anticipate this number of articles). From what I've seen myself, most of these are actual films. However, as you say there are some plays/books/etc. articles; typically these seem to be where the article covers a film adaptation which doesn't have it's own article. Also there are a number of animated shorts (Pink Panther, Betty Boo, Tom & Jerry, Disney, etc.); I've seen articles such as these tagged for this project before, but if they don't belong then there are some article categorisation issues that we may need to tackle. Nehrams, where are we at with the tag & assess drive? PC78 (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:By the Sword (film)
User:Gimmetrow has twice remove the project banner from this page, and looking at the page history I see there has been a history of this. Anyone know how to handle such a case? PC78 (talk) 01:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've consulted the Council guide, and while projects don't own articles, they do have the exclusive right to define their scope and hence their tagging. The guide also states that if a third party adds a banner to a talk page and a project member deletes the banner, to respect the deletion, so presumably the opposite also applies (ie what the project tags is considered part of the project). I'm happy to throw in my two cents if you want, but if this becomes a more philosophical argument, then either Council, RfC, or ANI are logically the next steps. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's see. I think I'm slowly getting to the root of this problem; his last comments on my talk page suggest that the banner is not displaying properly on his screen. I've asked him for more info. PC78 (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What PC78 has failed to mention is that the talk page had the links and categories used by the project, just not the template, and it has had these categories for about a year and a half without any complaints. PC78 repeatedly edit-warred and still refuses to explain why the template is needed. PC78 has repeatedly and studiously avoided explaining why he is edit warring, and has used automated tools to advance the edit war. Gimmetrow 03:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The comments I've posted on your talk page are there for all to see; I have answered your questions, but you have not answered mine. You've suggested that the banner is not displaying properly on your screen, but when I asked you for help you refused. If there is a bug in the banner then it needs to be fixed, and at this moment you're the key to helping us do that. An edit war takes two, but neither of us have violated WP:3RR. I can assure you that I use no automated tools in my editing. PC78 (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Because the template also exists to make editors aware of the project, its task forces, prior reviews, outstanding issues, and offer advice on how to improve it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * HotCat. And no, you have still not explained why the template is needed, when the effects of the template (the category and link) were already there. Do you really think every talk page needs pages of automated "advice" of questionable value that nobody reads? Gimmetrow 03:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the attacks and AGF. Good day. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Keep the WikiProject template, which is completely standard across talk pages, both for film and other topics. "Looks horrible" is not a valid excuse for removal of the template that provides access to links that help improve film articles.  If the editor has an issue with WikiProject templates in general, then he or she can raise it at a broader forum. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 03:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The link to project was there. First we need to deal with a wikiproject "coordinator" who edit wars with automated tools, a blockable offense in itself, and is apparently supported in doing so by other "coordinators". Gimmetrow 03:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you felt that my use of HotCat was inapproprite here then by all means report it at the appropriate venue, but if anything it made my revert more longwinded than it otherwise needed to be. Your refusal to assist in what appears to be a legitimate problem is most discouraging. PC78 (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I still haven't seen a good explanation for why the template needed to be there, when the link and category were already there. This wikiproject template is huge - but I suppose it would be a separate fight to get it trimmed. Gimmetrow 03:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

← Since this is a technical issue, I have raised it at Village pump (technical). I imagine that this has come up before for others, so hopefully a solution can be found there. — Erik (talk • contrib) 04:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

With Javascript off it does take up a fair chunk of space; I don't know how many people switch off Javascript these days, but if it's enough that it becomes a problem, what if we instead included a link within the template to the instructions, rather than listing them outright? Steve T • C 15:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's something I think we'd be as well to address; certainly there are one or two aspects of the banner that could be trimmed. Are the instructions transcluded anywhere else besides the banner? If not, we might look at better integrating them. PC78 (talk) 15:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He's gone and edited Film without any consultation on the talk page or anywhere else. I think that this is highly unacceptable, especially on such a heavily-used template, and particularly when the admin is not in a neutral position. Is it time for ANI? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've filed an ANI. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe if we simply link to the text of Upgrading needed and Upgrading neededSB at a new a subpage of WP:FILM? This would do away with, or at least greatly reduce, the need for the large collapsible section. Whether the change would be needed is something to discuss at least; based upon my own thoroughly unscientific collation of statistics from a site I have access to the page hits of, about 1 in 20 visitors have Javascript switched off. Anyone have anything more reliable we can look at? Regardless, I'll knock something together in a sandbox shortly. Steve  T • C 21:17, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Look forward to seeing it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's less convoluted than I thought it would be, as the stub-to-start instructions in the template aren't half as long, and probably wouldn't require removal. The instructions page here) would be linked to from the template, a test for which can be seen here. Rough draft, but you see the intent. Steve  T • C 21:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * When I first created the templates for Stub to Start and Start to B, I always didn't like how long they were, but knew they needed to still cover all of the requirements. The link to the subpage should work out much better as you did in your sandbox. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was also playing about with this at Film/sandbox, but I'm fine with simply linking to the instructions. I think we should also remove the template call from the B-Class checklist; it takes up an unnecessary amount of space where a simple link to the documentation should be sufficient. PC78 (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You, er, could always use WPBannerMeta... :D I would be very surprised if there's something you can't do with it, and it does, for instance, collapse the B-Class checklist by default (obviously this won't help users without JS, but it does help for the rest of us). Just a thought :D Happy‑melon 13:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd support it in principle; the only problem I see is that we use a five point B-Class checklist, not six. PC78 (talk) 14:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (outdent) I'm in favor of Steve's implementation for advice on moving up classes. However, I believe that the remainder - include the B-Class checklist - need to be retained. Unreviewed B assessments are a common mistake, and having the code and its explanation within the template is much more helpful and realistic for usage than assuming that editors will refer back to documentation. Furthermore, this is far from the only project banner to include such instructions. When I synthesized the current banner from the old Film one and the MilHist one, I largely hewed to the MilHist structure, while retaining the old Film banner's advice on moving up from Stub to Start. As such, I agree that linking to those advice tables would be better. I also agree that this makes the template more attractive if the "small" parameter is turned out. I am not, however, convinced that the B-class checklist is disproportionately large, as it was intentionally designed to format well in those circumstances, while the advice tables were not. D'accord? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting removing the B-Class checklist, just the instruction; I believe this is how it's done in WPBannerMeta. As we speak I'm working on a revision to the banner which incorporates Steve's suggestion with a few flourishes of my own; I'll shout when I'm done and we can discuss further. PC78 (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understood you correctly - however, the instructions allow an editor to quickly copy-paste the necessary parameters along with commented out sections for what they stand for. This allows editors to quickly implement them without having to copy back to an assessment instruction or template documentation page. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as Gimmetrow's "fuck you" comments, the small parameter has always - IIRC - been designed for usage on talk pages which were already crowded with numerous notices and banners towards the top, in order to prevent the reader from having to scroll down considerably in order to encounter the threads. It was never designed for users wishing to turn off Javascript; as Happy-melon has noted, the entire site renders incorrectly in those circumstances. The logical conclusion of allowing a sole talk page banner to be small on the basis of a small percentage of readers' settings would be that not only would all of our banners need to be defaulting to "small=yes", but so should every banner across the site, period. As this is obviously not going to occur, and as the site has not been designed at any level to display properly under such browser preferences, I don't really see where the sudden hostility is coming from, why it's targeted at this banner in particular, why it's being objected to at a page or even project level, and why such an experienced user who has long been an admin and is well-versed in technical matters has decided to go off all of the sudden on this matter as if any of these issues had only just been broached yesterday, with no prior consultation or notice to the community. That really is my larger concern. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:00, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I'm every bit as frustrated as you over this issue, but I'm prepared to cut through most of the bullshit and try to find some middle ground. If we can trim the banner with no detrimental effect to our goals, then I believe we should. PC78 (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Came late to the party, but he's basically just being an ass. When consensus is overwhelmingly against a single person in this case, we don't bend over backwards to accommodate them. We have our project consensus, and frankly, there's squat that he's going to do against it when he's not offering any reason to oppose it besides "it's vandalism" and "it looks bad", both of which are hardly convincing. Let the ANI case pan out and we can move from there. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 10:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Banner
OK, have a look at Template talk:Film/sandbox: #1 and #3 are our current banner, #2 and #4 are the sandboxed version. I'll leave you to spot the differences yourselves, but most of the changes I've made affect the smaller version, i.e. trimming bits of text to make them more concise without losing their meaning. Hopefully I'm on the right track here. PC78 (talk) 03:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me; maybe include the copy-paste code on the linked instruction page and I think we'll be good to go? Steve  T • C 09:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Needs a bit of spit and polish; I'll crack on with this after work. I'll put the B-Class instructions back in, but keep them out of the small version. Are we all agreed that the Stub→Start and Start→B instructions should be linked to rather than transcluded? Any further comment on the changes I've made? PC78 (talk) 13:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm done. I'll not tag it for an edit request just yet, because although the changes I've made are largely cosmetic there are quite a few of them so feel free to chime in with any questions or objections. I am keen to move on this though, so if there are no objections by morning I'll see about making the switch. The sooner we can put this sorry saga behind us the better, but for now it's late and I'm off to bed. PC78 (talk) 04:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Banner has now been updated. PC78 (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Concluding the questionnaire
The questionnaire has had 35 participants to date. We have two options. We can conclude the questionnaire now and compile the results to present in the January 2009 newsletter. Or we could keep the questionnaire open and try to reach out to others to participate. Like I mentioned at the questionnaire's talk page, we could try out coding on film articles' talk pages that allows us to advertise the questionnaire. This should not run afoul of WP:CANVASS since we are not trying to build consensus about anything, merely getting feedback to move the WikiProject forward. I suggested coding like what can be seen at the lower right of my user page, and GS instead suggested a table above the WikiProject template. Does anyone else have other thoughts? Do we want to conclude the questionnaire or not? Let's see what we can agree on quickly, before the newsletter in a few days. — Erik (talk • contrib) 18:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Rushing out the results before the newsletter's publication might be a bit of a squeeze, so I don't think there's any harm in leaving it open a little longer. The bottom-right link is probably more suitable for our user talk pages than a main Wikiproject talk page; someone is bound to object. Better simply to go for a prominent link at the top of the page, coupled with a fresh reminder in a new message at WT:FILM. Steve  T • C 19:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It won't be a problem to compile the results. I can tally the answers to the quantitative questions and possibly graph them.  (Does anyone know whether or not Microsoft Excel graphs can be freely uploaded?  I could use OpenOffice instead.)  If we keep it open, then it won't be until the next newsletter to report the results.  This does not necessarily mean we coordinators can't start planning based on them if we finished in a week or two... we could couple the results and the new plans for the next newsletter.  What kind of actions can we take to garner more participants?  Perhaps an informal user talk page template for editors engaged in recent discussion at the Future, Stub, Start, B, GA, and  FA-class articles?  Adding a small banner atop the WikiProject Films template would be useful, too.  (Though I am kind of wanting to use lower-right icon to see the response!) — Erik  (talk • contrib) 20:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm all for extending the deadline if we're going to expand our net. A discreet table notice added to Film above the main banner might be the way to catch new eyes, IMHO. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just about to mention something about this today, glad Erik beat me to the punch. If we foresee getting some more input from other editors, then I see no problem extending the deadline. I'm all for the added notice. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * How about we set the deadline for February 14? This will be halfway through next month, and we can discuss the results and make preliminary plans to report for that month's newsletter.  Let's design the notice.  We want it to be something like a tmbox template above the Film template, right?  Will this be able to avoid causing issues with banner shells?  For personal notifications, we could create one similar to those found at WP:UTN and use   in notifying anyone who may be interested in participating. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 21:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, something like tmbox, I think. Good point about banner shells...not really certain what's the best approach, but as we're talking about only a fortnight or so, we perhaps can afford to just let it go, as it will not be a permanent issue. Perhaps some of the template gurus might have some insight? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally I would go for something inside the banner; perhaps I'm being over cautious, but I think anything else might be construed as WikiProject spam. But if you want a floating image, it might be an idea to have a look at WPBiography and see how it handles the BLP notice. PC78 (talk) 00:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Any opinion on this? PC78 (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I dig it! I like that color is used to make it stand out, and that it is within the boundaries of the WikiProject template, likely making it less controversial. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No-one else? I'll put an edit request on the template later tonight, otherwise we're going to miss the boat on this. PC78 (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - must have missed that earlier! I also agree that it's a good solution. Please do go ahead with the request. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How about a template to ask editors who participate on talk pages to fill out the questionnaire if they are interested? Doesn't have to use fancy formatting, just worded pretty welcoming and maybe use it as a semi-outreach attempt as well. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you clarify? Is this meant instead of PC78's requested edit, or in addition to it? Also, do you mean something to drop at user talk pages or as another part of the banner? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I propose this in addition to the temporary change to the banner. It would be more of a grassroots effort; if we see someone editing film articles and they have not pitched in at questionnaire, a personalized request might attract them. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:10, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably you mean non-project members? PC78 (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Banner notice has been implemented. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Only PC78 and I have participated in the questionnaire. No reason why the coordinators can't share their thoughts. :) Can the rest of you weigh in as well? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I had thought that yours was the example and PC78 did his pre-coordinator so I steered away. But you make such a compelling argument, I left my comments. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the deadline has now passed. Are we going to pull the plug on this? PC78 (talk) 13:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yessir, and I just did so. I'll be happy to put together the results and use OpenOffice to make some visually appealing graphs to freely upload.  Maybe we need a WikiProject Films category over at WikiMedia Commons?  Any ideas about how to conclude it?  The quantifiable questions can be graphed, and qualitative answers can just be listed under each related question. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. :) Once I've finished off a few things with the banner I'll see about updating it. PC78 (talk) 16:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Final straw
Per this edit it is evident that Giro has no intention of working with editors and finding a satisfactory solution. As a result of Giro's continuous condescending and insulting behaviour, I ask for his immediate resignation from all positions of responsibility within the FILMs project. Gimmetrow 11:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edit was not an acceptable solution; this is not how project banners are displayed on talk pages, as you well know. This article that you have created and contributed to is not an exception from the rest of Wikipedia. It is not your article. The banner is being worked on. I'm sorry if it's not quick enough for your liking, but I ask you to show a little more patience and cooperation. PC78 (talk) 13:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) I agree with Girolamo that your edit was not the best solution that could be implemented. Also, we who are coordinators with so-called "responsibilities" are nothing more than editors who indicate an investment of time and effort for WikiProject Films.  There is nothing to resign from.  There are those of us who have worked to find out how to present the template better, so have some dialogue with them.  The talk page is not highly frequented by anyone besides those who have become involved, so remember that this is not a matter of life or death. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 13:33, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've spent extensive time trying to accommodate the alleged needs of this project. It's difficult since you refuse to communicate those needs and continue to insult editors. Since you have provided nothing in the way of an acceptable solution, and above are even discussing making the banner larger, it's difficult to extend any further good faith here. You seem to think that non-JS editors are irrelevant. Fine. I provided a solution which has no effect on JS editors while solving the problem for the non-JS editors that you apparently don't care about. Yet Giro rejected this even as a temporary solution. Giro needs to resign immediately. Gimmetrow 15:04, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good faith is what you absolutely must need to assume here. None of us are trying to damage Wikipedia, so to imply otherwise is not conducive.  I am not sure why you think that we want to make the banner larger; from what I can tell, we are looking into linking to instructions outside the template.  Please work with us on this.  We need to focus on the content, not other contributors. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) Where are we talking about making it larger? The version tested on the page is smaller by far. It might not end up as the final version, but this is actively being worked on, so why don't we discuss that instead of calling for the resignation of someone who has no position of power from which to resign? He reverted, yes, but only once for this. The next step in the cycle is to discuss it. Steve  T • C 15:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I want to make sure I have this correct: There is not a single one of you among the "coordinators "who is willing to even *temporarily* *hide* the banner on a *single* talk page in a way that has *zero effect on the functionality of the template* as a step forward in resolving an issue of importance to an editor, *not even as a gesture*, and that despite repeated attempts and proposals by that editor, you refuse each and every one of them, refuse to make alternative proposals, and retain the option that editor interprets as offensive? Is that the case? Gimmetrow 19:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't speak for anyone but myself, but this is such a minor issue that I'm struggling to care enough one way or the other. The others coordinators' mileage may vary, but—as in all things—you'll find this combative tone less likely to lead to compromise than a more considered approach. Oh, and a better idea might be to slip the sandboxed version onto the page instead of blanking or hiding the existing one. Steve  T • C 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And yet, even though you think it's "such a minor issue", apparently not one of you is willing to let any part of it go even for a little while? One of your ilk started the combativeness, and every single attempt at compromise that I've made has been instantly rejected. You (plural) give me no reason to attempt another compromise. I thought you had shown some sense, too. Gimmetrow 19:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Gimmetrow, I have no idea why we're even arguing. I think a lot of annoyance could have been avoided if a little more time had been taken to read through the discussions on this page and the replies you've had here and elsewhere. There appear to have been several misreadings, of which this is the latest. But I'll suck it up and make my reply clearer. One: I said I don't care if you want to temporarily hide the banner. Two: Despite my not caring, I suggested what I felt was a better alternative. Steve  T • C 21:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This whole affair began when you removed the banner with no explanation, something the page history shows that you have done before, and you have been hostile and vindictive in your comments from the very start. So far as I can tell your idea of compromise is to do your own thing without any discussion and expect the rest of us to go along with it, in which case I advise you to consult a dictionary. Frankly I'm not sure why we should even care anymore, and it looks like you've managed to alienate Steve who so far has been your only ally. Clever.
 * For the last time: we are working on the banner and our efforts will make it less offensive to your eyes. In the meantime you will have to wait, though things might progress more quickly if we didn't have to spend so much time on this petty and trivial dispute. PC78 (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I like Steve's idea of putting the sandboxed version on the talk page. Any reason why we can't?  When we fine-tune the changes and make them to the main template, we can replace the sandbox template and ta-da, everyone is happy. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess we can, and if you do then use the small parameter so it takes up the minimum amount of space. I'm going to do some more work in the sandbox in a bit and hopefully get an edit request in by the end of the night. The sooner we can put this pitiful dispute out of it's misery, the better. PC78 (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Changes to the banner have now been implemented, and I've adjusted it at Talk:By the Sword (film) so it takes the minimum amount of space possible. I think we're done here. PC78 (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

C-Class revisited
Just a heads up that I'm planning to start a fresh discussion at WT:FILM regarding the adoption of C-Class for this project, ideally either today or tommorrow before the newsletter goes out. Primarily this is because my own feelings on this issue have changed, but now that C-Class is more established elsewhere I feel that the project as a whole is in a better position to make an informed decision either way. Given that it is six months since the close of the last discussion, and that we have the prospect of a tag & assess drive looming, now would seem to be the ideal time to do this.

Should I keep the proposal itself neutral (as with the last discussion) and keep my own reasons seperate? PC78 (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's up to you. :) I look forward to reading your justification for C-Class. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 19:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is definitely something that we should take care of prior to the drive. Erik, are we still up for adding the needs-production parameter as well? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made a draft of the proposal here; I'm going to sleep on it and take another look tommorrow before I post it at WT:FILM, so feel free to jump in with any crits in the meantime. :) PC78 (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposal looks good. I've seen C-class been used very effectively in other projects, and think it can be applied here as well. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 06:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Proposal is now listed at WT:FILM. Nehrams, can you add this to the newsletter? PC78 (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

(response to Nehrams2020) Sure, it would be a good idea to revisit the parameters. Should we start a separate discussion about it, or do we already know what we have? — Erik (talk • contrib) 15:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A seperate discussion wouldn't hurt, especially if we're thinking of tagging thousands of articles with another parameter. I have a few thoughts of my own regarding these parameters, one way or another. PC78 (talk) 16:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A mention has been made in the newsletter, feel free to tinker with it if you wish (or any other part of it as well). If we have a lot to discuss on the parameters, let's get another discussion going. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Any objections to extending this discussion for a further week? I sense a general feeling of disinterest one way or another so I'm probably flogging a dead horse, but I'd like to do better than a paltry three comments. PC78 (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that would be best, I'm surprised to see a lack of participation in such an important discussion. Perhaps you can move it to the bottom of the article as it is probably being swallowed up by the other discussions. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The deadline for this discussion is here again. Are we content to close it now, or would it be prudent to keep it open for an extended period (two more weeks?) so that everyone has sufficient time to have their say? A decision to implement C-Class would require a certain amount of upheaval, so it would be preferable to do it on the back of a solid concensus. PC78 (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

New toys
Just to publicise a few things I've been tinkering with recently:
 * WikiProject Films/Assessment/Overview – Don't have a home for this at the moment, so I'm open to ideas.
 * It's not a bad idea, but I have a few critiques. For one, I think it would be more useful (ideally) if the axes were flipped. However, I understand why that would actually make it less readable in actuality. Second and far more important, the total counts are not cumulative to the list, which could make it confusing for readers. No everything is covered by a task force, many articles are covered by several and thus would be double-counted, and some of these statistics include bio articles that are tagged using other banners (Australian and Indian task forces, IIRC), and thus may not be in our count at all. Maybe the last line should be something more obvious and less math-based, such as "Whole project" or along those lines or maybe even split into another similarly formatted table of one row, to indicate that this line should not be read as a tally. Dunno. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The idea was to have something a bit more representative than this (since that table doesn't include Future-Class) and to have this data in a more accessable format, i.e. one table instead of all of these. Flipping the axes would be problematic, as there is only a finite amount of screen width to accomodate a growing number of task forces. Perhaps the bottom line would be better segregated altogether?
 * Incidentally, I had noticed that some of the task forces are being used by other projects for biography articles. Is this a potential area for concern? PC78 (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WPFILMS Article count – Don't know if there's any real use for this, it was just a quickie template using some code from the above table. When transcluded it gives the number of articles currently tagged for this project, i.e..
 * Interesting - might have some use for an automatic article percentage count if needed? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just reworked the template so it can output a raw number (i.e. without the comma) for use in calculations. Incidentally, NaN% of Wikipedia articles are tagged for this project. :) PC78 (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Future film2.svg (requested at WP:GL/I) – New icon for future films based on the current project icon.
 * I'm split - I like the look of the old icon better, but since we've begun to use that one for service awards, it might not be a bad idea to start to deprecate its other instances. But I'm relatively indifferent on the whole. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WPFILMS Invite – Did this a few weeks ago. Basically it's an invitation message for prospective project members.
 * An excellent idea - I'm all for it! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it! How do we reconcile this with the presence of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach/Welcome, though?  I like the new version better in the sense that it is not too overwhelming (both in terms of content and maybe color). — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I spoke to Nehrams about it at the time. I believe the other template is more for welcoming newly signed up members, so the scope of the two is slightly different. PC78 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure we could alter the color of the Welcome banner to be similar to this one that PC78 created if we don't like the green. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Newfilmbarnstar.png (another request at WP:GL/I) – New barnstar image in case there's any interest in revamping the WikiProject Films Award. I'll raise the issue at WT:FILM once a few other more pressing discussions have been resolved.
 * We have mulled over the idea of a "medal of honor"-type award that would be more of a class above the current barnstar. Maybe needs some more/different color, though? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I requested the new image to be similar to the old, i.e. silver. Actually, there's about five or six film-related barnstar images on Commons that we could make some use of. PC78 (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that there could be more contrast to this image, especially with the gray outline of the film reel not blending well with the star. What are the other film-related barnstar images, PC78? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Here:


 * None of them appear to be used elsewhere. PC78 (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I really like the outline of the camera within the barnstar, though I don't think the design is perfect. Maybe the outline needs to be more explicit?  The blue glow is a bit much... the middle one is pretty decent in concept, but I think we could improve on the execution.  I don't know what they could replace, though... I'm not really considering such image upgrades to be of highest priority. :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Films/Future films/Article listing (request at WP:BOTREQ) – A bot generated list cross referencing all film articles rated as Future-Class against articles tagged with future film.
 * Is this going to be a regular bot task? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Not really. I spoke to the user who created it for me, and he said it can be updated as and when we need it. If we need regular updates then I can always look into it, but it's going to take time just to go through this one. :) PC78 (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is a great tool. We should prompt it up more clearly on the departmental page (which I think needs a slight overhaul anyway). — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Films/Sandbox – Still in its early stages, but will eventually become something like this as used by WP:MILHIST.
 * I think that the MilHist one gives a better idea of how this can be effective when coupled with some additional categorization based on the B-class criteria. (Which are also subcategorized to the task forces as well.) That has been a template task I've been interested in implementing in the near future. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess that ties in with what you've said elsewhere about extra categorisation in the banner for the B-Class criteria? I certainly think something like this will be useful, not just to make people aware of the cleanup categories, but to make people aware of how much work there is to be done. PC78 (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments and crits welcome! :) PC78 (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * When I saw these toys, I thought, "Santa came!" :) Thank you for your work! — Erik  (talk • contrib) 16:19, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Revising the parameters
The template has four "needs" parameters: The parameter that needs to be revised the most is  because it is more a combination of requesting cast and production information for the article. Rewriting the "Cast" section of the article guidelines is on my to-do list, so I think we could rewrite the description to be shorter and to link to the relevant section. Also, I think that we need a separate parameter to request production information (perhaps ) and link to the relevant section at the article guidelines.
 * generates: "This article needs more information about the cast and the crew, discussing the "behind the scenes" aspects of the production process, and giving insights into the casting and staffing where possible."
 * generates: "This article needs an image (preferably free) related to the subject, such as a picture of the set or a film poster. Please ensure that non-free content guidelines are properly observed."
 * generates: "This article needs an appropriate infobox template."
 * generates: "This article needs a plot summary, or the current one needs to be expanded."

As for the other parameters, I assume that everyone is fine with ? For, I am not sure if there is a tremendous need for this parameter. Images, besides the cover images, are not necessarily "staples" for film articles, as opposed to the items that the other parameters ask for. Lastly, I am okay with, but could it possibly be renamed as  , being more straightforward? Any other parameters needed? Thoughts are welcome! — Erik (talk • contrib) 00:19, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I largely agree, although a few points need addressing:
 * "needs-prod" unfortunately could be misinterpreted by some as "needs prod", so I'd rather "needs-production", despite the extra characters.
 * "needs-plot" is not a bad idea at all, and could be easily implemented. We could also get a bot to change all the synopsis instances.
 * "needs-image" - clearly the real issue here is the "needs" portion of this. But I do think that an article should have a poster or cover image if possible. Is this a matter of changing, the description, the parameter name, or just deprecating it entirely? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:33, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Changing to needs-plot would be great, I misspell "synopsis" too often when typing too fast! For the cast, clearer guidelines would help editors know what the article is looking for. As for the image, I'm sure we can't resort to "would like-image", but the need does seem excessive. "Needs-production" will work, do you have wording set up for that already? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that  is too similar to prod.  My previous thought was   (short for "background"), but I think N2020 thought that was too vague for covering production.  Revisiting this, though, maybe we could expand the intent of this parameter?  We could ask for production information, themes, reception, etc.  After all, it would probably be too much to set up parameters for each area.  As for needing an image, we could either deprecate it or rewrite the description to include a "cover" image, but I'd rather discourage such cover art for very stubby articles, since WP:NFCC says, "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe "needs-real" as in "real world context"? As for cover art/critcomm - I think there's a difference between an article with real world context which includes an screencap without commentary (bad) vs. an article without real world context yet which includes a cover image. Articles are supposed to have critical commentary and develop inherently in that direction, while articles are not required to have screencaps and do not innately trend that way. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My own thoughts on these parameters: To address Erik's main concern, I think at the very least needs-cast should be ammended to say "This article needs more information about the cast and the crew, giving insights into the casting and staffing where possible." But I'm somewhat sceptical about the benefits of adding a needs-background parameter. PC78 (talk) 01:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * needs-image and needs-infobox: These two I'm fine with and are pretty straightforward; an article either has them or it doesn't, and adding them is in most cases a relatively straightforward task.
 * needs-synopsis and needs-cast: These two I would quite happily deprecate. They seem to require a more subjective analysis of whether or not an article has enough plot or cast information, and resolving these issues is far more involved. They will generally apply to Stub or Start-Class articles, but can we not take it as a given that such articles will typically be lacking in these areas anyway? Personally I find them somewhat redundant to the article improvement instructions. Same applies to other such potential parameters.
 * Do they do any good? All of the categories for these parameters are heavily populated, and without any impetus to resolve these issues are we not just tagging things for the sake of tagging?
 * I think they are effective...if editors are aware of them. We initially had these be published outside of the banner, and then were incorporated into the banner, and then were hidden within the banner. I think they would be most visible, and thus more likely to alert editors in improving the article, if we did not require editors to click "show" to see them. However, with that current fiasco with the 'already too large banner', I guess we can't do that. New editors may click on show to view the parameters, but if they're already visible they will stand out more. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

What are we agreed on here? The only definites I see are changing needs-synopsis to needs-plot (sensible) and rewording needs-cast. Anything else? PC78 (talk) 17:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What do you think about  or some variation of it?  We could link to production, themes, and critical reception as some examples of what the article needs. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 18:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I remain dubious; isn't that a bit vague? Personally I would rather highlight specific concerns that are easy to resolve. I'm happy to go along with what others want, though. Regarding needs-cast, what do you think of the following wording:
 * "This article needs more information about the cast and the crew, giving insights into the casting and staffing where possible."
 * PC78 (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking that  could encompass these areas, because otherwise, it seems like a few too many parameters with ,  , and  .  We can go ahead with the definite changes, though... but I better take a look at the "Cast" section since I've wanted to revise it for some time now. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 21:18, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Update
The project banner now accepts needs-plot, though it will continue to support needs-synopsis for now. In addition, these categories are now subcategorised by task force, e.g., etc. Hopefully this will aid users interested in certain areas of film in tackling these issues. PC78 (talk) 12:40, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Core anniversary articles
I was thinking that perhaps as a way of breaking down some of the work for improving the Core articles, perhaps we could annually target films which are celebrating significant anniversaries this year? For bringing any of these to FA, in addition to the Film Barnstar that all Core articles' primary editors get, we could also award Bronze, Silver, and Gold Wikis. (Presumably starting with Bronze and working up for each additional FA.)

I've compiled the list already:


 * 90th (1919): The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari
 * 85th (1924): Greed, Sherlock Jr., The Last Laugh
 * 80th (1929): The Man with a Movie Camera, Storm Over Asia
 * 75th (1934): L'Atalante, It Happened One Night, Man of Aran
 * 70th (1939): The Rules of the Game, Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Stagecoach, Only Angels Have Wings, The Story of the Late Chrysanthemums
 * 65th (1944): Double Indemnity, Ivan the Terrible Pt 1, Meet Me in St. Louis, A Canterbury Tale
 * 60th (1949): The Third Man, Kind Hearts and Coronets, Late Spring
 * 55th (1954): Seven Samurai, Rear Window, La strada, Sansho the Bailiff, On the Waterfront, A Star Is Born, Johnny Guitar, Senso
 * 50th (1959): Some Like It Hot, The 400 Blows, North by Northwest, Rio Bravo, Pickpocket, Hiroshima mon amour, The World of Apu, Imitation of Life, Kaagaz Ke Phool
 * 45th (1964): Dr. Strangelove, Gertrud, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, Red Desert, I Am Cuba, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, Charulata
 * 40th (1969): The Wild Bunch, The Conformist, My Night at Maud's, Satyricon, Days and Nights in the Forest
 * 35th (1974): The Godfather II, Chinatown, A Woman Under the Influence, The Conversation, Celine and Julie Go Boating, Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, Alice in the Cities, The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser
 * 30th (1979): Apocalypse Now, Manhattan, Stalker, Alien, The Marriage of Maria Braun
 * 25th (1984): Once Upon a Time in America
 * 20th (1989): Close-up, Do the Right Thing, A City of Sadness, The Killer
 * 15th (1994): Pulp Fiction, Chungking Express, Through the Olive Trees
 * 10th (1999): All About My Mother, The Wind Will Carry Us
 * 5th (2004): Downfall, Hotel Rwanda, The Holy Girl, Tropical Malady

This provides a good spread across all eras as well as most of our task forces:


 * American: Greed, Sherlock Jr., It Happened One Night, Man of Aran, Gone with the Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Stagecoach, Only Angels Have Wings, Double Indemnity, Meet Me in St. Louis, Rear Window, On the Waterfront, A Star Is Born, Johnny Guitar, Some Like It Hot, North by Northwest, Rio Bravo, Imitation of Life, Dr. Strangelove, The Wild Bunch, The Godfather II, Chinatown, A Woman Under the Influence, The Conversation, Apocalypse Now, Manhattan, Alien, Once Upon a Time in America, Do the Right Thing, Pulp Fiction, Hotel Rwanda
 * Argentine: The Holy Girl
 * Australian: none
 * Baltic: none
 * British: A Canterbury Tale, The Third Man, Kind Hearts and Coronets, Rear Window, North by Northwest, Dr. Strangelove, Alien, Hotel Rwanda
 * Canadian: none
 * Chinese: A City of Sadness, The Killer, Chungking Express
 * French: L'Atalante, The Rules of the Game The 400 Blows, Pickpocket, Hiroshima mon amour, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg, My Night at Maud's, Celine and Julie Go Boating
 * German: The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, The Last Laugh, Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, Alice in the Cities, The Enigma of Kaspar Hauser, The Marriage of Maria Braun, Downfall
 * Indian: The World of Apu, Kaagaz Ke Phool, Charulata, Days and Nights in the Forest
 * Italian: La strada, Senso, The Gospel According to St. Matthew, Red Desert, The Conformist, Satyricon, The Godfather II, Once Upon a Time in America, Downfall, Hotel Rwanda
 * Japanese: The Story of the Late Chrysanthemums, Late Spring, Seven Samurai, Sansho the Bailiff, Hiroshima mon amour
 * Korean: none
 * New Zealand: none
 * Nordic: Gertrud
 * Persian: Close-up, Through the Olive Trees, The Wind Will Carry Us
 * Southeast: Apocalypse Now, Tropical Malady
 * Soviet: The Man with a Movie Camera, Storm Over Asia, Ivan the Terrible Pt 1, I Am Cuba, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors, Stalker, Downfall
 * Spanish: All About My Mother
 * War: Storm Over Asia, Gone with the Wind, Ivan the Terrible Pt 1, A Canterbury Tale, Seven Samurai, The Conformist, Apocalypse Now, The Marriage of Maria Braun, Downfall, Hotel Rwanda

This might make it more successful, since we can market a small handful to each of our task forces, instead of spreading out a long list to the project-at-large. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice job, this is well put together. This does provide a diverse list for the majority of our task forces. Even if we only are able to improve a few of these, it will definitely help put the core list in front of more eyes and hopefully allow us to work on improving these older films. Perhaps we do need to start some sort of collaboration of the month for just our core articles (we can vote from there). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 10:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Any other thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it; I've been hoping to get Fight Club ready for this October for its 10th anniversary. I think that for core articles, research may be more long-term.  Perhaps anticipate the anniversaries for 2010 as well? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFF
Maybe it's just me, but it seems that WP:NFF is being increasingly challenged at AfD discussions; some people apparently don't understand what the guideline means or why it's there. Should we perhaps think about rewriting it, to clarify the rationale behind it? I know Steve has posted some lengthy comments at AfD regarding future films (here, for example); could any of that be worked into the guideline? PC78 (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think some people just really want for some films to take off. They don't have their head to the ground as closely as we do when it comes to upcoming films.  I don't know if I want to expand what we have at the guidelines now, but one venue we could pursue is writing an essay expanding the argument for WP:NFF.  Also, sometimes merging is a better solution, since there is an ounce of truth to every future film article.  Such details can be merged to the relevant broader article. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 13:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree - keeping the guideline succinct is crucial. An essay would be a better place to expand upon the reasoning and use past examples, as well as offer guidance. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If there is any tweaking involved with WP:NFF, we could point to WP:NTEMP (under the main guideline): "...articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." This is pretty much in line with not knowing whether or not a film will take place. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That sounds sensible. PC78 (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In my experience, when taking an article to AfD it definitely pays to give a reasonably detailed explanation of not only the guidelines or policies under which you're proposing the deletion, but also the underlying reasoning behind those guidelines' and policies' existence. With WP:NFF, for example, it often causes extended debate when a one-line deletion rationale is posted with a link to the guideline, because few will follow through to read beyond the title. They will likely see this is an extension of the general notability guideline and base arguments around the coverage in the trades the production has received, despite principal photography's not having started. By posting the reasons behind the guideline, as I did in your link above, this pre-empts potential keep !votes based on this limited coverage alone. Steve  T • C 15:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See, if such a detailed rationale is necessary every time in order to justify the guideline, then I'm inclined to think that the guideline itself is lacking. PC78 (talk) 11:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * More likely because people don't read the guideline when it's linked, so large-scale additions to it may end up serving no purpose. In many cases it appears that contributors to AfDs have simply seen the word "notability" in the nominator's statement and run with it from there, failing to distinguish that we're taking of a different level of notability to simple speculative coverage in the trades or wherever. I know I based my own boilerplate AfD response on the wording we currently use at WP:NFF, but what specifically do you think should be included in the guideline description that isn't already? Steve  T • C 11:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if people don't read the guideline when it's linked then there's not a lot we can do about that. :) I don't know what it needs to be honest; perhaps an essay (as suggested above) might help, perhaps myself and others are being too quick to delete articles where we could be attempting a merge or redirect, or perhaps we're just being too heavy handed in our application of the guideline. The discussions at WP:FILMDEL these days seem to be increasingly for future films, and it often seems to be the case that there is some opposition to WP:NFF. Maybe I'm just venting my own AfD frustrations? :) PC78 (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If they're skewing towards future films, it's probably due to me: I've been progressively working through the incorrectly tagged Future-class articles, and a fair number have issues. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Archiving peer reviews?
Are we still archiving film peer reviews, or was that just for when the project had it's own internal peer reviews? I started WikiProject Films/Peer review/2009 a few weeks ago, but I'm not sure if that was the right thing to do or not. AFAIK we don't otherwise keep an archive of FAC reviews and such, just our own A-Class reviews. PC78 (talk) 00:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't still do so anymore (unless you want to count Pankh), but we do retain the old archives. We don't keep FAC archives, because the articles' talk pages already link to them and they are not project administered. Project PR and ACR both retain their archives with us and are linked within the project banner of the articles' talk pages. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So I can blank WikiProject Films/Peer review/2009 and tag it for deletion? Doesn't seem worth keeping it just for Pankh, which can be tagged onto the 2008 page. PC78 (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. You can also bring the PR announce subpage up for deletion - I don't think it has any genuinely useful archival purpose. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave the announcements page for now. It has several transclusions which will need to be substituted first, and I don't want to mess with it now. PC78 (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure we're talking about the same thing? I mean WikiProject Films/Peer review/Announce, which has limited transclusions, all of which are frivolous enough, IMHO. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Suddenly, elections...
Yikes! That snuck up without much warning. I apologize - I've been distracted by my current travelling. We are actually on the brink of another election cycle - technically, we should be starting them at the beginning of March (two week nominations period followed by a two week voting period). We have little time to implement them, and I have a few proposals for the elections which I'd like to broach with the coordinators before submitting them to the project.


 * 1) I'd like to expand the size one more time, to a total of 9 coordinators. This was my initial goal for the size of the coordinatorship from its inception, and the phased ramp-up of adding two new seats each election has allowed for a graceful transition with both continuity and new blood.
 * 2) All of our prior elections have suffered from a relatively low number of nominees, often equal or close to equal with the number of spots open. This has always led to a request (granted every time so far) to leave the nominating period open during the voting. It would seem to make more sense to formalize this into the election rules so that the nominations will not be closed unless [number of seats]+X nominations exist by the close of the first two weeks. My proposal is that unless either 5 extra nominees or an extra number equal to 1/3 of the open seats, whichever is greater. (The latter would make more sense if the size of the coordinatorship continues to expand.) This would also have to occur before the end of the nominations period, because otherwise if an nomination could immediately lock out all others I could imagine a scenario where this is used tactically to shut persons out. Thoughts?
 * 3) It would be nice to formally add the co-option process into the coordinator page, as this is an active process we have regularly used as need be.
 * 4) Are we happy with the lead/coordinator divide, or should this be put to a referendum?
 * 5) Is there anything else regarding project affairs that we'd like to enjoin to the election for the members to vote on?

Prompt responses are appreciated, given the amount of time remaining and a need to bring our proposals to the membership first. My apologies and my gratitude, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not think we should expand the number of slots; seven seems appropriate. Expansion does not help with the nomination difficulty, after all.  There just needs to be reinvigoration with coordinator participation, so those who have played an active role can be supported.  As far the "lead" title, it would be good to ask if we can live without it.  There is not a need for a constant spearhead role for every initiative; for different initiatives, there can be different spearhead roles (or perhaps none at all).  I also don't think we need to raise any issues other than the nominations... considering how little time we have, we should save issues for a future questionnaire.  (Speaking of which, need to put together the results...) — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with #2-4, but agree with Erik on #1. I don't see any real need to have more coordinators than what we have, and unless we have more people standing for election we'll probably have trouble filling those slots anyway. Bear in mind that with Bzuk apparently going AWOL after the last election you've been a man down for this term anyway. With that in mind (and they've been discussing likewise over at WP:MILHIST) do we need to think about having some sort of mechanism in place for removing a coordinator? PC78 (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm somewhat reluctant to open up that can of worms unless there is explicit malfeasance - in which case I'd assume that something like what happened with Eco would occur anyway, which would still be beyond our control. Impeachment strikes me as too bureaucratic and political for what are six-month terms. What we can do - which MilHist has done in the past, IIRC - is to also use co-opting to keep the pool full and active. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't see an issue with adding extra positions as we would have additional members to take part in the discussions and allow for any absences from other coordinators. As PC78 said, we may have trouble filling the positions, but we can see how the election goes and if we don't get nine total applicants, we can go with what we got. I agree with Girolamo, I don't believe we need to have a system set up in case of an issue with a coordinator. Usually the person running for the position should understand the responsibility of the position, and if there are issues, there are likely other paths we can take. I'm fine either way with or without the "lead" designation. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like the aformentioned term AWOL?!, but seriously, I have been involved in writing assignments for publishing including the editing of my latest book, which I did note on my home page. Given time constraints, I have made some efforts to reply to personal emails but daily editing in Wikiworld had to be severely curtailed while I was engaged in a final revision of my latest book and having to turn out a new magazine with a new focus and direction that required not only editing but also writing articles on deadline. With future commitments that have cropped up, I can not unreservedly devote time and energy to Wiki projects and I reluctantly have concluded that I cannot give the position of coordinator the attention it requires. I will still try to contribute as an editor and at this time, I would like to thank all of the other editors and coordinators with whom I have worked. It certainly was an enjoyable experience. Bzuk (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that, and we are all glad for the work you did put in as well. There's really no need to resign this late into the term, though (if I'm interpreting you correctly). Please do feel free to keep a hand in as you can, though! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that my time has not been spent recently in the WickyWacky world, although I hoped that people would understand that professional responsibilities must sometimes trump what is essentially a "hobby." I will continue to devote some time to the projects I had started but in re-establishing my watchlist, I noted with some sadness and resignation that a number of the articles that I had written had been "rewritten" with a revision to an arcane and often singular style by a group of film editors. What is more disturbing is that numerous images have been summarily removed making them "orphans" and thus causing the bots to go into effect. In checking the history of the removals, in nearly all cases, it was an editor on a "crusade" whose intentions were always stated as being for the "common good" but it did appear to be a distressing trend of cyber snobbery and bullying. My initial thought was to replace the images and edits as both actions went against the established "first person's work remains" dictum but I started to pick up a pattern of these editors revising major articles to fit their own style, and further, then eliminating the original research and work that had already been in place. What is further evident is that the editors then triumphantly would boost their revised articles, putting them up for review and attracting further notice when other editors and coordinators recognized their efforts in a plethora of barnstars. I don't particularly mind that there is a sub-set of editors that are working in Wikipedia for personal gratification: the "soliciting" of barnstars, placing their names into contention for administrators, asking for special privileges, ad nauseum... although that was never my intention in adding to the project. I am one of the editors who never has been after rewards and I do not wish to have my work necessarily "peer reviewed" as the articles of themselves invite collaboration and should eventually become the work of many. What I noted on my recent return was the deliberate re-writing of a number of articles without a consensus for change, especially when the changes were in most part, stylistic. One of the galling aspects was the deliberate rewriting of citations and bibliographies that were painstakingly written in "text" but did not follow the sometimes obscure "templates" yet were perfectly acceptable examples of Harvard citations or other standard bibliographic formats. As a former librarian and now a professional editor and author, my work has revolved around the use of the so-called editorial standards or "house style guides" to identify sources, so I believe I am fairly well versed on bibliographic methodology. Now when it comes to Wikipedia's style of referencing sources, the format chosen is an amalgam of two or three formats including the MLA (Modern Language Association), APA (American Psychological Association) and "Chicago Style" guides. Rather than spitting in the wind, I have chosen to not try to re-write Wikipedia into my own notions and I tend to leave other people's work alone, however, that does not seem to be the case for other editors, as can be seen in the never-ending diatribe that is found in the format talk pages. So hopefully, this blathering helps explain my consternation at being labeled "AWOL", as I was never far from the scene but had some genuine reservations about whether an effort in this medium was worth the trouble. Bzuk (talk) 13:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC) (take this for what it's worth – not much in today's economy!)

← Can it be elaborated what the style changes have been? Same for the types of images? For the writing of citations, if the initial write-up was valid, then it does not need to be revised. A certain writing approach would normally be acceptable if there is no previously demonstrated consistency in writing citations. — Erik (talk • contrib) 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Posted for general membership's thoughts. Feel free to edit if anyone disagrees with my summarization. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Started. Based on my observations of discussion, I've formalized co-option and enacted the mechanism for automatically extending the nominations period if nominations are low. I have also kept the number of spots for this election at 7, and did not raise the question of the lead coordinator position, as neither of these had clear consensus either way. If anyone disagrees with this, please let me know (the sooner, the better). Also remember that we still have a month left on this term, so please do not be reluctant to continue to bring new business to the fore! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Questionnaire results
Hello, at WP:FILMQ1, I have tallied the qualitative answers and compiled the quantitative answers (compressed in hide boxes). Let's summarize the answers to publish in the next newsletter. (For example, for #8, time seems to be a major factor in editing, so this may mean that the majority of editors do not get heavily involved.) Thoughts on summarizing and presenting? — Erik (talk • contrib) 22:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What exactly are we going to do with these answers? :) One would hope that we'll take on board everything that's been said and come up with some rough plan of action for the future. I guess we'd all be as well to read through the whole thing. PC78 (talk) 00:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We can draw some conclusions. For example, most people are pretty satisfied with the newsletter, so we can consider that low priority.  We can also identify groups of editors: there is a casual group, and there is a group of mostly solitary power editors.  We also see that not many are very interested in community discussion.  We can see little love for task forces at present, but considering that quite a few people are part of the Indian film task force, we could try showcasing their work somehow.  So we can decide what to do based on this kind of information. :) — Erik  (talk • contrib) 00:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group
Some of you have perhaps seen this already, but a coordinators' working group has been set up at the WikiProject Council as a forum for discussing issues of common interest across multiple WikiProjects. PC78 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Scrubbing task force membership lists
What are your thoughts regarding this? I'm thinking particularly of the larger task forces, such as Indian cinema and Filmmaking, which have been active for several years and have substantial quantities of "dead" names. Should they be put onto an inactive list, or is that even necessary? If so, should they go to the general inactive list, or should we create ones for each task force? What should our editing activity cut-off be? A year? Two?

Just to note, I presume that this will be a one-time-only task, since we can and should formally fold it into the normal annual scrub we perform annually in concurrence with alternating coordinator elections. Probably is also worth cross-checking these task force lists against membership in the general list, and adding editors to the latter as needed. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * When is the annual scrub due? Could it not wait until then? I don't have any problem with doing this, though; a split between active and inactive menbers per the primary list seems perfectly reasonable. I don't think that task force members should forceably be added to our main list, though. People might arrive at the task forces via other projects; looking at it from the other side, somone involved in the war films task force should not necessarily be regarded as a member of WP:MILHIST. PC78 (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The scrub isn't due until the next election in September. Good point about the joint task forces - perhaps we could just ask the editors if they mind, though? Membership confers rights (newsletter, election voting) and is not exclusive of membership in other projects. I don't think it's ridiculous to at least presume it more likely than not that someone signed onto a film task force might be more inclined to join the larger film project as well - after all, they are (putatively) editing film articles, right? :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case I have no problem doing it now. It would probably first be worth seeing how many editors are signed up for the task forces but not the project before doing anything further. I know that if I were to sign up for the American cinema task force (for instance) then I wouldn't be too appreciative if someone added my name to a list of participants of WP:USA, a project I would otherwise have no interest in. PC78 (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see that point, but that's a question of nationality vs subject matter. I find it hard to believe that editors are working on a subject solely because of the nationality, with no interest in the subject itself; the opposite, I can quite easily find plausible. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but I still don't think it's something we need to be doing. Why not simply invite any such members to sign up for the project? PC78 (talk) 12:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No incumbents running?
Well, we have the election signups open for a week and I'm the first incumbent (and first editor!) to sign up? Come on people, I know there's more enthusiasm than that out there ;-) In any case, sending a message to all the film project members to indicate that the election is open—as one probably could have missed it in the newsletter—would probably be a good thing to raise visibility. It was a tad anticlimatic the previous election when we just had eight people running for seven slots. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 10:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was just waiting for someone else to get the ball rolling! :) Certainly I think we should be advertising this on people's talk pages. It was done last time, IIRC. PC78 (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I knew I forgot something! Arg. Can we get BrownBot to deliver a message? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I will not be running again; see my previous messages. FWiW, I will continue to contribute, as time allows, but as a lowly minion... (LOL) Bzuk (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We can get BrownBot or I can do it with AWB. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Does anyone think it's worth shoving something into the banner like we did with the questionnaire? PC78 (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good idea. I have sent out notices to all of the active members using AWB. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh, how's this?

Nothing fancy, I've just used the same text that's in the election banner. PC78 (talk) 22:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks great! I'm in support of including it.  Let's also draft it to anticipate the beginning of the election as well. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 22:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've just had a tinker with it; the text will remain the same as above up to and including the 14th, after which it will automatically switch to read: "The March 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by March 28!". PC78 (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Superb! No problem with that. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 23:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm assuming that we won't reach our quota of 12 candidates and that nominations will remain open for the duration (doesn't look likely at this point, does it?). Should be OK though. :) PC78 (talk) 23:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to notify members again now that voting has started? PC78 (talk) 15:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't hurt! BrownBot or AWB? (I don't know how to go about it.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I could do it after Thursday (got an interview to prepare for), unless you want to use a bot/somebody else use AWB before that. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * How can AWB or a bot be used to notify members? We still need to do this. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll do it right now. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Notices sent out. Hopefully it doesn't appear as canvassing on my part. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Renaming the banner?
A proposal has been made to rename our project banner to WikiProject Films; see discussion here. Opinions are welcome, if only because the issue is holding up a bot request. PC78 (talk) 17:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

B-Class checklists
We've had the B-Class checklist in our banner for some time now, but it still seems to be used in relatively few of our Start-Class articles. We now also have tracking categories for articles that fail each individual criterion, so filling in the checklists and gathering this data is now even more useful. While the checklists should not by any means be regarded as compulsory, I do think we should be encouraging thier use.

Also, I have created WPFILMS B-Class review which can be used to provide an informal review on article talk pages and highlight potential areas for improvement.

Cheers! PC78 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible vandalism?
Hello everyone, it's been a while since I've been here, but I just want to tell you guys something that has occurred. Shamwow86 has left a questionable message on my talk page:
 * "Listen, Limetolime, most people out there are saying you're finished, done. Your time came and went. We all know it's true. But listen, we both need votes in this election, and if you'll scratch my back, I'll scratch yours. Your friend, Shamwow86"

What's up?  Limetolime  Talk to me • look what I did! 22:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like pretty blatant canvassing. I'll leave a note on his talk. You'd also probably be well served by refraining from voting for him ;-) — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 23:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd call his message to Erik canvassing. This is more like dirty tricks for the sake of electioneering. It's completely in bad faith. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've already left a notice on his talk page about the canvassing. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Userbox
I noticed that the MILHIST project have separate userboxes for their coordinators, and while I figured that would probably be overkill for us for the sake of seven users, I've gone and added a parameter to our main project userbox. gives you the box on the right. PC78 (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should use a different graphic to clearly distinguish the member from the coordinator. Otherwise, seems fine there's a desire to use this. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice job. Is there anyway to make it different as Girolamo suggested? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we'd need a suitable graphic... :) Or we could distinguish them using colour instead. Do we want to make such a distinction between ourselves and the other members though? PC78 (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The distinction needs to be there because new editors may believe that if they want to join WP:FILMS that they are supposed to be a coordinator, instead of adding their name to the members list. This may be rare of course, but could prevent some confusion. Of course we don't want too drastic of a change as we don't want to make it look like we're better than anyone else. Perhaps color should be fine and/or small graphic. I don't have any ideas though. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 19:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a new image that combines the film reel with something else, maybe File:Application-certificate Gion.svg or File:Laurel wreath.svg (best I can think of). I can also reword it to make it more apparent that coordinators are elected and not self-appointed. PC78 (talk) 11:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The elected part would probably work. If you still want to add one of those images, either one could work. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Any progress on this front? Should be a pretty basic Photoshop job. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 07:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

← I updated my userbox with the "coordinator" parameter (also changed the wording from "has been elected as" to "is"). It seems sufficient... is anyone really interested in sprucing up the userbox further? — Erik (talk • contrib) 18:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno; IIRC that's how I originally had the userbox, but others felt it wasn't sufficient (I think it's fine myself). I'll have a go with the images myself at some point, whether or not there is an intention to use them here. I need to figure out how to create and manipulate svg images anyway. :) PC78 (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * messaged me about differentiating coordinators' WP:FILM userboxes from editors' WP:FILM userboxes, and I responded with the possibility of director's chairs to represent coordinators (after all, we are working "behind the scenes").  then weighed in with a couple of neat possibilities shown below, and we can tweak these if need be.  What do others think? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 14:30, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I like them, especialy the second :D -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Second one looks good. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 17:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

A-class assessment requests
The current A-class assessment request Rang De Basanti has been open since February 7 and has only had two of the coordinators respond. If we're going to increase the number of A-class articles in our project, we definitely need to start having more coordinators contribute and try to complete these in a more reasonable time. There are probably multiple other articles that could reach this level, but editors might be deterred if not enough users contribute or if it takes forever. I believe it only takes two users to support an article as A-class, so if you can, please stop by and review the article. Hopefully the addition of more coordinators will help to spread the workload some. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 18:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll admit to being a bit negligent with regards to this. I'll try and review it over the weekend. PC78 (talk) 18:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting... I swear I wrote a detailed review of this article last weekend, but it's not there on the page, nor can I find it in the edit history. I spent ages writing it too, so I'll be thoroughly pissed off if it turns out I forgot to save the damn thing. Grrr. PC78 (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You and your funny jokes PC78! No, that would be a bummer. I've done that once or twice for several GA reviews I've done where I spent over an hour finding various issues. At times I wished Wikipedia automatically saved pre-edits, but I guess that would be quite the burden on the servers. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, looking at my own contributions for last Sunday it seems like that's exactly what I've done. :( That's what you get for having too many windows open I guess. PC78 (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I've finally got around to rewriting my review (and remembered to save this time!), though Mspraveen seems to have been offline for a few weeks now. We also have another A-Class review which needs attention. PC78 (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)