Wikipedia talk:Cinema Collaboration of the Week

message: Do you think this will work? Jun-Dai 19:27, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruning 

message: Children of Paradise has been the COTW for over a week now. Is it time to update? - AKeen 23:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't seem to be much activity around here? Why? And what should we do? NuclearFunk 14:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe it would help to put a notice on the talk page of everyone who voted for the CoTW. I think that used to be done - AKeen 16:37, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Updating

message: Should you make it collaboration of the fortnight as some other collabs have done? Maybe it could have more movies which are out in the cinemas at the moment to spark some more interest? Astrokey44 22:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe fortnight would be better  - it seems interest is dwindling. The last two CoTW Broken Blossoms (which sadly didn't improve much) and Children of Paradise and the upcoming Andre Bazin are all pretty esoteric, though very important. I guess in the end it relies on the noms. - AKeen 08:25, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we update the collaboration to a new topic? - AKeen 04:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with turning it into biweekly and changed the project page. I also believe that nominating new movies that are in the cinemas now might be a good idea. --Fenice 18:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  fortnight? 

message: I think 3 votes per week is too much for such a small project, I suggest switching to two votes per week.--Fenice 18:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 votes?

message: You might want to start of a list of "good" movie web sites, maybe based on existing Wikipedia article usage.  Obviously, imdb.com. Also Rotten Tomatoes .  I think that Roger Ebert's ite, filmsite.org and sensesofcinema.com are good. I have created :Template:filmsite, :Template:rogerebert and :Template:senses.  I think that we should strive to have the templated links clustered together.  I know the links look repeatative and boring, but it maks them easy to scan through.  I am surprised that someone afd'ed the filmsite.org page.  Could some of you please go over there and vote on that page?  Thanks. -- Pinktulip 02:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good movie sites 

message: It says that the new collaboration of the week would be chosen on January 28, but it is now February 10 and it is still Billy Wilder.  I would go ahead and change it, but I'm not sure how the voting system works, or who is in charge of changing the selections every week. Estrose 17:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the same thing. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 23:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Selection

message: Wikipedia:Article assessment is currently accepting submissions for "1980s comedy films".  Next week all the submissions will be assessed.  Please consider adding a submission and helping with the assessments next week.  violet/riga (t) 10:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article assessment 

message: I removed the following criteria:
* A film director
* A cinematographer or other filmmaking collaborator (writer, editor, producer, etc.)
* A film critic or reviewer
* A technical film term, or a technical aspect of filmmaking (e.g., Montage, Split-screen, Green screen)
The first three fall under WikiProject Biography and the last one falls under WikiProject Filmmaking.
I added:
* A film character
Since it now says that in the project tag.--Supernumerary 04:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criteria 

message: When some members vote and therefore intend to contribute, do they start discussing or should each voter shortly suggest the area one may try to improve? Hoverfish 18:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When the article is selected perhaps the contributors should create a to-do list on the article's talk page and fill it out with everything the article needs. Then they can pick which task they would like to do from that list. Also if they don't finish everything on the to-do list (which is likely since the goal is to bring it to a featured-level article in one week), the list will be left as a guide for other editors.--Supernumerary 23:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should start soon this list, because after hovering back in history, peer reviews etc, the hardest part will be to define the items of the list. Or do we have some expert in the field among us? Hoverfish 22:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe useful to know up front 

message: I agree that it is much more rewarding to start from a quite developed article and help it reach GA or featured. Maybe we should rephrase the aim ("to take an undeveloped or underdeveloped film-related topic and improve it"). The reason I have proposed Clockwise was that it is underdeveloped, but surely Blues Bros will be more fun collaborating. Should we state that we are looking for rather developed articles that happen to be in a mess and are worth a better fate (or something in this direction)? Hoverfish 14:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think something's got to be done. Seems there ain't much contributin' done on COTW projects. Look at current Blue's Brothers. [sic] Very low partissipatin'. [sic] ~ Feureau 03:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If we do change it to two weeks, we should redirect this and rename it "Cinema Collaboration of the Fortnight" like WPBIO. Cbrown1023 21:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Regardless of how we name it, 2 weeks would be better AdamSmithee 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A change to 2 weeks would be an improvement -- the film COTW is less active than others Australian Matt 03:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redefining Collaboration's aim? 

message: I have made some changes to reflect our current practice of selecting a film. It is logical that since we have only one collab at a time, the next collab will start at the end of the current one. If every time someone adds a nominee, there is a fixed period of time after its nomination (7 or 14 days) to its becoming an active collab (or not), then we would have many parallel collabs running. Hoverfish 08:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't change the title of the page, because of historical reasons and because another decision may be taken. Hoverfish 09:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Take a look and tell me if it needs anything more.--Supernumerary 18:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The instructions on the todo look fine, thanks. Hoverfish 23:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start of next collaboration 

message: Just wanted everyone to know about this change: . I abstained from reverting it but I see the template put in the article page, so one of the two has to be corrected. Hoverfish 22:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's article page.  I'll fix it. Cbrown1023 22:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It belongs on the article page, that's why it is so small (font and whole size). Cbrown1023 22:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change in COTW placement 

message: This collaboration appears to be inactive so I am removing it from the community portal. If this becomes active again just add it back.--Banana 04:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Community Portal