Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008

Voting is now concluded.

Current time is 12:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Tally
edit

Candidate	Votes
Yllosubmarine	11
Kevinalewis (withdrew)	10
others withdrew

Overview

The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers, nor with any authority over article content or editor conduct.

The Lead Coordinator bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project; the Assistant Coordinators aid the Lead Coordinator and focus on specific areas that require special attention.

A more detailed description of the coordinators' responsibilities is available here; some specific examples of day-to-day coordinator work can be found here.

Incumbents

Name	Position	Standing for re-election?
None currently

More information on the history of the coordinator positions can be found here.

Election process

• The election will run for about four weeks, starting at 00:00 (UTC) on April 1 and ending at 23:59 (UTC) on April 30.

• Any member of the project may nominate themselves for a position by adding their statement in the "Candidates" section below by the start of the election. The following boilerplate can be used:

=== Name ===

{{user|Name}}
: Statement goes here...

==== Comments and questions for Name ====

*

• The election will be conducted using simple approval voting. Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. The candidate with the highest number of endorsements will become the Lead Coordinator (provided he or she is willing to assume the post); the next eight candidates will become Assistant Coordinators. The number of Assistant Coordinators may be increased if there is a tie or near-tie for the last position.

• Both project members and interested outside parties are encouraged to ask questions of the nominees or make general comments.

Candidates

Voting is now concluded.

Current time is 12:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

JimDunning

JimDunning (talk · contribs)

Gee, I didn't even have to change my name to Aaron to be listed first. So much for my low key, albeit 11th-hour candidacy .... I can't admit to much experience in the WikiProject Novels administrative world (none), but have had a long romance with literature. As an English educator I entered the Wikipedia world out of curiosity and as an experiment to measure its usefulness to students. Thus far I've been impressed enough with its successes and failures to remain involved. I initially focused on film articles, but have found myself gravitating to literature. My candidacy interest here is also prompted by a concern over the low number of Coordinators: I figure an inexperienced Coordinator is better than no Coordinator at all.
Jim Dunning | talk 20:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevinalewis

Kevinalewis (talk · contribs)

As this election has been proposed I think I should set things in motion by standing myself. My record with the project so far is basically my platform. I believe I have most of the basic principles of Wikipedia understood after 2.5 year of editing. The levels of bureaucracy sometimes leaves me cold and occasionally lost, but I suppose it is to be expected with such a worldwide animal. Temperamentally I'm probably a bit of a conservative, so changes are likely to be encouraged on a slow managed basis. It is so easy to have an idea proposed and go with the WP:BOLD thing and only then find it wasn't such a good idea. Anyhow that is enough of my failings; bring on the other candidates and the questions. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Kevinalewis

• Should we really support you if one of your promises is to make things change slowly, we need quick changes, fast, not slow conservative facism. DangerTM (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Having pretty much done this job for over 2 years I find that the quicker the change the more liable to cause problems it is. Such a large collection of editors is a challenge to take forward together and that decisive change is good but it does need to be considered and as far as possible based on a decent level of consensus. Please avoid terms like "fascism", I do take exception to that! If this job passes to others then it might allow me to get a bit more of a life so I have no problems with the baton passing to others. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for calling you a facist, that was immature, but I do have a question. If you have essentially had this job for over two years, why do you need to have the title? Is it for the recognician, or is it because you think you can make a bigger difference if you have the title?DangerTM (talk) 13:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem! On the question, I'm not bothered by the title, either way. If people don't want me to do it, also fine. I'm not doing this for recognition. I just thought that to make the election viable a certain number of people needed to submit candidacies and if people want to identify who the coordinators are, the labels are useful. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Hi, Kevin - Whilst I appreciate all the work you've done on this project, you may remember that we've clashed once or twice on the "stub" issue. I contend that it is better not to label every short article as a stub just because, for example, it doesn't include a detailed synopsis of the novel. To my mind, we would be better occupied in concentrating on the real stubs - the ones that don't give the passing reader most of the information they are looking for (which would include title, author, date of publication and a brief summary of the theme and plot). So my question is, "What is your definition of a stub?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deb (talk • contribs)

I trust "clash" is really too strong a word. Anyway, my definition of "stub" is roughly based on the normal wiki one. So basically an article that doesn't answer users questions when they come to the article, and / or doesn't provide references, citations and "verifiableness". If pepole agree that this working definition is not appropriate, then I'm very open to a revised form. Also more clearly listed criteria for each of the classes would be very helpful, it just needs people to work together to produce them. Some WikiProjects have some quite formal sets of criteria for these matters. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes and "detailed synopsis" wouldn't have been a reason for such a choice - or if it was I must have had a really bad night's sleep that day. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's quite a fair answer, but I think we should be aiming for more precision in the definition. No doubt it will be up for discussion when you're elected :-) Deb (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think Kevin has done a great job with this Project with the amount of time and work he has put into it. He has always been helpful and quick in answering any questions i have had, so i dont have any complaints. Having extra coordinators is a good idea to spread the workload. I been a member of a few Projects that have gone by the wayside and became inactive so have always admired how well this Project functioned under his guidance. Boylo (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• I can think of no reason to oppose, you've done a fantastic job with the project, and I admire all the work you've done with it. I whole-heartedly think you could, and should be the first coordinater of WikiProject novels. ~ Bella Swan 16:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Checking the user stats for the Novel Project main page, Kevinalewis, you completely dominate the page with 212/536 edits. Why shouldn't you be the co-ordinator? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Because we might just find new people, better able, more capable, with new ideas, with more time than I; or all of these. I can also do it as well of course! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 17:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, but don't go away! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Do you think it is even possible to merge - somehow - all fiction related project? See Portal:Literature/Wikiprojects for an incomplete list; there are actually more! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh! I see three basic issues here. Firstly, fiction is an enormous subject and potentially spans many different mediums, drama (theatre, radio, film, TV), speech (audio readings, plays, monologues) and print (books, e-print, magazines, comics); so you see just fiction is probably just too broad. This problem lays down the source for the Second issue, conflicting scope boundaries. In other words when a say "genre" group like our "Australian task force" is happy to be associated, it defines its own scope note just a all Australian prose narrative but all such literature (include plays, poetry), I hope you can see the problem. Thirdly, or lastly, defining project wide scope or task force scope so that editors can feel motivated to identify with the grouping. Now having said all that I do think we can do better than we have done in pulling together genre related groups. I have to confess I'm not sure I'm the right guy for that, it might need someone with a focus for it and new energy for the task, and lots of negotiating skills. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• You've been the defacto Novels guy for some time, Kevin. Assuming we elect you to the position you more or less already occupy, do you have any plans for really getting this project in shape? Nothing "fascistic", of course, but where would you like to take this WikiProject? Howa0082 (talk) 04:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Mate, "Facistic" is not a word, you probably mean facist, which can be a verb and a noun, and an adjective. You facist, The facist, or Facism, not Facistic.DangerTM (talk) 06:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

... if Rob Halford can make up "desolizating", I can make up words, too. Hell, if SHAKESPEARE can make up words... Howa0082 (talk) 06:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

And is does have an another "s", "Fascism" is it in one form. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sir, let's hope you are the one most voted for. Pokemon Buffy Titan (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

In direct response to the question above; it is a very good question. One of my clear disadvantages over other candidates is that I have perhaps used up my fund of good ideas. However playing to my strengths, and one reason I prefer the name "coordinator" is that a major aspect of this type of role is to pull together other peoples effect and ideas. If you want a charismatic leader; that is not me. If you want to engender an environment where everyones ideas are encouraged (or should be) and welcomed, if sometimes challenged; then I'm your man. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if it's a disadvantage, really. Like in a democratic government, having a progressive party and a conservative party helps keeps things on track, mostly. We've got the one guy here who wants to apparently merge everything ever into one WikiProject (WikiProject: All of Existance), and it's good that there be someone to step in and say "Um, perhaps not." I'd liken you to a Captain of a boat whose executive staff are all saying "But I've always wanted to see a dragon, and the map says Thar Be Dragonns! Let's go, c'mon!" and then you shake your head sadly at their youthful exuberance; but I don't know how you'd take it, so... I won't even mention my nautical example! But I would hope you would understand my point, despite the muddled metaphor and not feel discouraged. "Head Coordinator" might be appropriate, as a sort've Coordinator Emeritis, since you've mentioned your desire to step back from constantly working on this. Howa0082 (talk) 14:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"desire to step back", I wouldn't have phrased it like that. More than willing to let others have more of an chance/influence in the project. I'm not about to back away anytime soon, unless life issues impinge. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I must've misunderstood you, then. Sorry. Howa0082 (talk) 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

After stumbling on to wikipedia almost by accident, I have become a part of this project. I have been a member here for almost as long as the show 60 minutes, but no quite. So my question really does relate to users, such as myself, who have been a part of the community for nearly as long as it takes for a breath to be inhaled then exhaled, what will you do as a coordinator to help users adjust and become contributing members of the wikipedia project novels family?WilliamMThompson (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm asking all the candidates this so I've got a better idea of who to vote for. What's the main thing you'd like to sort out about this WikiProject? Ta.AlmightyClam 12:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not easy to answer this question - as so much of the wikiproject structure has my hands all over it. However,

• Encourage more active involvement from other editors.
• Try to focus editors back to the writing and improvement of the core in scope articles.
• Provide as simple a project structure as possible that still enables the job to get done.

I know that sounds slightly vague - but it is really an extension of what I have already been aiming at. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• What is the distinction between task forces and descendant WikiProjects? What would be required for you to recommend creating/dissolving (a) a task force and (b) descendant WikiProject? maclean 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• (a) What factors make scheduled collaborations successful? (b) Is the Novels Collaboration of the Month successful? (c) In your term there could be 6 more collaborations, is there anything you would seek to modify? maclean 06:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Candidacy withdrawn
• As life has a way of happening suddenly - It is just possible I will have to radically cut back my involvement on Wikipedia in general and this WikiProject I particular. So is perhaps opportune that this election has arisen. It maybe that the two other candidates are to become my successors (I have been kind of doing the job anyway). :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that Kevinalewis. Hope all is well and it is just that the good things in life are getting in the way of your Wiki-addiction. You certainly have been doing a great job here. See you when you return to Wikipedia. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound as if you are retiring, so I hope you will sign up to be a coordinator and just do what you can without any serious commitments. We should be very flexible to accommodate you. --maclean 19:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of Kevinalewis

1. Support Shrewpelt (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - on any terms the candidate would find acceptable to him. John Carter (talk) 00:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Support - even if you take a Wiki sabbatical. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Support :) María (habla conmigo) 12:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Dunno what this WikiProject would do without you... AlmightyClam 17:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Support If you want to keep going, I support it! If real life needs to take the steering wheel no pressure though. --JayHenry (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 19:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. Has potential to great thinks even if it scaled back level.--chemica (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Deb (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Support
    Jim Dunning | talk 20:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yllosubmarine

Yllosubmarine (talk · contribs)

To further get the ball rolling, I might as well nominate myself. I've been on Wikipedia for a little over two years and have been editing heavily since fall of 2006. During my time here I have consistently edited articles devoted to novels and other works of fiction and have familiarized myself with proper formatting and little intricacies of the MOS. Although I spend most of my time editing biographical articles, I find myself adding a fair use rationale to an book cover image here, updating an assessment there, or just copy-editing a plot summary.

This was the first WikiProject I joined and although I have yet to be heavily affiliated with its processes, I would love the opportunity to improve certain facets and better ensure its success. I do not believe major changes are needed, but participation, peer reviewing and assessments are three areas in which I see the most need for improvement. Contests and drives would be a great incentive for our more than three hundred members; at the moment we are sadly not as productive as other WikiProjects and this needs to change. There is also a very small number of GA and FA level novel-related articles, a deficiency that upped participation and interest would help fix. I think I can greatly help in providing a gentle (and consistent) nudge to our members to make everyone wake up and smell the book glue. Thanks for the consideration. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Yllosubmarine

• how would you anticipate working together with any other coordinators with whom you might not agree on some issues, should you succeed. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• It depends on the circumstances, of course, but what I would have to remind myself (and perhaps remind the other party) is that we're working towards a common cause: the betterment of the WikiProject. What is important is that we have similar goals in mind; how we attain those goals can be discussed and debated, but we should never lose sight of those goals. If by "succeed" you mean keep my temper in check then, yes, I think I could do that. If I don't agree with someone in regards to various issues, I hope that they'll be willing to work with me on reaching a compromise. María (habla conmigo) 13:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Good answer, I totally agree. Actually I meant succeed in the election, but no matter. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Do you think it is even possible to merge - somehow - all fiction related project? See Portal:Literature/Wikiprojects for an incomplete list; there are actually more! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Anything is possible, but I think the more important question to ask is if it will do any good. Personally, I greatly believe in smaller, branched off WikiProjects and I do not see a reason to merge all of the fiction-related ones. Smaller, more focused groups of individuals working on a focused subject (such as articles dealing with Middle-earth or Harry Potter) are far more successful because they are not as broad as their parent WikiProject (WP:BOOKS). Because there are a less amount of articles to worry about, there is less of a chance that members' time will be spent on upkeep (assessment, stub sorting, categorization) and more time can be spent on article improvement, which is our ultimate goal. For example, look at how successful the Simpsons WikiProject is! 23 FAs, 80 GAs... such attention wouldn't be given to this particular subject if they were wallowing in the much bigger pool that is WP:TELEVISION. Therefore, yes, it's possible, but I don't think it's a good idea and I would be against it. María (habla conmigo) 20:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The only problem with such approaches I can see with that is the disproportionate attention based on Fan popularity. The examples you give are based on high levels of this type of support. For the large project scopes (like ours and WP:TELEVISION) the future would probably be improved by advancing the "task force" concept, ie. special focus within a large focus. This type of approach appears highly successful at WP:BIOGRAPHY, WP:MILHIST and to a lesser extent WP:FILM. There obviously is a home here for both approaches, but a little more logical structure could be beneficial. What's your take on these ideas? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there's a good case to be made for both scenarios, really, and I agree with you in that there seems to be a home for both approaches. I don't know if I agree that any kind of high attention is "disproportionate" since it all benefits Wikipedia in the long run (although I must say that 80 GAs is far too much Simpsons for my tastes). María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry poor choice of word. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Goddammit, I think Iron Dawn is an important first work by an overlooked author! Why do you keep changing my rating back to Low?! What the hell criteria are you using to rate the importance of novels?!?!?!!!1 (I'm being stupid here, but really. Beyond the "top importance" discussion page, how would you explain to a person reacting in my way why a novel is the importance it is? Really, what do the importance ratings mean to you? A person could argue that Rosemary's Baby is no more important than The Name of the Rose, after all. Isn't importance almost too subjective for proper use in an art-based project?) Howa0082 (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Yllosubmarine has to do with Iron Dawn. There is nothing in the edit history to prompt this, or is there? :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Howa0082 meant that "rant" as an example. :) María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was entirely being facetious. :D Howa0082 (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I definitely agree that, aside from obvious examples like Alice in Wonderland or Pride and Prejudice, the importance ratings are almost completely subjective. If a user wants to argue that one work is of higher importance than I thought, I wouldn't resort to arguing or edit warring; I hope that most of them wouldn't react with such venom as your Oscar-worthy re-enactment. :) To continue with your example, I personally know very little about Ira Levin's work, so if someone wanted to give a higher importance rating to The Name of the Rose than I originally thought proper, I wouldn't put up much of a fight. Assessments do serve a purpose, however, and although I think think it is mainly up to the one who is doing the assessing, I don't think that it's entirely superfluous to our goals here. María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is a shame "importance" ever got used, "priority" which some use, would have been better. It is really intended as a means for the project to establish relative editing importance / priority. Linked to relative notability, it's just an aid to sequence our work and efforts. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I've always wondered why WP:NOVEL used "importance" while other WPs seem to prefer "priority"; I think the latter is a far more judicial word. But, yes, the rating does serve a purpose, so although subjective, it's beneficial. María (habla conmigo) 12:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

So, would it be fair to say that perhaps you might be willing to change the term to Priority, to foster less potential butthurt? And if so, or even if not, how would you use the cross-rating system to direct efforts? High-priority articles should be focused on to reach FA moreso than others? Low-importance articles being worked extensively past a certain rating on should be discouraged? Howa0082 (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

If consensus was reached that "priority" is favored over "importance" then, yes, I would be willing to change it. I don't think extensive work on any article, regardless of its rating, should be discouraged. There have been great articles about what I may have considered marginal encyclopedic material, so who am I to judge? But because obvious high-priority works tend to be more encyclopedic, it makes sense to put more of a community-based effort into improving these. Therefore, core articles within our WikiProject, all of those "classic" novels and things we're forced to read in intro to literature courses, should be our highest priority, but not our main priority. María (habla conmigo) 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Although we have never interacted prior to this (after all, Wikipedia's a big world :p), I've got an excellent impression of your writing skills from the comments on Awadewit's talk page :) This question may seem little foolish, but I was wondering whether you have enough time for this task; so it doesn't affect the time spent on article work? —Dark ^(talk) 05:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• That's a very fair question. I think I would have enough time, definitely. Article writing does take a lot of time and energy, but most of why I'm here is because I've seen biographical articles blossom and bloom at GAN and FAC, whereas very little novel and fiction-related articles get such attention. I would like to see more representation from this WikiProject and if I can help that happen, I'm definitely willing to give up a couple hours here and there that would usually be given to anal retentive copy-editing of my own work. :) P.S: thank you very much for the compliment! María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• After stumbling on to wikipedia almost by accident, I have become a part of this project. I have been a member here for almost as long as the show 60 minutes, but no quite. So my question really does relate to users, such as myself, who have been a part of the community for nearly as long as it takes for a breath to be inhaled then exhaled, what will you do as a coordinator to help users adjust and become contributing members of the wikipedia project novels family?WilliamMThompson (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• A majority of users who join the WikiProject are already somewhat used to the inner workings of Wikipedia, so hopefully adjustment is something that most will not have to cope with. :) As for helping them integrate into the WikiProjct, there is a Welcome template that is added to the new members' talk pages that introduce them to some things that are happening, as well as a monthly newsletter that helps alert members new and old alike about recent happenings. I would like to work more with outreach not only to inspire new members so that they take part, but also help members who have perhaps forgotten that they've even signed up. So more activities, more collaborations, and more activity, period, should help the new guys learn how to contribute to the Project. María (habla conmigo) 19:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

• It seems that most people join a project after seeing it and having it spark their interests. What will you do about extracting the ideas from users who don't know how to express themselves?WilliamMThompson (talk) 00:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• If new members are not able or do not wish express their ideas then there's obviously nothing coordinators can do about it. We're a WikiProject, not the Spanish Inquisition. ;) If people have ideas, they are encouraged to participate through collaborative or outreach measures (the newsletter, for examples, encourages people to share news and ideas), but there's surely no need for "extraction". María (habla conmigo) 01:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe a different metaphor should have been used instead of the Spanish Inquisition. That was in factused by the Spanish Catholic monarchy to rid Spain of the Saracens and Muslims. Not like other Inquisitions, which were started by a group of well meaning monks to raise faith. And coordinators can do something about new users and harvesting their ideas. They, we, should be prompted to do whatever we can. And maybe, just maybe, I would be more liable to vote for you if you stopped accusing me of things.WilliamMThompson (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever comments I made to you in private on your talkpage regarding your personal involvement in the WikiProject should have no bearing on my coordinator nomination. To answer your pointed comment and veiled threat, however, I have not accused you of anything. Back on topic: I fail to see the merit of your rebuttal since we seem to agree on the principle of the matter; I believe in encouragement and community outreach measures, as I stated above. Members should be encouraged to participate and express their ideas for improvement, but I don't believe in hounding (well meaning or no) which could ultimately overwhelm our members and disinterest them, which would be the opposite of what we want. María (habla conmigo) 01:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• Perhaps hounding is too strong a word. Maybe "Encouraging" should be used instead. Users should be encouraged to contribute and be an active part of the project, which is what you are saying, I admire that.WilliamMThompson (talk) 11:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm asking all the candidates this so I've got a better idea of who to vote for. What's the main thing you'd like to sort out about this WikiProject? Ta. AlmightyClam 12:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are several things that I would like to see improved, but if I were to pick one pet project that I think would benefit the WikiProject most it would probably be the peer review department. I would like to work on pumping up participation (more articles reviewed by more reviewers in preparation for GA and FAC) as well as making sure that every added article receives at least two separate and detailed reviews from experienced users. We could set up a list of volunteer reviewers, noting their specialty (copyediting, MOS, research, etc) so that members will be able to contact someone if they need further help in improving their article. It would also be great if one of the coordinators could keep on top of the listed articles, perhaps checking up on the talk pages to see if the contributors require further assistance if time has gone by without comment. Sometimes members forget that they made the peer review request, so they may need to be checked on; this happened with I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, which I gave a preliminary review only to see it fail at FAC because the user nominated it after they didn't receive further attention. We could definitely make this work better. María (habla conmigo) 16:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

• What is the distinction between task forces and descendant WikiProjects? What would be required for you to recommend creating/dissolving (a) a task force and (b) descendant WikiProject? maclean 00:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• To be honest, I don't have much experience with task forces and descendant WikiProjects. From what I gather, however, a task force fits into a WikiProject like a neat little package; it cannot work independently from the WikiProject it belongs to because it is essentially tied to it; it defines a certain part of the WP in question. The task force for the newly created 19th century novels, for example, could not work as a descendant WikiProject because it is one type of novel and will not include anything else; descendant WikiProjects, on the other hand, have the ability to become independent and branch out to include other interests. There is a parent project for Literature, and then there is Books, and then Novels, and then from that there are other things like WP Middle-earth, which I do not feel could act adequately as a task force. Its scope not only includes articles about novels but the adaptations, the characters, the mythos, the fanfic, etc. It's far too broad and most of it stretches far beyond WP:FILM or WP:NOVELS. And it's constantly growing. 19th century novels, not so much. In order to recommend creating or dissolving a task force and/or a descendant WP, the focus of the group would have to be discussed and defined as well as its potential for growth. Novels about beans would work perfectly as a task force but the subject may not be able to branch out enough to warrant a WikiProject of its own. María (habla conmigo) 03:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• If I understand you correctly, the distinction is that descendant WikiProjects cover multiple topics (novels and movies) while task forces operate on subsets of novels. So are Wikipedia:WikiProject Artemis Fowl, Wikipedia:WikiProject A Song of Ice and Fire, and Wikipedia:WikiProject The Dark Tower valid WikiProjects, or should they be a task forces? maclean 04:42, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I believe that they are valid descendant (and therefore independent) WikiProjects. But like everything regarding Wikipedia, it's open to discussion and interpretation. :) María (habla conmigo) 15:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

• The answer to my original question is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. In my opinion, there should be two types of task forces: (a) temporary entities focused on a specific objective (b) permanent entities that monitor and assist a specific subset of articles. Descendant WikiProject should be reserved for areas with a lot of activity. My examples above probably shouldn't be independent projects but should not be messed with as long as there is activity (be flexible and don't mess with what is working). --maclean 02:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• (a) What factors make scheduled collaborations successful? (b) Is the Novels Collaboration of the Month successful? (c) In your term there could be 6 more collaborations, is there anything you would seek to modify? maclean 06:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• Collaborations can only be successful as long as there is interest from active editors. It is one thing to "sign up" or approve of a collaboration, but quite another to take part in said collaboration. The Novels WikiProject collaboration has been successful in the past when editing numbers were higher, but because of waning interest it has lost some potency. Some of this could be due to the article choices or because overall participation for the Project has fallen as of late, but with drives and incentives I feel that it could pick back up again. If we began with top priority, core novel articles, for example, there would be a chance that more editors would have knowledge of the work and an interest in participating. Certainly advertising plays a big role in it, as well; the newsletter mentions current collaborations but there may be other outlets. Offering an incentive (such as WikiCookies or barnstars) to the users with the most improvements may also be a fun way to kickstart a stagnant article. The process itself is a good one, and it has worked in the past with other WikiProjects; but without anyone paying attention, nothing will get done. María (habla conmigo) 13:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

• From your answers above I get the sense that you are more concerned with promoting article content. Is it fair to say you would focus more on article content than organizational tasks? Question: should the WikiProject focus on training the skills of willing volunteers or building a broader membership/participation base? --maclean 02:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Tricky, tricky. In the past I concentrated on technical issues in articles: adding infoboxes, assessments, standardization, etc. Lately I have become less of a wiki-gnome and more of a full blown writer. I believe it would be fair to say that I would focus more on article content rather than working behind the scenes, although I will surely take part in the latter. They each have their place in the success of this project and Wikipedia in general. To answer your last question, both. Willing volunteers are only as good as what they know and how they go about doing it; a lot of people may not know what they're doing, but they may be keen, and so misunderstandings and mistakes may occur. Training will ensure that everyone is on the same page. María (habla conmigo) 12:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• As I'm sure you know, there are a great many projects out there whose subject is one about which various novels have been published, including Superman, Batman, Star Wars, most successful television series, and so on. In some of these cases, like Nero Wolfe, the novel is still the primary medium by which the subject is known and recognized, and in some, like Superman or Star Wars, the subject is best known and recognized through other media. The potentially contentious discussions which might arise from conflicts about which project takes priority regarding these subjects is one which could very likely arise. I know that this isn't a question which has necessarily been addressed by many people yet, and I'm not trying to set you up in any way, but how would you deal with were it to arise? John Carter (talk) 17:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, boy. First and foremost, it's all subjective. I can see these arguments becoming quite contentious, as you say, but if it were to arise with me in the middle of it, I would probably argue for whatever medium is the most notable. There's always going to be that one person who prefers the original novelization as opposed to the film adaptation, or the other person who hates the book and loves the movie, but what it boils down to (for me) is whatever is most recognized and more accessible to most people. To use one of our examples, Star Wars, countless amounts of people have seen the films as opposed to reading the books, so I would argue that that subject in particular would fall to a medium outside of novels. Again, though, it's all subjective. María (habla conmigo) 19:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• One of my major concerns is to actually get work done. I like most of what you have to say, but I do have a question. You have a great emphasis on peer review and assessment, and have also commented on the lack of production from this project. Do you consider simple assessment to be productive and worthwhile, or do you believe more importance needs to be given to the final product, the article itself? It seems that some people get caught up in all the reviewing going on in the background, but never get to work on what matters to Wikipedia users not involved in the task force, the article. It's nice to talk about how to get an article to FA status, but something has to be done to actually get it there. How would you help this? -Kanogul ^(talk) 18:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

• By "simple assessment", I'm guessing you mean merely assessing an article's class and importance and updating the WikiProject template on its talk page? Assessment can be worthwhile, yes, but I don't know if I would call it productive as per output of quality articles. Reviewing, on the other hand, which includes assessment to a certain point, is of the utmost importance. The sharing of ideas, the discussion of how to implement important features of a novel article and where to find reliable sources: these are all things that can take place during an article's review. I agree that some individuals may get caught up in the technical work and forget that the articles themselves, not their individual "grades", often take the backburner, but it takes every kind of person to make and maintain an encyclopedia. Some people work better behind the scenes and they should be encouraged to do what they do best and enjoy. There are those like me, however, who may work better in writing, producing, and reviewing articles. All we can do is make sure that all bases are covered; we must offer enough "work" for both sides of the playing field and encourage all kinds of Wikipedians to take part for the better good of our articles. María (habla conmigo) 19:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of Yllosubmarine

1. Support John Carter (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Support . Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Support. --JayHenry (talk) 05:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Support AlmightyClam 15:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Support Boylo (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Support :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Support Leamarie411x2 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Support Kanogul ^(talk) 15:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Support Juru (talk) 05:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Support Deb (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Support
    Jim Dunning | talk 20:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

General comments

Please make any general comments not related to one of the candidates on the talk page.