Wikipedia talk:Spotlight/Archive 1

message: * Do we work on one article to completion, or do we work on one article up to a set limit of time?
* What criteria should we use in determining what articles to spotlight?
- Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 20:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some considerations... 

message: On April 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Icelanders, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
 Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 08:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK 

message: Interesting. I came here after following the Spotlight advert, but I disagree with the tagline "collaboration the way it should work". The first tagline "a different approach" is more accurate. Collaboration can take many forms, and this is one of many. The most common alternative, I guess is seen on quiet talk pages, where two or three editors can collaborate and achieve the same result over several days or weeks. Those who like to work a bit faster can use IRC, but I like to see the process documented on talk pages as well. See Talk:Anne of Denmark for an example. In general, rebranding and relaunching the various collaboration efforts is in general a good idea. Keeps people interested. Impressive work on the articles tackled so far. Carcharoth 15:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting 

message: I would recommend that coverage be focused on Wikipedia:Vital articles. Many, if not most, are in a sad state and as central topics, Wikipedia would greatly benefit from the attention. Just a thought. Cheers! Vassyana 02:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an old comment, for sure, but I strongly agree. There are many Vital Articles which no one with a knowledge of English seems to want to touch.  I look forward to helping out when I can. -RunningOnBrains 07:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, feel free to add anything you think is in need of collaborative improvement to the list at the bottom of the project page, leaving a little note here.  I agree that some of them are in very bad shape and the revitalisation of this project is just the thing to fix that!...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 23:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coverage suggestion 

message: May I propose Saint Petersburg and the Winter War as candidates? Colchicum 13:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New proposal

message: I noticed this project had a :Template:historical tag, which I replaced with Template:inactive.  The former tag appears intended for proposals (discussion or votes on a course of action) rather than pages or collaborations.  I also see that the deletion discussion explicitly called for tagging as inactive rather than historical.  Judging by what links to historical, I suspect the tag has been misapplied in many other instances (WP:ACID is another I fixed just now) and should be modified to make it clear that it is only for decisions, not projects.  It seems like the kiss of death to put it on a WikiProject, because it makes it sound impossible for editors to get it going again.  A project like this one may not be easily restarted (it may need to be reworked to not rely on unlikely real-time IRC chats, for example) but it can be done without going all the way out to the Village Pump to await developments.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wnt (talk • contribs) 20:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "historical" tag 

message: I am officially reactivating this!  Our new collaboration (for this week) is Kristallnacht.  I have emailed the bot operator and begun collaborating on the article.  The involved WikiProjects have been informed and I have removed the 'inactive' tag.  So, welcome back everyone.  I am determined not to let this meet the same fate as it did before...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 00:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  We're active! 

message: The article doesn't detail the actual rioting and pillaging that took place so I'm not sure if it will meet the GA criteria, I started working on it but sort of stopped because I didn't know how to phrase it. But if you want this article to pass the GA the timeline section needs to detail the rioting --Hadseys 18:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kristallnacht 

message: Closes 31 May 2008.
;Support
#Support:  He deserved it, having been a regular and great contributor - especially on IRC...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 13:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerotan's election 

message: I, noting the recent lack of success on the first article from WP:VA (Michelangelo), have suggested a revision. I say that we only select an article from WP:VA (in a new discussion, as opposed to going down the list) if there are no suggestions on this page.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  18:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: #Support as it is my own idea.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  19:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Support

message: Possible article for next week, if anyone is interested in joining us. miranda 22:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tuskegee Airmen]] 

message: Hey, I was asking the graphists at WP:GL for :Image:American quebec 1775.jpg to turn it into a SVG.  A question was asked by the graphist and I'm not sure what the question points to.  Can someone take a look?  Thanks.  The converstaion is held at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Image workshop#American quebec 1775.jpg - SVGify.  Thanks.  - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 20:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: [[Richard Montgomery]] 

message: I would like to withdraw from editing the Marco Polo article, and in doing so, I would like to clarify a few issues:
# The use of IRC: Unless you publish IRC logs, it is impossible to tell from the outside where consensus lies if you're not there at the exact moment that a decision if made. Several changes were made in my absence for example, which appeared to me to be the result of one editor's personal preference. Per the usual routine, it would then be open to other editors (such as me) to revert upon disagreement, pending discussion. Blatantly this is different if strong consensus has emerged on one side of the argument (whichever that may be). Solution: publish IRC logs or make it clear in edit summaries that a consensus discussion has taken place. Better still, work it out on the talk page.
# Referencing: I would like to take this opportunity to clarify my own personal position here. I am in favour, where no living people are involved, of the (temporary) inclusion of a believable fact even if it does not have a little [1] next to it. If it controversial, then it can be removed, but we work for the reader. If they find it helpful to have, it's a win-win scenario.
# Deleting of material wholesale, apparently for no particular reason. Per #1, if there is a good reason, could we have it please? I have been told that there was prior consensus to remove all unreferenced material. Presumably this was interpreted per [1][2][3]. I cannot disagree with this more. The article was left unreadable overnight, with references back to bits that had just been deleted. Personally, I find this unacceptable. Consult Wikipedia:Good article criteria for a summary of when references are useful and when not so much.
# The assumption of good faith. It was accidental. Enough said.
Overall, I really like the idea, and I hope to be able to contribute on the next article chosen (someone mentioned Windows XP, but I have no idea whether that was after a serious discussion, or just part of the mockery "fun". - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 12:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that if I had to pick a version of the article to put up for good article review / leave behind, it would be this revision, just before that blanket revert. I'm not overly bothered about the "See also" section, but as I have said before, it is supposed to include tangentially related article NOT already mentioned in the article; some suggestions for similar travellers seems to me to be a sensible and a plausible navigator route for any reader. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 13:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To better cope with point one, we have started adding our signatures and placing agreed consensus on the talk page. As for See Also, if you apply to same logic to other pages, we might as well start including Gandhi on Jesus' page due to their similar ideologies. There seems to be a break in logic, when applied realistically. Concepts should apply to multiple situations; not just single articles. I am abstaining from comment on the other three points; I'll allow someone else to share their opinion in response. –blurpeace (talk) 12:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I noticed the talk page message, which was useful in explaining everything. Thank you! I wouldn't say Gandhi and Jesus on each others' see alsos is quite what I meant. Muhammad, Jesus and Buddha would be more like it, but I wouldn't really advocate that because they do not present a continuous narrative. With the Marco Polo article, explorers to the east are much closer to my idea of a sequence. Certainly, the best use of See also is for related lists, chronologies and perspective type articles. But I don't really mind, I just think it's a waste not to take advantage. - Jarry1250 [ humourous – discuss ] 13:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Points for discussion

message: A week has passed since we started working on Marco Polo. The article suggestion list contains multiple articles which need improvements. So we don't choose a controversial article with no Reliable sources online I suggest putting here a suggested article and adding Online Reliable sources connected with it. So please list here any suggested article with reliable sources, Thank you--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next artilce 

message: Hi everyone. I've made a few changes to the Spotlight main page. I've also improved the userboxes. Take a look at the new one: Wikipedia:Spotlight#Userbox. Kind regards, LouriePieterse 10:12, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Userbox 

message: When articles are featured on Wikipedia, they should have some kind of template displayed, such as;
In IRC discussion, some users have objected to this practice.
I think that there should be a template, and that it should definitely include a link that directs the reader to the IRC channel.
Due to objections on IRC, I made a smaller template;
 appeared to not find this acceptable, because of the link, and changed it to this;
I think that there should be a template on articles, and I strongly believe that it should include a link to the IRC chat, because that is what 'spotlight' is all about. 
*It will tell readers that we are actively working to improve the article.
*It gives a simple method for the reader to get involved in the project
*It makes any existing editors aware of "spotlight", and hence the current high number of edits and EC issues
I welcome all comments.   Chzz  ►  01:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As many users made it clear that they approve of this practice (on IRC), and per WP:BRD, for now, I will reinstate the original template; if people object to this, then I sincerely apologise, and I assure you that I will not enter into an edit war.    Chzz  ►  01:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Soft Keep In a nutshell: I like it, but I can live without it  Personally, I would like to have it at the top of the article we are currently working on, but I could care less if we decide to or not. Its just an insignificant little box really when you look at it from an overall project perspective and our bigger goals I think we collectively set out to accomplish. So what if it helps us recruit new people. If the debate, disagreement about it causes so much tension amungst ourselves then lets scrap the template. Burningview (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, I guess the tension is mostly due to my comments, but I strongly disagree with this template. I can't support advertising the project enough, but I feel that there are better ways to do this. The Wikipedia space, the user space, all the talk spaces, even the portal space are fair game as far as advertising goes, but the article space is for readers, and readers do not care about some project we're involved in. Readers have come to find out about a species of sheep. I don't think our plan of improving the article is consistent with slapping an ugly template on it, merely to say that we're improving it. The only real purpose of these templates is advertising, which is not what the mainspace should be used for; at the end of the day, we're basically just another WikiProject, and WikiProjects do not advertise in the article space. A final consideration- how is this going to look to people not involved with the Spotlight? Perhaps the original authors, or a WikiProject already covering the article? Out of no where, people have come to improve the article- fantastic- but, at the same time, they're placing a template on it better suited to the talk or Wikipedia space, and making it look awful. Readers mostly do not care about the internal workings of Wikipedia, and editors/potential editors know enough to look to the talk page or article history. J Milburn (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You make some very good points; I'll wait and see if others have anything to say here. Like Burningview, I'm also not going to push for this too hard; if it's not clear that lots of people want it, I'll also happily concede.   Chzz  ►  17:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

text: An excellent point, J Milburn.  I think we do need a template, basically because of edit conflicts, but most people would ignore that anyway and if there aren't that many edits being made, it's not a big deal.  I still think we should have it, but not enough to argue over it.  Fleetflame 02:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template on articles 

message: I just ran across this project, and I have to say it's a great idea! I've gone ahead and listed it on the "Wikipedia" section of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council Directory. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 07:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I hope to see you on the IRC channel some time.   Chzz  ►  04:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great idea! 

message: hello,
One of the short falls of wikipedia is that only one editor can contribute at one time. I use this great tool that i found online while doing collaborative school projects. It is called etherpad [etherpad.com]. It allows for up to 25 people to write in the same text box, with updates to other users apering in real time. It is very useful, and may be helpful in the collaboration on wikipedia aritlces. Tell me what you think, and thake etherpad for a spin hereTim1357 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New tool for colaboration 

message: I've expanded the Newsletter a bit to include information about the Progress and article changes. Check Wikipedia:Spotlight/Newsletter/2009/July and Wikipedia:Spotlight/Newsletter.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Newsletter 

message: Hi all. The currently article Oil should be done and the next one started, shouldn't it? JoeSmack Talk 16:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next article? 

message: In order to stave off inactivity, I have an idea (that may kill us all). How about we start a new article, DYK it, and hopefully improve it some more (GA, perhaps). I got Aengus Finucane off the recent deaths page. The subject has plenty of sources (quick Google shows) and is definitely notable. If we can recruit an editor with knowledge of Biafra (an old Spotlight topic), we should be able to go pretty far on this. Thoughts? Mm40 (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally for it. JoeSmack Talk 01:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good idea, I updated everything for the article, Wikipedia:Spotlight/Aengus Finucane is our pre release page, after we have a deletion robust page it can be moved to main space.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crazy idea 

message: Personally, the primary benefit of the Marco Polo collaboration was not the WP:GA Marco Polo article itself, but the 3 online sources we found as a team.  Spotlight should not be a team of editors selecting a subject.  Spotlight should be a subject finding editors.  The spotlight concept can be reduced to "edit what you're interested in and have sources for, with like-fitted people."  The spotlight concept could be a tagline such as "If you have a book on Marco Polo, please edit me" -- which is what WP is in the first place.  I come; I look up what I'm interested in; and then I say "that can't be right", research it, and fix it.  Spotlight is broken, despite that I, too, like the idea.  Nonetheless, I am sorry I did not contribute the last deletion discussion. -- EsotericRogue Talk 14:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  concept  is broken 

message: :Talking to other project members, I guess we could become active again, and I could give the interview? Of course any one else can volunteer.{{subst:Unsigned|
::If you're active again, let me know!--iBentalk/contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 02:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Signpost Article 

message: Hi Spotlighters! I want to draw your attention to a similar event that the Wikipedia Ambassador Program is hosting: Editing Fridays.  It's very similar to Spotlight, except it's more focused in time: there's a specific window for collaboration, and a new one doesn't immediately start afterwards.  That way, there's more of a chance to prepare well--with sources and specific tasks appropriate to a range of editors from newcomers to experienced--and more it's easier to reach critical mass and have a fun time editing with others, since everyone participating shows up in roughly the same block of time.  In this case, late Friday UTC to early Saturday UTC.
Please join us! It goes well, maybe this could be a good future format for WP:SPOT.  I'm about to set up a talk page delivery to everyone signed up on the participants list for WP:SPOT, and will be posting a message to WikiEN-l as well.--ragesoss (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to Editing Fridays