Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Coordinators

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Films
General information ( v • d • e )
Main project page + talk
 → Discussion archives
Style guidelines talk
Announcements and open tasks talk
 → Articles needing attention talk
 → Nominations for deletion talk
 → New articles talk
 → Requests talk
 → Stubs talk
Resources
Showcase
Film Portal talk
Fiction noticeboard talk
Shortcut:
WT:FILMC

Contents

[edit] Handbook

[edit] Open tasks

These tasks should be done as often as needed—ideally, on a daily basis.
Assessment
  • Monitor the daily assessment log. The main things to look for:
    • Articles being removed. This is usually legitimate (due to merges or non-film articles getting untagged), but is sometimes due to vandalism or broken template code. Also note that even though the banner and tags remain on the talk page, assessing a Future-class will remove the article from the bot's listing.
    • Articles being moved to "GA-Class" and higher quality. These ratings need to correspond to the article's status in the GA and FA lists, as well as our A-Class review.
    • All newly added articles should be quickly scanned to see if additional task force tags or other maintenance tags (such as "needs infobox") are required.
  • Deal with any new assessment requests and the unassessed articles.
Peer review
  • For each new peer review request:
    1. Add the review to the {{WPFILMS Announcements}} template.
    2. Leave a note on the main project talk page, and with each appropriate task force or contact (if any), using the following boilerplate: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators/Peer review notice|Name of article}} ~~~~
  • For each peer review that has been archived:
    1. Remove the review from the {{WPFILMS Announcements}} template.
    2. Check the talk page to see that the parameter has been changed from "peer-review=yes" to "old-peer-review=yes".
A-Class review
  • For each new A-Class review request:
    1. Add the review to the {{WPFILMS Announcements}} template.
    2. Leave a note on the main project talk page, using the following boilerplate: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators/A-Class review notice|Name of article}} ~~~~
    3. Leave a note with each appropriate task force (if any), using the following boilerplate: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators/A-Class review notice|Name of article}} ~~~~
  • For each ongoing A-Class review:
    1. If a review has been open for two days without at least three editors commenting, leave a reminder note on the main project talk page, using the following boilerplate: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators/A-Class review alert|Name of article}} ~~~~
    2. If a review has been open for four days, close and archive it.
  • For each A-Class review that has been archived:
    1. Remove the review from the {{WPFILMS Announcements}} template.
    2. If the article was promoted to A-Class (or demoted from it), add it to (or remove it from) the project showcase.
Featured content
Member outreach
  • Welcome anybody who joins the project, using the following boilerplate: {{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach/Welcome|~~~~}}
  • Update Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Outreach/June 2008 Newsletter with new developments within the project.
Other
  • Fix the {{Film}} syntax on any articles in Category:Incorrectly tagged WikiProject Films articles. The main culprits are the following:
    1. Deleted peer-review or old-peer-review parameters. Restore as appropriate.
    2. No WP Films peer review subpage. This usually occurs when editors turn on the peer-review tag in our banner but use the main peer review page. Open the banner, click on the peer review redlink, and redirect the page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Peer review/Foo film) to the original peer review page (Wikipedia:Peer review/Foo film).
    3. Changed page name. Do as above, but redirect to the wherever the original peer review was.
    4. Start or Stub articles that meet all of the B-Class parameters. Check the article to see if they actually do. If not, change the relevant parameters. If they do, then reassess the article to B-Class.
    5. A-Class articles which have not passed A-Class review. (To be effective shortly when the dormant parameter is activated.) Re-tag down to GA (if already earned) or B.

[edit] One-time tasks

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

[edit] Toolbox

[edit] New task force

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

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

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

[edit] Boilerplate and templates

mostly "Film"-ified...

[edit] Notes

Potential task forces - should only be created where there is specific demand from users

  • general
    • companies
    • film studies
  • genres
    • comedy
    • documentary
    • horror (joint TF on horror films with WP Horror)
    • sci-fi
    • western
  • nationalities (for very productive national cinemas)
    • American
    • British
    • Canadian
    • German
    • Japanese
    • Russian
  • regions (for smaller national cinemas)
    • African
    • Eastern European
    • Latin American
    • Middle Eastern
    • Nordic
  • time periods
    • silent film
    • decades
  • movements and topics
    • dogme
    • neorealism
    • new queer cinema (or LGBT at large)
    • new wave

Project issues

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

[edit] Discussion

[edit] Status report for December 10

A quick sounding off of thoughts, issues, notices, and problems. Your opinions are sought and valued. Please follow-up with discussion below in separate sections for each topic. (I hope to make this a regular biweekly report starting next year.)

Project relations
I've been looking at our project structure, and we may want to work on liaising with certain projects. I don't think there are any left that warrant complete merging, with one exception below.

  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers - this is actually not a WikiProject, but a workgroup of WP Bio. As we've expanded the scope of WP Films, I think that it is only natural and appropriate that we also include individuals, and this would essentially amount to our this workgroup into being jointly part of Films and Bio. This would involve little to no changes on the part of the group - mainly it would mean adding the necessary task force parameter to our banner, and placing the banner in the relevant talk pages. General article guidelines and administration would be handled by the group and the larger WP Bio project, which are more equipped to deal with those matters effectively.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject American Animation and Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and Manga - we may at some point have task forces for American cinema, Japanese cinema, and animation. It's not inconceivable that anime could be another taskforce that has both the Japanese cinema and animation task forces as its parents.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Comedy and Wikipedia:WikiProject Horror - overall genre projects that would be good collaborating projects for genre task forces. This is probably ideal, since we would be providing the style guidelines, while they could provide editors with content knowledge.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional sound production - may be able to provide more expertise for Filmmaking task force; possibly even create a child task force? Depends on their growth.
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Saw, et al. - I originally figured this would be an easy project to integrate with WP Films and Horror, since I assumed it was only movies. Of course, it has expanded into other licensed media, and is no longer solely within our domain. Nonetheless, it would be good for us to start discussing how to deal with mini-projects for franchises, because it seems that the interest in such projects is unlikely to die. Many of these projects have small scopes, however, which makes their existence as projects questionable, according to some editors on WP:COUNCIL who are trying to reform the WikiProject system. I understand the concern, but it is unclear how to proceed when our project does not have full scope over all of the smaller project's articles. Personally, I am content to leave these projects alone, but if reform work does start to go after smaller projects, especially with a smaller membership, it would be better to at least keep the group and its work intact as a subunit rather than deleting them. I am particularly keen to hear The Giant Puffin's thoughts, as I know that he is active in WP James Bond.

Project relations discussion:

  • Although several of these projects have related articles that fall under our scope, I don't some of them should be merged with ours. The main one I don't think would be beneficial in merging with would be WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers as this focuses on people. I think for tagging, our project's guidelines, and the sheer number of articles would make it difficult to control this project within ours. However, if there is general consensus by several other editors to include the project with ours, then I wouldn't object. I believe the other projects look like they should have no problem being merged into or becoming special task forces for our project. Also, a new task force was created that focuses on Korean films, do you think that should remain within their project or be merged into ours as a task force? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Plans and Initiatives

  • I will be adding the Future films department to the sidebar immediately. The page has been up and running for some time now and several of the leading editors involved with these articles are aware of its existence and had opportunity to prepare it beforehand. As there's been no objections or edits to the page since I left it, it will be made public to the rest of the project now.
  • Do the assistant coordinators want to have specific areas under their responsibility? I am aware of Nehram's work in Assessment, Outreach, and Spotlight - and I'm particularly grateful, especially as I don't spend much time in those parts! Perhaps it would be a good idea so as to keep the work less overwhelming. On the other hand, having a general pool of work that all of the coordinators are collectively responsible for makes it easier for everyone to handle individual coordinators who may be on short breaks, or even coordinators who are not doing any coordinating work. Plus, it prevents excessive OWN and bureaucracy issues. But if assignments makes it more efficient... In any case, please offer your thoughts.
  • Scrapping the Importance parameter - this has been sporadically discussed on the project talk page over the past year, with mild support but no strong objection. Given the subjective nature of the project topics, it is difficult if not impossible to effectively rate the importance of most articles. More objective subjects, such as science and math, usually have a clear hierarchy of important-to-specialized topics, but with artistic endeavors, it is probably not worth the edit warring and subjectivity of trying to assess the "most important" films, filmmakers, or studios.
    • This being said, there may be something to be said for making a single "Core" level (a la WP Bio) for a select group of articles (between 200-500), which might be considered our "Most Wanted FAs" list. This could also work as a successor to the now-dormant Collaboration department, with the advantage of less time wasted in continual voting, and maybe with an incentive system of a new series of awards, based on the number of FAs created from the list. Additionally, the list itself could be replenished when it grows too small. Selection of which articles could also be made slightly more objective by deriving them from a conglomeration of previously existing lists such as Sight and Sound polls, AFI lists, top-grossing lists, award winners, and perhaps more localized lists to allow for a sufficiently diverse and international grouping with a good spread of time periods. Task forces which don't cover individual films, such as Awards, Festivals, and Filmmaking, might also be allotted a small number of slots for their topics.

Plans and initiatives discussion:

  • I mentioned the future films department in the newsletter so more members will be introduced to if they haven't noticed it already in the side bar. Hopefully, more editors can continue to help Erik improve our future films. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Concerning areas falling under the assistant coordinators' responsibility, nobody can take my departments, they are mine, and I OWN them! Just kidding, if anybody else is interested in helping with these, I always welcome the extra help. I enjoy working on these departments, and mainly took over them since it appeared they had been abandoned or there just a few editors working on them. I'll keep working on them and if you believe there should be other assigned responsibility, I'll be open to assisting elsewhere. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The importance parameter definitely needs to go, and I remember several of the conversations that have arisen over including a core list of film articles. I could attempt to start creating a list if this is accepted, and mention in the newsletter/WP:FILMS talk page that editors could help contribute to the list. It would a great idea for each task force to also each have a list as well. Once this list is created, we can start awarding the film barnstar (or create a new one) and award it to each member that brings the article up to GA/FA level. This would hopefully provide an incentive to help improve the articles that are important to our project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


Housekeeping

  • Question for Nehrams: how has Outreach been doing recently and do you have any new suggestions?
  • Phasing out {{WikiProject Films tasks}} in favor of {{WPFILMS Announcements}} - it would be good to see this fully implemented shortly, if possible.
  • Will be integrating the talk page "needs" tags (needs synopis, needs cast list, needs screenshot) into the banner shortly; this will require some retagging tasks when ready.
  • We need to edit the "Editing Guidelines" and "Upgrading Needed" (Stub-only) boxes in the banner so as to reflect the larger scope of the project - not all articles are film titles now.
  • Therefore, we also need to work on larger style guidelines for these articles as well. All with an eye towards the future goal of a larger MOS for all film articles.
  • Banner redesign to more prominently mention and feature task forces - maybe not hidden at all?
  • We need to start a tag drive amongst the membership to tag all B-Class articles according to their criteria. These parameters already exist within the banner but have not been implemented yet. Doing so will auto-categorize all B-Class articles by their problem areas, which makes targeted editing and improvement easier.
  • Speaking of which, we need help with a few task force tag drives listed above in our One-time tasks section!

Housekeeping discussion:

  • Concerning the outreach department, we did the roll call a few months ago, and now have about 150 active members. We should probably do one of these as least once a year to remove editors who are no longer active. Each member (and new ones that join each month) receives the newsletter about the new departments/task forces, GA/FAs, and other happenings within the project. I haven't really received too much feedback from other editors about other topics to cover in the newsletter or any mention of things that need improvement. I would prefer to see if there is any interest for other information, as I'm the main contributor to the newsletter but don't know if there are other things that members want to see. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Getting rid of the "need" tags will be beneficial for the talk pages by merging them into the banner. However, if possible, would the banner be able to display the needed elements without having to click on the [show] button? Right now, the needed infobox is hidden within the banner, and if it was edited to always be on top, it would be easier to see for new editors or those unfamiliar with our banner. Additionally, I don't think it should be a problem if the task forces weren't hidden as each article usually falls under just one or two task forces anyway. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Concerning the "Upgrading needed" template, when I created it, I didn't really realize at the time that it wouldn't pertain to film characters and now our newly added festivals, awards, etc. Is there any way that we can develop a similar banner for each type of article (festival, award, character, filming technique, etc.)? However, if we do that, would the banner be modified to properly show each one based on the task force parameter that is included in the banner? Or would it be best to remove the template, and instead list in the banner "If you want to improve the film article, see here" which will link to the same information that was in the template? The same could go for "if you want to improve the character to start class, see here" with similar information on what the article should include. The editing guidelines should definitely be modified as well. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The new announcements template looks a lot better then current task one, and it appears it would be easier than continually adding the current GANs, and needed infoboxes/images, etc. I would definitely be in favor of getting rid of the prior one. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussions of note

Discussions of note discussion:

Miscellany

  • Due to travel demands, I will have minimal - if any - online time between December 12th and January 1st.
  • Have a look at this Content Review workshop - the entire peer review process is likely to be considerably revamped, and may have implications at the WikiProject level.

Miscellany discussion:

Any and all comments will be much appreciated! - although I may not see them until January. (Which should give you plenty of time to think about all of them individually, too.) Have a good holiday season, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts for February

[edit] Project relations

1. I am still interested in pursuing the Actors and Filmmakers group for joint inclusion between WP Films and WP Bio. However, in light of other housekeeping tasks that I'd like to finish cleaning up, I think it's probably worth saving for a slower time in the project.

Again, if you still desire to do that, and everyone else agrees, then I'll support. I've been really busy the last week, as school has become more demanding. I've only been reverting vandalism on my watchlist pages recently, so a slow time for me won't be until later this summer, if ever. Hopefully I won't be as busy as this last week though. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Just rehashing some of the old business... It's a long-term initiative, so don't expect any barrelling out of the gate yet. It's gonna be a monster to tag if it goes thru! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Some of the other WikiProjects which run joint task forces with us, such as WP Australia and WP India, have coded their templates so as to tag for the task force in their banners too. This has created some interesting circumstances. For instance, WP India tags many of the film bios with the "cinema=yes" parameter in their banner. This adds them to the assessment categories, but omits them from the general Category:Indian cinema task force articles category that our banner will also add (when using our Indian task force parameter), while it will add them to Category:WikiProject Indian cinema articles, which we do not. While this no longer exists as an independent WikiProject, my guess is that no one at WP India has bothered to go back and change the code to reflect this.

However, there is an advantage in that separate general category pools for each banner (the assessment ones are identical) allow us to see if one banner has activated the parameter while the other hasn't. On the other hand, having a common pool would make more sense, which seems to be what WP Australia has recently encoded into their banner, but conversely makes it difficult for us to identify articles which WP Australia has tagged for the task force, but which don't have a Film banner.

Additionally, it is worth remembering that most of the national groups will tag the bios as well as the films as task force members, and this seems a natural extension of editorial interests within a given task force. Therefore, there is no difference in potential article overlap if we also integrate the bios into the project, whereas not doing so will create situations where only one WikiProject will be tagging for the task force, which seems odd.

Therefore, the two questions are: how do we deal with a shared task force which has different scope depending on which project is tagging?, and is it in our interest to keep our category structure perfectly aligned for less redundancy, or is it better to keep separate trees to more easily monitor articles which are tagged for the task force only by the other project's banner?

Lastly, is there a way of creating a meta-template that would allow for instant double-tagging of the same task force for two project banners? Would save everyone a lot of effort and make it tremendously easier to avoid one project not getting the tag (and therefore not having the article added to their overall project assessment stats).

The meta-template idea sounds appealing, but I would have no idea on how to do that. I'm sure there's somebody though that knows how to do it. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll consult with other editors who are template saavy, I suppose. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plans and initiatives

1. The Core has run into some protracted debate regarding the qualifying criteria, mainly for the task forces, but also generally. We need to solicit additional thoughts in order to keep the department on track and conclude the list-making both quickly and with a general consensus. Any ideas on how to do so are welcome.

I'm surprised there wasn't that much feedback on the core list, especially with the mention on the project's talk page and in the newsletter (maybe nobody reads it!). I'm sure once the contest department is created and people hear more about possible awards, that might light up their eyes. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm a bit stumped about how to proceed at this point on the core discussion. Any ideas? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

2. Might it make sense to have a rotating "Open task collaboration" of the week or fortnight? It might allow us to move forward on stalled things such as both tagging and also cleanup in order to clear tags.

That would be helpful for the various backlogs, but I'm curious to see if we can get enough members to contribute. Recently it seems that many of our members haven't been involved with the major discussions, core list, elections, etc. But then again maybe they'll be interested in working on this. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a tough one - we want to keep their energies at the articles, obviously, so perhaps tagging is something best left to coordinators and those interested in random maintenance tasks, but definitely it could be good for articles requiring specific attention (such as infoboxes, references, etc.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

3. The contest department could be used not only for the Core department, but also for the open task collaborations - perhaps the top finisher receives a Film barnstar?

Good idea, if we get it up and running. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Speaking of barnstars, what about a "medal of honor"-level award akin to the MilHist's Chevrons with Oak Clusters? Would be for editors with exceptional contributions to the project within the article-space, and would only be open to previous regular Film barnstar winners. One would have to be nominated for it, and it would only be conferred upon coordinator consensus. (Additionally, no coordinator would be eligible to receive one while in office.) I already have a few ideas for the graphic design, too, involving the Hollywood Walk of Fame stars and a film reel...

Then I guess I can no longer be a coordinator...just kidding. That sounds like a great idea, and there are many who deserve it. If you or someone is interested in making it, the Hollywood idea sounds appealing. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to get this running shortly. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

5. Elections - the next election cycle is schedule to commence around March/April. Are there any preferences or prejudices with regard to dates? I wanted it to be post Spring Break but pre-finals for those still in school. Also, are there any changes we'd like to make in any respect? I personally think that we need more coordinators, so that there can be more hands at work, less individual work load, more redundancy, and more people here to discuss matters.

I would prefer to get more coordinators, since I envision I'll be limited in contributions as my school work and a future job begin to become more demanding. Hopefully we get more people to contribute to the elections this time, and I'd hope to see more people run for positions. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking maybe bringing it up to either five or seven positions. My other thoughts are to rewrite the position description to emphasize more of the advisory and think-tank roles and less on the housekeeping work. While we still will need to maintain the administrative side of things, I think the whole point of the coordinators is also to advise on and conceive of ideas for improving the project. I'm guessing the housekeeeping side - the "work" - is probably what may be keeping some of our more active members from running. The truth is, though, that I'm happy to continue doing most of the task force tagging myself, just as I'm guessing you're fine with handling the newsletter and outreach work yourself. (And frankly, that's what I'm think we need the most - more people to keep these discussions flowing and coming up with more ideas. We'll sort out the work one way or another, I'm sure.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

6. The review department has been created, but we have had problems getting editors involved. Furthermore, the newer automated advice and sorting offered at general PR offers a better incentive for articles to go there. Is our independent peer review process worth spending more time reviving, or should it be rolled up? (Note that this will not abolish peer reviews at the Review deparment - it will just mean that we'd continue by transcluding the film-related PRs from the general page.)

Peer review is somewhere I rarely visit, and if other editors are not significantly contributing, it may be best to send it off. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
This is something that may require some open discussions to iron out. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

7. Extensive overhaul and expansion of our style guidelines to reflect our expanded scope will be a major focus in future months - any thoughts with regard to how to proceed will be valuable.

We would just need to get as much feedback as possible, so a mention on the main talk page and the newsletter would hopefully drive some interested members there. We definitely have a lot of changes to make with so many new articles that fall under our scope. Perhaps we should set up subpages of the guidelines for specific topics such as films, characters, and film-related topics separately. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that definitely would be a good idea. Also some of the task forces (Awards, Festivals, Filmmaking) might be consulted as well, since it's their bread and butter. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Housekeeping

1. It would be nice to see the Future films department doing several additional things, including monitoring additions to the future categories thru the recent changes to both the article template and the Future-Class banner tagging. Another important task would be scrubbing the Future Class to reassess films that no longer meet the rating, and lastly, going over the future articles to create a true, international, comprehensive list of future films articles sorted by release date (so that we would know when to reassess to the normal scale).

That sounds great, and the future class at times can be problematic, especially when nobody changes it to a proper class once the film is released. This usually happens with the lesser known films, but a large list would definitely be more helpful on focusing on the list of films. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll talk to Erik and co in more detail, then. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

2. The "needs" tags have now been added to the template. Now we just need to re-tag the old articles to deprecate against the old stand-alone tags.

I'm assuming this may take some time, is there a possible bot that can do this for us? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Not a bad idea, actually. I'm not familiar at all with the bots, though. Any particular ones worth looking at? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

3. Several factors require a redesign of the project banner - the pending loss of the importance parameter, a desire to more openly show off the task forces, and a necessity to have the "needs" tags more visible for editors to see problems. Perhaps all of the banner should be unhidden with the exception of the longer editing advice sections?

Yeah, I don't think that the banner needs to be hidden at all, except for the editing instructions for naming conventions. Showing the task forces/needed tags will hopefully drive more editors to addressing the issues or viewing other related task force articles. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Once the Core goes through, then I'll be ready to pull the plug on the importance parameter, so we can have a go at it then. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

4. Perhaps the banner could also be revised to offer class-specific advice on how to improve the article in order to reach the next assessment class? (ie, if the article is a Stub, it tells you what Stubs need to reach Start; if it is a Start, what Starts need to reach B, etc..)

I always wanted to create the next level suggestions after the stub to start one that Hoverfish and I created, but never got around to it. I'm sure it would be helpful for peer review considerations and hopefully interest more people in moving articles on to GA/FA. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discussions of note

1. Core department, as mentioned above

2. The massive discussions involving TV episode article notability are also closely tied to WP:FICT and therefore may impact upon WP Films.

3. Speaking of FICT, might it be worth proposing that characters (or lists of characters) who only make an appearance in a single work of fiction should not have their own articles?

4. Do we need an explicit guideline to make clear that the IMDb is a non-reliable source? This occasionally is the source of some debate, and aside from showing editors WP:RS and expecting them to make the deduction, we don't really have a clear location where it is stated explicitly that IMDb is not an acceptable source. (Unless you count WT:CIMDB, where consensus was found against a proposal to use the IMDb.)

A guideline would be great since so many people may not be aware of the discussion/guideline. I prefer to use it only for the news section that it has, but will usually defer to other more reliable sources if possible. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
The other question is do we need an independent guideline, or should it just be added to the existing style guidelines? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Miscellany

1. Would a member questionnaire to probe for project deficiencies and desired processes be advisable?

That would be great, we can get Cbrown1023's bot to send it out if necessary or just mention it on the talk page for interested members to contribute. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Any particular questions we should ask? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, those are all of the big issues on my head for now! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Do we want to delete the WikiProject Films tasks template since it has been replaced with the announcement template? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 09:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
It's been redirected, so I don't really think it's necessary at the moment. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New coordinators, welcome!

It is a pleasure to be serving with all of you. Well, almost all of you - this actually is our first order of business: we need to appoint someone to fill the remaining open Coordinator slot. Do any of the other coordinators have any suggestions of editors whom you feel would be well-equipped for the role? I have a few ideas, but I'd like to hear from you first. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

As to filling the last post, I have three candidates in mind: User:Clarityfiend, User:Ed Fitzgerald‎ and User:Snowmanradio. Each of these contributors is a very careful and precise editor who understands the complexities of editing, Wikipedia style, and have also made major contributions to many of the WP:Film Project articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC).
Here are a few familiar faces whom I'd like to mention: Alientraveller (talk · contribs), Bignole (talk · contribs), Cirt (talk · contribs), Collectonian (talk · contribs), J.D. (talk · contribs), Lady Aleena (talk · contribs), Luigibob (talk · contribs), Lugnuts (talk · contribs), Melty girl (talk · contribs), Pegship (talk · contribs), SilkTork (talk · contribs), and Steve (talk · contribs). I would also heartily support allowing Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) to continue as a coordinator, should he be willing to re-assume the post. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I know of a few terrific editors, though I think some of them may be averse to extended discussion as a coordinator. I think it would be great for Nehrams2020 to return, though I was wondering if there was a reason why he was not a candidate in this election. I think that Steve is another editor who has an interest in contributing to discussions. While relatively new, I think he has learned the lay of the land very quickly, has a positive attitude, and is willing to ask questions. The editors mentioned above are great recommendations as well. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I've sent out feeler messages for the two editors (Nehrams2020 and Steve) which Erik seconded, as well as Clarityfiend, whom I will second. Of course, more conversation on the matter is definitely welcome! I'm wondering what Limetolime thinks, as well. Best, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] cut and pasted from Girolamo's talk page

Thank you for considering me again for the election. I was always a bit apprehensive about Creamy3, as I believe I remember seeing him create several accounts, so I wasn't too surprised to see him blocked. Although I have been really busy the last few weeks, I believe that I could fill the last position if no one else is able/willing. I enjoyed working with you before, but was just worried that my sporadic editing may be problem. I may become more active as school lets out, and hopefully should be fine for the summer. If someone is really adamant about taking the last position, then I won't stand in their way, but if there are no interested parties, I would enjoy filling the spot (if others agree, of course). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 01:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Girolamo, I have a limited experience with editors in the film project group, subsequently my choices for another film project coordinator were limited. I concur that user:Clarityfiend would make a fine coordinator, as well as many of the other names that were proposed by others. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC).
Thank you for your kind words, Bzuk. I am of two minds about applying for the position - I'm a bit concerned about how much time it would take away from my fiendish editing - so if Nehrams2020 wants it, that's fine with me. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; it's flattering you thought of me as a candidate, Girolamo. Forgive me for not replying straight away to your enquiry last night. To be completely honest, it's because I wanted to have a thorough read of the Coordinator project page first to see what would actually be involved. Having read that, I'm not sure that I should put myself forward as a candidate. While I'd be happy to take even more of an interest in point-of-contact responsibilities, chipping in more at the talk/policy/MOS pages, helping out with the other tasks, such as article assessments, seems like it would take quite a chunk of time away from the little time I get now for editing. As Special:Contributions/Steve should attest, the time I'm able to spend on Wikipedia mostly tends to come in short bursts of activity ill-suited to the dedication required for the role. In short, should a nomination on my behalf be successful, I couldn't guarantee that I'd be able to actually do the job, though should circumstances change, I would not rule myself out at some point in the future. Again, thanks for thinking of me. And all the best. Steve T • C 07:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Moving onwards

It's a bit tricky, since everyone's treading lightly, but the way I'm looking at it, Clarityfiend and Steve are sorta saying "thanks but no thanks", while Nehrams is willing to return. Is this a fair assessment? If so, should we offer the position to Nehrams? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment and that we should offer the position to Nehrams. His previous experience will help, and I am sure we can do our best to act as coordinators in his periodic absences. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
That's how I read it as well. If Nehrams has already been a film projects coordinator and if he is willing to assist in this role again, I would support his nomination. As Erik has pointed out, with others involved in the tasks, the concern that Nehrams had regarding not being able to continually provide assistance, is tempered by the knowledge that other coordinators will be available. I think Nehrams' forthright assesment is not that different from the same reservations that all of the nominees had in considering whether to place our names in contention for the positions. With cooperations from the "team", I believe a lot of work can be accomplished. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC).

Good news: Nehrams has accepted. Now that we're established the full group, I will prepare some notes shortly on some current issues. Cheers, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New faces, old business

First of all, it is good to be working with a larger contingent of coordinators! I have greatly been anticipating some larger discussions of the administrative issues and proposals. I've decided to confine this for the moment to issues which have already been raised above, with an eye towards more thoughts on the matters.

[edit] Questionnaire

Many of our editors - and by extension, the project - seem to get active in fits and starts, and in some of our key areas, such as assessment and reviews, go from moribund to busy back to moribund again without much rhyme or reason. Others, like CotW or Translation just died outright. I've been considering creating some new departments such as Contests and perhaps even a rotating open task (see below), but maybe it would be worth polling our members first to find out more about what drives their participation.

A questionaire is certainly an option, but is there any incentive for the less than active to even participate in that? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
The questionnaire could be easily distributed to all of the members with Cbrown's bot, and however much feedback we'd receive would still be beneficial for the general thoughts of the members. I could mention it in a future newsletter to get more publicity for it, or a simple talk message on members' pages would probably be sufficient enough. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IMDb guideline

Has the encyclopedia made it apparent enough that the IMDb is not a reliable source? It seems a common stumbling block for so many editors that they can't rely on the site, and yet there isn't much in the way of a formal declaration to the effect. Also, should this go into the style guidelines, be thrown to RS, or perhaps be elsewhere?

My reading of the IMDb conundrum is that in general, it is a reliable source except for the the Trivia section which has proved to be problematic. I would caution the use of the IMDb site as a primary resource but not to disregard it outright. As you know, I have also been an advocate of authoritative print resources for the endnotes and bibliographies of film articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
I think it would be a good idea to make clear the application of IMDb, since I've seen it used as a source to cite in future film articles, especially filming locations. We should make succinct the argument against IMDb and try to indicate instead that IMDb can be used as a stepping stone. I've been generally comfortable with using IMDb for basic cast and crew information, but a mix-up between the roles of producer and executive producer at Homerun (film) (see discussion) concerned me a little bit. I imagine that cast and crew information is spot-on for major contemporary films, but I don't know if the information would be questionable for very old films or very indie films.
In addition to clarifying how IMDb could be used, we could cite more static replacements like Allmovie or whatever other references are available. (I know that the British Film Institute's subscription-only Film Index International details credits, and I'd consider the index very trustworthy.) As for placement, I've mentioned the possibility of a References guidelines. This could detail what sources are acceptable (especially when it comes to movie-focused websites or fan websites), how to find sources either online or in print, etc. IMDb, being well-known, would warrant a couple of passages' worth of mention in such a guideline. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I've found more mistakes in Allmovie than I've ever seen on IMDB. TCM is more relaible than Allmovie, too, and has reams more information to boot. I rather agree with Bzuk, that IMDB is a pretty darn reliable source, with the exception of the trivia section, in which the information can be helpful as a stepping-stone, but really must be be verified. No reliable source -- the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, even The New Yorker with its vaunted fact checkers -- gets things right all the time, so a small number of errors on IMDB doesn't make it unreliable, any more that the misinformation on Wikipedia does. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 00:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
IMDb is mostly user-submitted (as indicated here). It even says, "However keep in mind that our service is provided for the information of users only. It is not provided with the intention that users rely upon the information for any purposes." I don't doubt that for high-profile films of recent memory, the information would be fine-tuned. I think it's more realistic to use IMDb to flesh out an infobox than to actually get the film and check the credits themselves -- for the most part. Cross-referencing is probably ideal. However, I don't think it would be appropriate to cite IMDb directly. I know that SandyGeorgia at the FAC processes is adamantly against citing IMDb. Information like awards and filming locations are surely reported elsewhere by a source that has a stronger reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Obviously, even the most reliable sources make mistakes, but IMDb does not trump other available sources for information about films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Overall, I'd say that IMDB has less errors on it than Wikipedia does. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 22:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
It would probably be best to clearly state how IMDB would be used as a reference if at all. I have seen it used as a reference mostly for cast lists of upcoming films, but have seen the page differ from week to week. I always prefer using more reliable sources, but had initially used IMDB as a source myself until the first discussion began on not considering it a reliable source. I believe it should clearly point in the project's MoS how it can/cannot be used. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Character articles

Do characters who only appear significantly in one work actually justify independent articles?

Yes and No. FWiW, the article and its subject would have to meet the standards of notability. I would refer back to the character of Homer Parish as portrayed by Harold Russell, who appeared in The Best Years of Our Lives as a notable exception. FWiW, thanks, Erik Bzuk (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
I think that for the most part, it's not realistic to have independent articles. If a character appears in only one work, then everything about that character will directly relate to that specific work. I think that if the character appears in more than one work, then an independent article would become more appropriate. However, I would not say that the existence of such an article is imperative. A worthwhile compromise is a list of characters for a franchise, though we may need to determine how to handle singular appearances. I know I've been in disagreement with the very brief appearances of some characters in the James Bond franchise. Bzuk, would you mean elaborating on your example? Harold Russell is an actor -- are you saying that Homer Parish would be a notable exception for his own article? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I have seen some non-notable characters and redirected them/deleted them in the past, but I am open to some notable characters that could warrant their own articles. Stated guidelines in the MoS would be beneficial for new editors who are interested in creating new articles, and I'm sure in most cases it would be likely that individual character articles are not necessary. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Future films list

I know that I've mentioned this before, but it would be nice to see a formal in-department review of all of the articles within the categories in their purview, with an eye towards creating a comprehensive release date master list. Right now the department's list is a scant collection of mainstream releases, which unfortunately leaves the vast majority of the class unaccounted for. When I last did a sampling, many future film's talk pages were incorrectly tagged, either on the normal scale when they still hadn't been released, or as Future class long after a release. Focusing on the smaller and more esoteric films is just as important, however, because they are far more likely to slip through the cracks and potentially create inroads for "walled gardens". It is also very important to take articles out of the Future class as soon as it is proper, because Future-class articles are not accounted for by the 1.0 bot logs, and thus we cannot track if they have been de-tagged, for instance.

What you said, actually, the future film is a difficult area to address because of the scant amount of information that is usually available. An icon marker on the film header would be of use, however. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
Working with this department, I think it has been mostly Steve and me who have carried out the tasks. I think we could outline the department's main page with the tasks you mention to encourage keeping these up-to-date. For the master list of release dates, though, what would be the best way to put one together? It was a little bit tedious to piece the existing list together, and I'm sure it needs to be revised due to some films being shuffled around. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ever since I started assessing the articles, I've done my best to keep up with the wide-release films that are tagged as future class. I usually will be able to reassess the article when released, but I'm usually unable to get all of the films, especially the limited releases. A comprehensive list would be beneficial, but could be difficult to maintain with changing release dates. Would it be possible to include in the banner the month & year release date when tagging it as future class (or create a small tag such as requested image/needed infobox)? Then it would automatically list these films in a category that could be watched to make sure the future films are kept up to date/corrected for dates, and prevent the future class from remaining there after the film is released. Once the films are reassessed, the categories could be deleted. This could be maintained by the future film department, and if it gets backlogged, could be mentioned on the main page that the articles need to be reassessed. I don't know if this may be too difficult though in modifying the code in the banner or if we want another tag on the talk page. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That actually sounds like an excellent idea, integrating it into the banner. I've got my hands a bit full at the moment, but perhaps this could be implemented in a week or so. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Open tasks

Would it be worth exploring the option of having a weekly or bi-weekly open task collaboration amongst the members? The regular shift in focus would break up the monotony, while only featured one at a time would also reduce the sense of being overwhelmed which members may otherwise feel if confronted with the full scope of remaining work. Additionally, we have recently overhauled the project banner to fully deprecate the separate "needs" banners into project banner parameters. Should this sort of task be split amongst members, or is it too admin-ish to spend their time on?

Splitting the load is the best way to proceed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
I think that weekly or bi-weekly may be too often, especially by judging the active status of members from week to week. If it lasted for a month for example, we could then probably make it a contest for barnstars (and tie it into the proposed contest department). There are always some members that are interested on working on these tasks, and if the shiny barnstar is there to motivate them, we could probably begin to whittle away at some of our most extreme open tasks. I'm open to the weekly/bi-weekly periods, but we should probably gauge how effective it is in that time period, and see if a month is more appropriate (or alternate time period). --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Banner revision

The banner currently offers advice for how to get to Start class if the article is assessed as a Stub. It would be nice to make equivalent advice for the other classes as well on how to get to the next assessment level.

Also, the banner will be in the process of a redesign imminently, so as to reduce the hidden elements, eliminate the importance parameter, and feature the task forces more prominently.

Good points. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
I can't wait for the new look, and detailing how to get from class to class shouldn't be too difficult. I could work on developing developing these templates, but probably not until late May or June (dang finals). If somebody wants to start, I could then assist however possible. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Here's the first draft of the Start to B-Class. Please take a look and see if it is too lenient/strict. I stated that the article should have six sections of information (a start already needs a plot, cast and crew, and two other sections in the current Stub to Start-class template), so it would only require two more sections. I basically followed the same format as the Stub to Start template, and will work on the B to GA-Class after we've finished this one.

Article upgrading needed: You can help!

Start to B-Class Upgrading Instructions for Film articles

Note that instructions for articles on other types of film topics within the scope of WikiProject Films are currently under development.

To contribute in upgrading this start-class article, the following requirements must be met:

  • It should already have a developed intro, infobox, image(s), sufficient plot summary, cast and crew section, two other developed sections (production, reception, soundtrack, etc.), and adequate categorization.
  • Statements that may be questioned by a reader over their verifiability must be referenced with an inline citation, preferably using citation templates. Cite any quotes, box office figures, movie reviews, production notes, and any questionable statements.
  • The article should be free of major grammatical errors. Follow the guidelines of the Manual of Style. Consider having the article reviewed by another WP:FILMS member and/or the League of Copyeditors.
  • The article should be broad in coverage, and should have at least six sections of information (plot, cast, and four others: production, reception, DVD release, soundtrack, differences between TV show/book, sequels, themes, awards/honors, etc.). Remember to cite information within these sections.

Once this article has fulfilled these requirements, the film can be nominated for reassessment to B-class and this template will be removed automatically if it qualifies.

Please leave comments below, and once it's finalized, I'll put it in template form. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks very good, overall! I'd say go for it - I will probably be attacking the Film template this week. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, here's the template. Insert into the banner whenever you're ready. When it's added and any changes are made, let me know and I'll fully protect the template to prevent vandalism. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Core list

The core parameter has been added to the banner and all articles on the list have been tagged. However, many of the task forces still have open spaces left on the list, due to an inability to decide how to fill them. Any further thoughts would be most welcome.

It's great how this is finally set up. Do you mean that the task forces don't have their own core articles because the members aren't voting on which ones should be core or there simply aren't any? Or something else? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The details are at WP:FILMCORE, but essentially we use the TSDPT metalist to grab the top 250 films, and then for each task force, the next ten films on the list. The problem is that many of the task forces are not able to fill all ten spaces this way. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contests

The contest department will be forthcoming, primarily in order to provide incentives for working on the Core articles. We could also provide general contests for general article improvement, as well as open task collaborations or other assessment drives. Thoughts on how to best run these are definitely wanted.

Not a big fan of contests, but that's just me. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
I believe that contests have worked well in the past, in this project and other ones I've been associated with. As long as we advertise it enough and provide enough barnstars (or cash prizes if we can get that), completion of tasks/assessment/article improvement should definitely increase/improve. We definitely want to increase our coverage of the Core articles, and if people are or aren't motivated by a contest, it would still be great to reward them for their efforts so as to inspire them to work on future tasks/article improvements. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

A "medal of honor"-type barnstar has been proposed above. (February discussion)

A film-specific barnstar would be useful. I did make one for the Aviation Project Group that was more reflective of the activity. and I know of at least two others that were used. The film barnstar is good, but it does have a "mag wheel" look to it that could be slightly adjusted.
Film Barnstar
Film Barnstar
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
This is a good idea, especially if we begin to start giving the current Film Barnstar out more freely in the Contest Department for completed tasks. Anything more for members to strive for, will likely have a positive effect on our project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review

The general peer review overhaul seems to have optimized their reviews past what we can offer, and gives the benefit of more eyes on the PR. Is it worth maintaining a wholly separate process, or should we just transclude the general PRs within the Review department PR section?

Also, what can be done to encourage usage of A-Class review? I only now was aware that we actually did have an article there about a month ago - albeit only for a day or two - and apparently we all missed seeing it. (Apologies, Limetolime.)

A listing on two or three complimentary forums would be of use. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
What did you have in mind? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
This would only apply in specific instances, but I can see the article on James Stewart also being important for his military accomplishments, Howard Hughes for business or other interests, Anna May Wong for aspects of racism in her career, a film like The Best Years of Our Lives being a historical document. When films or film figures like these are being reviewed, notices can also appear in related forums or project groups such as Biography, History and society and Entertainment, etc. FWiW, just rambling. 02:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC).
I've never really been a part of the PR process, so can't say too much here. If there is limited participation it would probably be best to transclude it, but it would be up to those who are most active in the department. We do have limited participation in many of our departments, and outsourcing PR, may drive some members to work on other areas. For the A-class reviews, perhaps we can leave a message on the talk page of current film GAs or prior FACs. I'll make a mention in this month's newsletter as well, so hopefully that helps a bit. I may consider visiting it myself with a film or two, because I'd like to have a FA sometime in my Wikicareer. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Style guidelines

The task forces which focus on film-related topics are in desperate need of their own style guidelines. Expansion of our MOS, infoboxes, templates, etc to standardize these articles is going to be a continuing concern and possible hindrance to their ability to create viable FAs without some guidance beyond the ad hoc. Identifying key members of these task forces also will help.

Yes, they are. FWiW, more to be said about this in the future, but safe to say, there is little compatibility between film articles. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
I know many of these task forces have very limited membership, so perhaps it would be best to invite these members into a discussion on how the style layout should be set up. We could hold discussion on the main project's talk page so that other members could assist with style concerns for each task force and also hopefully then attract some new members for the task forces. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Actors and Filmmakers

Would there be a benefit to sharing this task force (it is functionally a task force, despite it's name) between WP Bio and WP Films? We have many issues in common (e.g. filmography layout), and this domain is already of prime ancillary importance, since it provides a wealth of real-world information for the film articles.

This task force should be folded into the overall film project. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
I've stated before that I think it is best to keep it separate from WP:FILMS since we would then be mixing biographies with the current films, techniques, festivals, characters, etc. I believe we have enough on our plate, and should focus on further coordinating and improving our current articles rather than retagging and modifying the project to accept these many new articles. However, if there is consensus to merge, I'll do my best to help out. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Member lists

Currently our task force member lists highly encourage members to also sign up with the main project, but generally this is not followed. Perhaps some form of transclusion could be implemented to do this automatically? Or should the task force lists just be transcluded underneath the main list? Also, will this adversely affect the newsletter bot?

I would also like to have a notion of which members are admins for one, as I came across an assault on actors last week and was scrambling to call upon an admin to assist. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC).
What about Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Participants#Admin members? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how it would affect the bot, you'd have to ask Cbrown about that would work. If it could automatically transclude though, I believe it would be beneficial. I'm sure there's no harm in having the task force members being considered members of the main project. I doubt there would be any complaints, and it would assist in sending out the newsletter to more of our members along with other specific messages such as a questionnaire, roll call, etc. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's plenty for now. I await your considered thoughts! :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I've weighed in a few thoughts, but I am truly occupied in this coming week. I hope to get back here and weigh in on the rest of the topics after this week! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Good job on bringing light to many of these topics. It's great that we have more people to contribute to the discussion instead of just being one-on-one. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Limetolime's thoughts

[edit] A-class review

Well, I had recently listed The Muppets' Wizard of Oz for an A-class review, but not a single user responded to the review two whole weeks. I believe that there is not enough action around the A-class review, and that something should be done to publicise it more. I have two suggestions:

  • Turn it into a channel: By this, I mean to turn it into a reviewing station like GA and FA article nominations have. It can start out small, but it should grow larger in the future.
  • Move the A-class review to a more noticeable area: The A-class review need to move from its current position. Please leave a note on my talk page with suggestions. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 19:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Turn into a channel - you mean creating an entire wiki-wide A-Class process? I'm dubious that would fly, to be honest. Also, the new A-Class process was intended to be in-house so as to cater to the strengths of the project editors - essentially, it's meant to be more of an expert review with a focus on improving the quality of the actual content, while FAC and PR usually cater more to the editorial deficiencies of MOS and other policy/guidelines.
I think that part of the current problem is that there has been nearly no activity on the section, which leads to it being abandoned. If it were to have a few articles in process, it might have a better shot of being noticed. Perhaps we could start by asking the primary contributors of some of our GAs if they'd be interested in bringing their articles to the new process?
As far as relocating the A-Class reviews, what did you have in mind? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taglines

I've seen all of WP:FILM's article guidelines, but one really confuses me: taglines. Many film articles have taglines written as shown, and it's not half-bad:

(From The Princess Diaries 2: Royal Engagement):

Taglines:

  • R.S.V.P. This Summer
  • Youare cordially invited to the royal event of the season.
  • She needs the rock to rule.
  • The throne is all hers...but there's a little hitch.
  • It can take a lifetime to find true love; she's got 30 days!
  • To get the kingdom of Genovia... There's just a little hitch.

This would come after the intro, and I don't believe it's bad. It gives more info, which is always good. The reason it is not allowed is because "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information", and that it's just a marketing gimmick. But, this is not entirely true, as taglines give reference to the poster (which is included on most film pages) and are good for people who want to know what the film is about, and quickly. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 14:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand your argument against the fact that taglines are simply part of films' marketing campaigns. What do you mean when you say that taglines give reference to the posters? The posters serve as identifying images, and we couldn't implement posters outside the film infobox without establishing the criteria for inclusion per WP:NFC. Taglines and posters are part of the same campaign, so any reference back and forth is not independent. In addition, taglines use flavorful language. That's why they're considered marketing gimmicks. I disagree that taglines clarify to the readers what a film is about. Perhaps you can get a sense of theme from it, but there is nothing we cannot write ourselves and objectively in terms of genre and premise in the lead section. I am obviously fine with taglines that have been independently reported to stand out, either positively or negatively (see Basic Instinct 2). However, taglines are as commonplace as trailers and TV spots and other kinds of promotional ads, so I don't think that, barring independent coverage, they are worth mentioning in the articles. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Box office sources

A question regarding reliability of box office sources has arisen. Although it primarily is about Indian box office referencing, at least one editor has discussed the issue of other sites such as Box Office Mojo with me. If any other coordinators would like to consider the matter either here or on the discussion itself, I would be very appreciative. Thank you, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class review needing more attention

Could all coordinators who have not done so already have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Assessment/The Muppets' Wizard of Oz? This is our first A-Class review, and it needs more commenters in order to pass/fail. Immediate attention would be ideal, since an FAC has just begun and I'd like to formally be able to conclude this review. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if there should not be a comment on the outcome of the assessment with its closure. Also, is there not a way to leave a link on the article's talk page under "Article milestones"? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, both good points, and both dealt with. We may have to go over old project PRs to get them reflected on the milestones; I will add the appropriate instructions to the relevant pages shortly. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Service awards

I've created medal-type service awards for upcoming tasks - they would look like this:

Gold

Silver

Bronze

These would be basic-level awards designed to be handed out liberally during competitions and task-drives for meeting certain minimum levels of activity. At least, that's what I had in mind - but if there are other ideas about how to use them, let me know! And of course, any general comments on the awards themselves would be greatly appreciated. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

They look fine and rather than service awards, maybe the term should be "Recognition awards," as we are recognizing the contribution rather than the "service" of the individual/group. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC).
Well, I meant it as in "doing us a service" as well as in the sense of "having done a certain amount of work", but if you feel that there are negative connotations, then perhaps a name change might be in order. How about "contributor awards"? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
This would be good for helping to work on some backlogs or if we start the contest department for the core list. Good work. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that's an excellent idea. Additionally, I want to make the Films barnstar automatic for any core FAs. (I've already done this retrospectively for all FAs on the list.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that and was thinking of doing that to, but you beat me to the punch. I mentioned them all in the newsletter, so hopefully that motivates some members to work on improving the core articles further. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I really like them. I'm just curious; What exactly will these be used for? Limetolime I want an award! • look what I did! 00:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Mainly for contests and as incentives for grunt-work tasks, such as a tag-and-assess drive. Each award would have certain minimums that would have to be met, and otherwise be granted automatically. I'm currently bogged down in task force tagging for Japanese cinema, but once that's done, I should have time to properly set up a mockup of the Contest department with more details for coordinator scrutiny. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment change?

There is currently a discussion considering adding a C-class between Start and B-class. If this passes, do you think that we need this class for our project? It would require going through and reassessing thousands of articles and modifying the templates we created within the film banner. However, if we do decide to do this, it may be good use for those service awards in getting people to help with the assessments. The discussion won't be closed until the 18th, but what do you guys think? --Nehrams2020 (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I personally am not really in support of the class, I must say, but I'm certainly fine to go with whatever our consensus is. However, on the other hand, we do need to review all of the B-Class articles anyway to check them against the criteria, so that would seem to be the natural time to do an open task drive for that and tag the articles which don't pass with a C-Class. That being said, I'm not convinced that the differences between Start, C, and B are going to be very obvious, which could create further problems. The more we clarify what each given class means specifically for film articles, the easier (re)tagging will be. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It shouldn't be too hard, just some updating at WP:FILM and the assessment page should be all we need. Limetolime I want an award! • look what I did! 00:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP Film Award

Sorry for not being around, but I was wondering, what should I do to receive the award? Limetolime I want an award! • look what I did! 23:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing specifically, really. It's like a barnstar - you just keep on working hard and hope that someone notices and decides to award it to you. (That being said, more active participation here certainly wouldn't hurt! ;) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)