Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Coordinators/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Planning for the long-term

So far I believe the drive is going pretty well. I'm trying to get at least 1,000 articles reviewed a week within the Start/Unassessed classes. I would like to see both of those sections be assessed first before we focus on the large amount of articles within the Stub-class, which aren't really a high priority. Although, Stub articles are the easiest to review and take the least amount of time. Based on how many articles we have and how extensive this drive is in reassessing and adding appropriate parameters, I'd like to propose that we set up a schedule for when we do a project-wide drive like this. I would suggest something like once every 3-5 years that we continue to hold similar drives due to the amount of time/effort it takes. This sort of long-term plan will help us to adequately make any necessary preparations or modify the drive as new classes and/or parameters are added. In addition, by looking at all of our articles every few years, it allows for time when lower class articles gradually improve further and require reassessment.

In addition to long-term planning, I think that it would be helpful that we set a project-wide goal for having a set number of GA/FA/FLs that we should strive for. Currently we have 77 FAs, 35 FLs, and 288 GAs. At the conclusion of the drive, we should start to organize a contest or collaboration department to help improve some of our articles up to higher classes. I believe that we could push for having (and keeping) 100 FAs, 100 FLS, and 4-500 GAs in a few years. GAs are for the most part easy to get up to that level, and FLs require additional effort, but FAs would obviously be a challenge. Before we could really try for a project-wide endeavor like this, we would probably need to devote some time to cleaning up all of our current higher-class articles to ensure that they meet current guidelines. This would help to prevent them from being delisted as well as provide excellent examples for newer editors to take their own plunge in writing higher-class articles.

It is kind of hard to develop long-term plans on here, as editors come and go and both Wikipedia and our project are constantly changing. However, even if we're all not here in the coming months, years, decades (that's something to think about), we can still develop a framework to better organize our project to be prepare for the future. Although, as new people come in and replacements occur, they might change everything around, thinking we were nuts about a particular idea. So, based on this long post, do we have any comments or ideas for continuing to plan for the long-term? I think our project has a very great start to it since its creation, but I think we have the potential to do so much more to help us keep track with some of the other successful projects out there. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I am hoping to work on Psycho (1960 film) this week with my list of resources so it can be a Featured Article in time to display for its 50th anniversary this June. It may help to target Core-class film articles with upcoming anniversaries; just go to WP:FILMCORE, sort by year, and find 2011 or so minus 10/25/50/100 years. For example, The Birth of a Nation will have its 100th anniversary in 2015. In addition, I agree that older articles will need to be revisited, such as Casablanca and Sunset Boulevard, since standards have been raised. I suggested some time ago a notification message for each passing year that a Featured Article has been existence so we can review the diff over a year to keep good changes and to revise the bad. Erik (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


Major upcoming anniversaries list

I've updated the Core list to reflect the 2010 TSPDT revision. Based off of the new list, these are the dates for the 10th/25th/50th/75th/100th anniversaries of any non-FA core articles:

2010

January 29 - Chunhyang (10th)
February 5 - La Dolce Vita (50th)
February 8 - The Virgin Spring (50th)
February 20 - Brazil (25th)
March 16 - Breathless (50th)
March 28 - Triumph of the Will (75th)
April 3 - The Official Story (25th)
May 14 - Yi Yi (10th)
May 16 - Peeping Tom (50th)
June 1 - Ran (25th)
June 15 - The Apartment (50th)
June 16 - Psycho (50th)
June 29 - L'avventura (50th)
June - The 39 Steps (75th)
September 6 - Rocco and His Brothers (50th)
September 6 - The Circle (10th)
September 27 - Come and See (25th)
September 29 - In the Mood for Love (10th)
October 23 - Shoah (25th)
November 15 - A Night at the Opera (75th)
November 25 - Shoot the Piano Player (50th)
December 12 - My Life as a Dog (25th)
Unspecified - Meghe Dhaka Tara (50th)
Unspecified - The Time to Live and the Time to Die (25th)

Obviously we've already missed four of these and have three within a month's time, so we can already write off a good chunk of 2010, unfortunately.

2011

January 24 - La notte (50th)
February 5 - Modern Times (75th)
March 8 - La Cienaga (10th)
April 25 - Yojimbo (50th)
May 9 - The Sacrifice (25th)
May 13 - Atanarjuat (10th)
May - Viridiana (50th)
June 1 - Moulin Rouge (10th)
August 31 - Accattone (50th)
October 18 - West Side Story (50th)
September 19 - Blue Velvet (25th)
November 3 - Placido (50th)
December 19 - Fellowship of the Ring (10th)
Unspecified - The Crime of Monsieur Lange (75th)
Unspecified - Last Year in Marienbad (50th)
Unspecified - Lantana (10th)
Unspecified (released much later) - Partie de campagne (75th)

By task force

  • American - Brazil, The Apartment, Psycho, A Night at the Opera, Modern Times, Moulin Rouge, West Side Story, Blue Velvet
  • Argentine - The Official Story, La Cienaga
  • Australian - Moulin Rouge, Lantana
  • British - Brazil, Peeping Tom, Psycho, The 39 Steps
  • Chinese - Yi Yi, In the Mood for Love, The Time to Live and the Time to Die
  • French - Breathless, Shoah, Shoot the Piano Player, The Crime of Monsieur Lange, Last Year in Marienbad, Partie de campagne
  • German - Triumph of the Will
  • Indian - Meghe Dhaka Tara
  • Italian - La Dolce Vita, L'avventura, Rocco and His Brothers, La notte, Accattone
  • Japanese - Ran, Yojimbo
  • Korean - Chunhyang
  • New Zealand - Fellowship of the Ring
  • Nordic - The Virgin Spring, My Life as a Dog
  • Persian - The Circle
  • Soviet/Post-Soviet - Come and See
  • Spanish - Placido

As you can see, even this small number of films clearly covers the majority of our geographic task forces! It seems to me that the obvious thing would be to notify each of the task forces' talk pages about these upcoming anniversaries and encouraging a collaboration towards a Today's Featured Article for each article's anniversary. (Along with some targeted prodding of each page's primary editors, perhaps...) Attacking these aggressively through the task forces will help the project at large by upping our profile and increasing our FA count, while also potentially revitalizing the task forces by giving them a clear, defined, and achievable goal under a specific deadline.

While the number of articles in the core list, or even in a year's worth of major anniversaries is considerable, the number under each task force is moderate enough to be challenging but not daunting or overwhelming, but also is regular enough to (hopefully) keep editors engaged. Those are my thoughts, anyway - what are each of yours? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Great minds think alike; I have similar films and their anniversaries listed at User:Erik/Sandbox. (The difference is that they are English-language and not always Core-class; just my preferences.) First, there are not going to be primary editors for most of these articles; they are Stub-class and Start-class articles. We need more than a talk page notification; it would be better to find the primary editor(s) where they exist through revision statistics of each article and contact them personally. In addition, Featured Articles require a concerted effort to write. There are a few obstacles I foresee. 1) Editors contribute the most on articles of topics for which they have an interest. Films that are not quite known in popular culture may not be interesting to editors. 2) Part of the Core-class articles are foreign-language films, and I have yet to see a "heavyweight" editor shape up a article of a non-English film. Comprehensiveness is part of FA criteria, and the expectation would be for foreign-language references to be vetted, which I don't think most of us can do. 3) Again with the comprehensiveness criteria, most editors of film articles generally pass through. I think the skill set of researching a film, especially those 25 years old and more, is rare. This particular obstacle can be overcome if there are enough editors interested in collaborating. Like I said above, I tried to do Psycho (1960 film), but this has fallen by the wayside due to real-life priorities. I think similar priorities will take hold for others. Thus, we should plan for the long term. It's possible but highly unlikely that anyone could get a Featured version of a Core-class article out the door for an anniversary this year. If we look at 2011 and beyond, I think we could figure out a time frame that addresses research and real-life priorities. West Side Story (film), for example, is one I would not mind having for collaboration. Erik (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I understand your underlying doubts, but I don't entirely agree - we have four foreign film FAs, plus three former ones (two of which are on these lists: Triumph of the Will and Ran), as well as a much greater number of foreign GAs. Those are soft targets; furthermore, about 20 or so of the titles on the list have Criterion releases, which tend to contain a great deal of research material. This isn't going to be easy, no, but I feel that on Wikipedia momentum is often the crucial ingredient, and if we even only succeed in getting one of these to go FA per quarter, that would be a huge coup in my book.
In any case, getting an article to FA is not really that much more difficult when starting with a Stub or Start article - in fact, that's often easier to remold from the ground up, if need be. Approaching any article fresh is going to require just as much research and reference searching, because - to begin with - you're not going to assume that the previous editors found everything there was to be found. Furthermore, we all understand that each stage up the assessment ladder is tougher than the last - so beginning with a B-class article is not necessarily so much easier: both will still require extensive editing and reviewing either way. Getting an editor or group of editors to push a Stub or Start through to GA still would be worth our encouragement, though, right? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Triumph of the Will was de-listed as a Featured Article after a featured article review. Ran (film) is not particularly impressive if we apply today's more stringent comprehensiveness criteria. In any case, these efforts were made because editors personally wanted to make them better. Talk page notifications will not really translate into more Featured Articles; Wikipedia and its editors, especially at WikiProject Films, do not respond that way. We need to recognize what resources we have and how they can be utilized. For example, I'd be happy to help with the research effort for a given film. I just meant that the Stub-class and Start-class nature of most Core-class articles indicate a lack of primary editing. The more popular of Core-class articles tend to have more content, which is why I mentioned choosing a Core-class film that is well-known in popular culture. The interest has been there in the past, and we just need to master the drive to Featured Article status. Mainly, my question is, what do you foresee for collaboration? Some editors will be much more qualified than others in certain aspects. It may be hard to get less qualified editors involved. Erik (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Good job updating the core articles and setting up this future dates list. I agree that is going to be more challenging to improve the foreign FAs, especially with editors here who are more centered on American films. I have an interest in bringing Dr. Strangelove up to FA for its anniversary date, but that's definitely a ways off. If we do attempt to integrate the task forces into this, I hope that an effort is made to improve the articles instead of just having the list sitting on the talk page as dates roll on by. Even if we don't make FAs out of these, there should be enough editors and sources out there to at least get them to GA status. I'm planning on later this month setting up a drive (I guess I like drives) to finally get around to cleaning up our older GA/FAs. It's hard to shoot for increasing our quality article levels when we keep seeing our older ones fall through the cracks and get delisted from lack of WP:FILM interference. I don't foresee too many people that will be interested in just cleaning up articles, but for our project too continue to increase its quality articles, it has to be done. If we get core film articles up to FA for their anniversaries that coincide with 2010, that's great, but I'm thinking we should get this out of the way first before we can really prepare for improving these other articles. Erik and I had a conversation this last month about the possibility of including university classroom assignments as expanding articles, and perhaps we can develop a list of a couple hundred articles as suggestions that professors could assign (the core articles would definitely be included). Then, instead of a few editors struggling to expand these hundreds of articles, we would just need a few to help the many potential students expand them. This will take a lot of preparation, so we need to make sure that our quality articles reflect that, our guidelines are clear and comprehensive, and we continue to recruit editors to expand our collaborative side of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Election

Big Bird just reminded me that the current term concludes at the end of the month. I forgot all about it with all the various projects going on. Normally, nominations would be open from the beginning of March and voting would have started at this point. Due to the delay, should we just open nominations for a week only (starting tomorrow), and then allow the rest of time for voting? If we believe that there should be more time, then we can just extend the elections to conclude in mid-April. What seems fair to you guys? Although I'm currently listed as lead coordinator, I have not had that much time to edit Wikipedia due to work and other RL activities. I'm happy to continue on as a coordinator if members agree for next term, but I believe someone that is more active should take the lead position. I usually work on areas outside the Film project, so someone that spends more time focused on the day-to-day activities of the project would best serve as lead. I'm planning on seeing the T&A drive finish at the end of April, while still focusing on the new GA/FA cleanup listing that has started. I'd like to incorporate a collaboration element in the cleanup listing, to eventually move us to have at least a monthly one. Anyway, please respond quickly on your thoughts about the election timing, so we can get that rolling along. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think things would be greatly disrupted if we waited until the conclusion of the tag drive and opened up the nominations as of April 1 which, if I'm not mistaken, is the actual end date for the drive. Voting can take place from April 15 until the 28 and new terms would be effective April 29. Current terms would effectively be prolonged by a month, that would be the only consequence that I see and I don't have a problem with it. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I think Big Bird's proposal will work fine. However since we have set precedence, would future terms be a month longer? I don't see why we couldn't, but it should be decided which. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 12:37, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Any chance we can revisit the notion of elections? I just wonder if the formalities are a bit much for WP:FILM, where it may work for a more regimented and seasoned WikiProject like WP:MILHIST. The time really does fly by, and there's not exactly a ton of behind-the-scenes discussions. Maybe an annual election would be better, but have some flexibility about editors stepping down or stepping forward in between? Just throwing this out there. Erik (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I was also thinking about this too. Milt is also a bit larger, I think, so for them having more frequent elections seems to work better. For us, annual might be better. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Big Bird's solution seem fine to me as well, unless there is a big call for a new election from some front :-) For the most part, unless someone is stepping down, it doesn't seem like it changes up that much anyway. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
My initial suggestion to hold the elections in April was made only to suggest that no election is necessarily needed this month. In light of Erik's suggestion and Collectonian's comments, maybe I'll modify that proposed solution. I think one year terms are completely acceptable and probably more desirable than six month terms. The last election's results saw seven nominees fill seven coordinator positions so it's probably fair to say that six months hasn't changed all that much in terms of how many editors there may be who are eager and willing to assume a coordinator position. An annual election seems well suited for our project with the caveat that we have a provision for replacing coordinators who resign or step down mid-term. In that case, I propose that there be no election until September of this year when we elect new coordinators for a term of one year in length. Does that sound acceptable to everyone? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
I was actually hoping that we could make this a year-long term, as six months does seem to fly by. I was put off by the fact that a year can be a long time in the wiki-world, as editors might leave or be interested in running for the position more frequently. However, the option raised above of having clear guidelines on how to replace coordinators who step down (or get blocked) should deter that. Before we can just automatically continue the coordinator position for six months, it would probably be best to bring it up at the main project page to determine consensus. It's easy to say that we'll continue on to six months, but those looking in, might see differently. Once that's determined, we can see if a new election should be held next month to start a one-year term or if it's okay to wait until September. Does that sound reasonable? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for being late to this party. I'm for the year one again. Unless we have more members step down or banned or such, this seems like an acceptable time frame. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I made this post on the project talk page asking for input of items needing consensus. If the consensus is to make it a one year term (whether with or without April elections) the procedural guidelines for replacing coordinators that can no longer conduct their duties can be agreed upon among the coordinators after the current term is extended or new one begins. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Formal proposal

There seems to be an agreement among the coordinators that a one-year term of service is preferred and the lack of objections from other participants after my post at WT:FILMS can, in my opinion, comfortably be taken to imply consent to our suggestions. Therefore, I would like to make a proposal to slighty alter the wording of Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators and to take a quick poll of approval before proceeding with a new election.

I propose that the current wording of the Selection section to be altered so that the first sentence reads: "Coordinators are elected by a simple approval vote, held every twelve months." As far as a scenario of mid-term coordinator replacement is concerned (this scenario being more likely than in a six-month term), I'm satisfied with the provision of the current wording that states: "Co-opting members into coordinators may also be done at the discretion of the coordinators, but should be expected to be used on a limited basis to replace those unlikely to return, fill empty seats, cover long-term absences, or help the coordinators continue to work efficiently if they feel otherwise understaffed." This retains the coordinators' ability to efficiently fill an empty seat without the need for a repeat election.

If this meets the coordinators' approval, I then propose that the current term of service be extended to September 29 of this year and that the next election be held starting September 1. If objections are raised towards the extension of the current term, I alternately propose that a new election be held in April for a one-year term of service.

I understand if these proposals seem too trivial to bring up for review (especially that there seems to be an agreement already) but I wanted to provide everyone an opportunity to adjust or add to my proposal. Please express your opinions about this proposal so that we can extended the current term immediately or move forward with the election for next week.

Thank you! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused; I thought you were fine with having the election in September? Erik (talk) 14:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I was and still am fine with an extension until September. The above discussion seems to have editors in agreement about the one-year term but no definite comments were made about extending the current term. I have now added that into my proposal so that we can gauge the preference between extension of the current term until September or starting a new one-year term from April. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
This proposal seems appropriate to me and seems to reflect the community opinion as indicated. I personally don't see the benefit in having an election this April; having the next term of service begin in September seems more appropriate. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Proposal and extension sounds fine to me. Hopefully with elections only once a year we will get increased participation and more candidates. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Terms extended to 12 months

Per above consensus and lack of opposition, I have changed the wording on Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators as proposed and the current term can now be considered extended until September of this year. No further action should be needed on this.

Nehrams, you stated earlier in this discussion that you were considering not serving as lead coordinator after the new election. Since there won't be an election for a few months, is it still the case that you'd prefer to step down? Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:09, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for modifying the page. I'm happy to remain on as lead for the remainder of the term as I'm still active enough on here, although future terms would benefit with someone who is more active during the day hours. Sometimes it is hard to join in on discussions when you're last to the party and all the valid points have been said. Anyway, now that we saved time and effort on not having the election, we can continue to work with our ongoing tasks. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! I'm glad you decided to stay on for the remainder of the term and I'm glad that this issue is now resolved. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Tag&Assess

I think we should keep this open for one more month, to conclude in April. In the last few weeks there has still been steady contributions to the ranges, and we can do a final push to members in tomorrow's newsletter while also nudging a few members to finish their ranges. I doubt we'll finish the stub class articles, but we should get the last of the Start-class and Unassessed articles done by the end of the drive. I'm already happy with the results we've had, but please let me know if there is any opposition to allowing the drive to conclude in April. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to extend the drive. Some of the unassessed and start class ranges had been adopted but haven't been completed so I may look into completing them with, of course, permission from those editors who adopted the range in the first place. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 12:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

I hope everyone is doing well. Although we have started the cleanup listing, I've been the only one to review the articles. I have completed 50 articles, but I would really appreciate some assistance. Since you all have a strong grasp of what our articles should include and do well at copyediting, I would like to invite you to join in. If it's just not interesting to you, please at least weigh in at the image listing. If we can get the images out of the way, it will be easier to focus on just the prose and citations. We need just a few opinions on each of the images to determine if they should remain in the article or be removed. If there are any questions at all, please let me know. If you have ideas for encouraging participation, I'd like to hear it. I plan to give out awards after the cleanup is completed, but I'm going to need some editors to join in for that to happen. I would really like to start working to get some more GA/FAs for our project, but we need to get this out of the way first. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Resignation

To my great sorry, I must resign as a coordinator, effective immediately. I apologize for not giving more advanced notice, but I felt it best that announcements of my retirement be done only when I was fully ready to go. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 08:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I very much understand the gravity of having to walk away. We build such a sense of personal pride and camaraderie during our time as editors. I hope you are able to deal with your circumstances in an effective manner. My advice: Avoid revisiting websites to keep up with the situation. Use something like the BlockSite extension for Firefox to add Wikipedia's login page and discussion-related pages. You will probably want to use Wikipedia but want to avoid the itch of checking back. Apply the extension to other websites as necessary. Thank you for all your collaboration here at WikiProject Films, and I wish you the best. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Erik, I know exactly how you feel about AnmaFinotera leaving us, even though I am not a coordinator of this project myself. This is very sad news. Thank you for your efforts and collaborations here at WikiProject Films, AnmaFinotera, and happy journeys. Best wishes, Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
This is so sad! Thank you for all you've done for Wikipedia and the help you gave newbies on WP:Film (including steering me in the right direction when I was stubborn and rude to you last October). I've seen how certain uncontrollable kids has continuously acted towards you in the year I've been here. It's funny how Wikipedia can't even prevent some immature kids from editing on this site. It's a shame. HOW many IPs can a kid have? Sigh.. I don't know what to say. I wish you the best, Mike Allen 23:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
It's unfortunate to see another high-quality editor leave Wikipedia. It was beneficial to have a fine contributor that focused on both discussions and bringing articles up to GA/FA/FL quality. As always, we'll be here if you ever have the desire to come back, even if it's under an alias to avoid the stalkers. I want to sincerely thank you for your dedicated years of service to both WP:FILMS and other areas of Wikipedia. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
All the best, and I echo what's already been said. Lugnuts (talk) 06:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
As do I. Thanks for all your work you have done. I wish the project was better equipped to effectively deal with what I would characterize as deranged individuals. Best regards, decltype (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
You were one of the best! Excellent work on all your contributions to this and all other projects you worked on! Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

2010 Election

I hope everyone is doing well. Elections came up quickly, but with terms now lasting a year, this should continue to be not as time-consuming. I wanted to bring up a few points before initiating the nomination period, and hear all of the current coordinators' input. As much as I like serving as a coordinator, I don't think that I have the schedule and full focus (I've got a few non-film upcoming projects I'm planning on working on) to serve as lead coordinator. Our to-do list has quite a bit on its plate, and it would be great to see more of them completed with new "lead-ership". I'm content on running again as a coordinator, but would welcome a current or new coordinator to fill the lead role. On another note, are we content with the number of coordinator positions or are we interested in an increase/decrease? Does anyone have any other changes or comments on the election? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the number of coordinators. It seems we are able to do enough with what we have. I don't think I am willing to go for lead coordinator. I'm still in school and, for the next six months, I'll be in a different country, so Wiki is not going to have my full attention. BOVINEBOY2008 04:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
We should reduce the number of coordinators to five. It would narrow the field of responsibility, and we could follow-up with short and decisive sessions held periodically. (Since we seem to languish over the long term.) I'll throw my hat in the ring this time. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Do. It. Lugnuts (talk) 18:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I won't be standing this time around. I've only recently returned from a seven month wikibreak, and with no guarantee that I won't disappear again I really can't commit to the role. To be honest I didn't realise I was still a coordinator, I had just assumed that you guys held an election back in March. Regards. PC78 (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this was why I think the pool can be smaller. People are busy, and Collectonian is gone. We do have new faces at WT:FILM (a good gauge of involvement), and we should build on that in the next term. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I was hoping we would be looking for a smaller group, and five sounds like it will work. I look forward to some new faces stepping up to fill the roles (I feel old now...). If there are no objections or any other issues, I'll initiate the nomination period tomorrow. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
One idea I've had for a while [but was waiting for election time to bring up] was the idea of introducing departmental coordinators. Right now we've got the lead coordinator and assistant coordinators which handle the overall project, I was thinking there could be departmental coordinators for some of the departments (eg. Core, Assessment, Categories, Collaboration and Cleanup) who would be in charge of organizing the department and getting other editors involved, as well as serve as a point of contact for the department. I think it would be useful to have someone like that to look after the department and regularly drum up activity. I don't think I could handle being one of the project coordinators, but I could certainly handle helping out with something like this. What do you guys think? - Kollision (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm hesitant to add more roles to the WikiProject. We have launched task forces that are ultimately untouched. The low level of activity on this talk page reflects that even those who step up to be a coordinator are busy outside the WikiProject. Basically, bureaucracy is difficult with a volunteer project like this when there is no real accountability. We need to realize that the set of editors working on film articles will have specific preferences. We can present optional tasks such as standardization or clean-up and attempt to provide the tools, but they are the ones that have to take it and run with it. I'm not suggesting dismantling the coordinator setup, but it may be to our benefit to have punctuated sessions where decisions are made and rolled out, especially automating processes that are considered tedious. (Hah, this is kind of like a coordinator discussion already... sorry!) Erik (talk | contribs) 15:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the taskforces should be expanded (IE geographic ones for areas of the globe not already covered), working along line with the recent(ish) translation taskforces/WikiProjects. And please, please, please, don't blank all the lists of who belongs to each project and then ask everyone to re-sign up again. I just don't see the point in that. Lugnuts (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the member list roll call, that's done to help us determine the active members for drives, elections, and the newsletter deliveries. It saves time on not having to contact editors that have drifted from the project or quit Wikipedia altogether. If it's an issue, we can do it once every two years. Currently, the task forces appear mainly just for tagging articles that guage progress on article quality. Besides that, there's not really too much going on with the task forces that I could see. Before we could significantly expand the roles to covering specific departments/task forces we would need to see further participation and collaboration efforts. So far, several article cleanup/improvement attempts have been made, but there hasn't been too much interest. We need to find more ways to increase the this to continue to branch out. We have the framework, and need to encourage current and possible members to help utilize the many resources available to us. Anyway, I'll start the nomination period right now. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

I'm sorry for being late with the 2010 elections (I thought the deadline was today September 30.) May I take this opportunity to congratulate the newly elected project coordinators, and to wish you all happy editing. Cheers! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 13:54, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! We will make the announcements soon, and we will update the agenda. You are welcome to participate in our discussions, too! Volunteering to be a coordinator just puts the onus on oneself for active participation. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I decided to reorganize the archive box to focus solely on the month-year range. The archive pages are otherwise not used to their fullest, since we have had some quiet terms. I've also archived discussions from before 2010. We should probably use a similar auto-archiving process here like at WT:FILM, though we can modify the parameters to match the activity of this talk page. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Election results

The sixth election of coordinators for WikiProject Films has concluded, and so here are the results in order of supports:

I have accepted the position of lead coordinator, and Nehrams2020, MichaelQSchmidt, Lugnuts, and MikeAllen will fill the remaining four coordinator positions. Bovineboy2008 was one support behind Lugnuts and MikeAllen, so with such close results, I ask other coordinators if they would be interested in appointing him as a sixth coordinator. We have appointed a coordinator before, when in the previous term I, erm, stepped down and PC78 was appointed to fill a coordinator position. Is there similar interest here? I will check with Bovineboy2008 if he would accept being appointed. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I support Bovineboy for an additional coordinator position, if he's up for it. I look forward with continuing to work with all of you. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, of course. :) Mike Allen 03:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Support also. Lugnuts (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Manys hand make light work. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Bovineboy2008, it is unanimous to appoint you as the sixth coordinator. Welcome aboard! Obviously you're ready to work as seen below. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 14:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Userbox

Is there a userbox for Film Coordinators? Mike Allen 23:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

{{User WikiProject Films|coordinator}}. PC78 (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. :) Mike Allen 23:36, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Coordinators/Archive_7&oldid=1083657773"