Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Questionnaire 1

General information ( v t e )
Main project page	+ talk
→ Discussion archives
Style guidelines	talk
→ Multimedia	talk
→ Naming conventions	talk
→ Copy-editing essentials	talk
Notability guidelines	talk
Announcements and open tasks	talk
→ Article alerts
→ Cleanup listing
→ New articles	talk
→ Nominations for deletion	talk
→ Popular pages
→ Requests	talk
Spotlight	talk
Film portal	talk
Fiction noticeboard	talk

Project organization
Coordinators	talk
Participants	talk
Project banner	talk
Project category	talk

Departments
Assessment	talk
→ B-Class
→ Instructions
Categorization	talk
Core	talk
Outreach	talk
Resources	talk
Review	talk
Spotlight	talk
→ Spotlight cleanup listing
Topic workshop	talk

Task forces
General topics
Film awards	talk
Film festivals	talk
Film finance	talk
Filmmaking	talk
Silent films	talk
Genre
Animated films	talk
Christian films	talk
Comic book films	talk
Documentary films	talk
Marvel Cinematic Universe	talk
Skydance Media	talk
War films	talk
Avant-garde and experimental films	talk
National and regional
American cinema	talk
Argentine cinema	talk
Australian cinema	talk
Baltic cinema	talk
Belgian cinema	talk
British cinema	talk
Canadian cinema	talk
Chinese cinema	talk
French cinema	talk
German cinema	talk
Indian cinema	talk
Italian cinema	talk
Japanese cinema	talk
Korean cinema	talk
Mexican cinema	talk
New Zealand cinema	talk
Nordic cinema	talk
Pakistani cinema	talk
Persian cinema	talk
Southeast Asian cinema	talk
Soviet and post-Soviet cinema	talk
Spanish cinema	talk
Uruguayan cinema	talk
Venezuelan cinema	talk

Templates
banner
DVD citation
DVD liner notes citation
infobox
invite
plot cleanup
stub
userbox

Setting up the questions

I created Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Q1 Set so it can be transcluded on the main questionnaire page and the five sub-pages. I've written some possible start-off questions. My thinking is that we can ask a question with quantifiable answers whenever possible and ask them to bold their best response. Also, we should avoid using "Neutral" as one of the choices so we can have the participants lean one way or another. We can follow this question with an opportunity to go into detail. So example, question 1 has two parts. 1.1 will be quantitative and 1.2 will be qualitative. Does this approach work? I am still trying to come up with the best wording for some questions. We can hold off on numbering them until we can determine what the best order could be. —Erik (talk • contrib) 17:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two immediate thoughts - 1) the introduction needs to be as short as possible to avoid TLDR issues. 2) I'd move the last question up to in-between 5 and 6. It seems to incongruous to include that after a number of "anything else?"-type questions which really should be the logical end. Respondents are likely to answer the questions one-by-one without reading the following ones, so it merely invites a possible redundancy. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the set a little bit of an overhaul. Some questions seemed redundant, so I tried to choose the ones that would give us the best feedback. Currently, the set starts out with quantifiable questions (so we can measure quantitative answers via bar graph) and moves into qualitative questions. As for the introduction, I attempted to trim it. We need to set up the sub-pages, and I'm trying to figure out the best way to do this. Maybe a setup where the questions are commented out, and when the editor clicks to edit, he or she can copy and paste the answers to answer? —Erik (talk • contrib) 20:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thought - maybe we're making it too elaborate? Surely the easiest thing is to just have them all on one page and have the editor hit the "new section" tab up top, so that each person has his/her own section? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be good to have sub-pages so the main page does not become too large. I do not know how many people will fill out the questionnaire or how many words they will devote to answering each question. Another approach we could do is some kind of archiving when we see that the main page has reached x KB in size. This could spare us the grief of multiple active pages. —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, archiving doesn't sound like a bad idea - especially as it's unlikely that editors will return to do any substantial revisions after more than a few days. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1 seems a little ambiguous to me. Can we define a little more clearly what "an active member of WikiProject Films" means? Some might feel this means an editor who participates fully in film article expansion and the behind-the-scenes discussions and departments, while others might see it as merely one who writes film articles. The subsequent questions do help to clarify this somewhat, but that leaves me wondering what use the first actually is. I'm not sure we really need it. Thoughts? Steve ^{T • C} 23:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that this was the point - to see what our members' self-perception was. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Forgive me, I've been in and out of the loop for half of December, and I'm currently playing catch-up. The intent behind the question is clear now. Steve ^{T • C} 23:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To follow this up, the quantifiable questions are set up to compel an answer one way or another. The questions with the four possible choices don't have a "Neutral" choice, so editors have to decide which way they best lean. It's a survey characteristic that someone mentioned to me (IRL) some time ago. —Erik (talk • contrib) 00:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Questionnaire notice

The turnout for the questionnaire has been stellar! I hope that we can continue to gather responses. I was wondering about the possibility of providing a notice through the {{Film}} template. It could either be in the template itself, or more obvious, as a note permanently attached to the lower right corner of the browser window. See my user page at User:Erik for what I mean. Does anyone think that this could be used in the template for a brief period of time, or is it too invasive? —Erik (talk • contrib) 22:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the second option might be slightly too pushy/invasive. Not that it wouldn't garner further responses which I'd like to hear, but perhaps adding a table above the current template would be best. (Even better, create a table notice on a subspace and add it to the template as a transclusion, perhaps?) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How long is this questionnaire going to run for? Is it too late in the day to be acting on the above suggestion to put something in the project banner? And how is this information going to be processed? PC78 (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]