Wikipedia talk:Featured content dispatch workshop

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcut:
WT:FCDW
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] May 26

May 26 needs a taker !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this a good fit for the 26th? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Am I talking to myself? I asked Titoxd (talk · contribs) if he wanted the 26th for the Assessment 1.0 poll,[1] and I asked Tony1 (talk · contribs) if he would take June 2 to cover his monthly updates for April and May. I'm going to be traveling at the end of the month, so someone else has to shephard these, make sure they get added to the templates and the Signpost page, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm going to be traveling also, 26-27 so I can't really shepherd them either. And will be settling into a job for a client after that. I'll be doing good to keep up with FAC stuff for a few days. (gotta pack for a month on the road, whee.) Ealdgyth - Talk 03:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I can do some shepherding. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I left it to the WP1.0 people, but it looks like no Dispatch this week. I guess we need to do what Tony suggested (get some interview filed away someplace so we'll have something when the ball gets dropped). If anyone can write something in a day, there's still time ... I'm going to be traveling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
What about Eagldyth's reliable sources overview? Is that close to done? Karanacs (talk) 01:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
She's traveling, and I don't have time to polish anything up (travel Wednesday, gotta catch up around the house). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean it's still untaken? Very bad signal to the Signpost editor. Do you want me to fill it with something? TONY (talk) 02:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Karanacs, it's hiding at User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You, if you want to clean up or whatever. I should be in tomorrow night, but I need to set up, etc, then Awa has some "comments" for Hubert that (are wonderful, I'll admit) I should get to asap. And then there is the backlog in source checking that's accumulating while I am driving, but I'm not going to get to them tonight, I'm pooped from packing, loading car, and then driving almost 9 hours. Only 6 more to go! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thing is, I don't want to rush that one, it's too important. I want us to work on it together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Not a worry to wait either. I will be much more available once I get set up at the ranch. It's a three-quarters job, only about 30 hours a week, plus photography when time permits, so I'll have time, and no mother to make me go shopping and waste wiki time. Just remember, I'm a content editior, not a copyeditor! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony, I'm not happy about missing a Signpost or about the constant pressure (ruining my weekends, always trying to get something scheduled and get somethig out); if we don't get more involvement here ... it's always just a few of us in the crunch. All the info needed to throw together a few paras about the WP1.0 thing is linked from Titoxd and Walkerma's talk pages; can you throw a few paragraphs together, doesn't matter if it's not great ? Our earlier Dispatches were very short. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not helping more right now; I've set myself a heft content-writing goal and am trying to find time for that, dratted real-life work, and preparations for a vacation in two weeks (it can't come soon enough!). I've got a few ideas for dispatches that I'll work on when I get back, although if Roman Catholic Church manages to pass its FAC this time I'd be happy to write something up about that. We really need someone who is not Sandy to take over the dispatches since Sandy is too busy, but I tend to fade out periodically and am probably not the best person for it. Is there anyone else who's hooked into a lot of this that we could beg? Karanacs (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I dunno. Generally, I don't mind doing it, but when I've got to travel and the ball gets dropped, what a drag. And the timing ruins my weekends. And I'm sort of tired of badgering people into writing a Dispatch, and having it come down to the same few of us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Euuw, it's just that I can't see the point of that silly WP 1.0 thing—the DVD of an online site? I think it's a terrible idea that will degrade the reputation of the project. I had in mind FSC. TONY (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
What is FSC, sounds? If you do can do it, go for it. Please be sure to let them know if you can work on something, since our notice is overdue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Phew ... wish it wasn't so rushed; OK, I'll tell them whip something up tonight (i.e., by about 10 hours from now. TONY (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Tony; you can put it at WP:FCDW/May 26, 2008, and then please follow the instructions here on the mainpage and get it all linked in to the two templates. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Can other folks try to remember to add Dispatches to the templates when they're done? [2] [3] Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, do you think we could line you up for June 23? Is that enough notice? (Will drop a note on your talk page, too.) --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Instructions

The instructions at WP:FCDW#Process frustrated Tony this week, and I've always wondered why I'm the only one updating the templates and posting to the newsroom, and it appears that ... the instructions I wrote stink. So, I'll type up something longer here, and leave it to those with better prose than mine to fix the instructions.

Here's the sequence of things you need to do to prepare your Dispatch:

  1. Create the temporary file for the Dispatch ([[WP:FCDW/Month day, year]]) and write the draft, preferably by the previous Friday.
  2. Collaborate to refine the draft from the Friday to the Monday deadline.
  3. When the text is ready (the deadline is usually on the Monday at 17:00 UTC), go to the Newsroom and insert the link to the temp file after "Dispatches - ". For example "Dispatches - [[WP:FCDW/March 24, 2008]]" under "Regular features". This is how we alert Ral315 that he has a Dispatch to preview and publish in the upcoming Signpost. He will deal with the rest of the mechanics.
  4. Immediately add the title of the Dispatch (for example, "Taming talk page clutter") to our two templates: {{FCDW/T}}, which lists the temporary files where we work on each article before its publication, and {{FCDW}}, which lists the actual Signpost Dispatches, linking to the published Signpost page. Carefully copy the wording and formatting of a recent insert after hitting "edit this page".


Since I thought all of that was clear, I'm not sure where the disconnect is, so I hope others can improve my stinky instructions. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Sandy, I've had a stab at changing the instructions above for dummies like me. Um ... you have to be dumb to know how to write it. Don't we need to add the title to the temp list earlier? Unsure why there are two templates; why not dispense with the /T template? Is the colour a good idea for the instructions? TONY (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • We have two templates for two reasons:
1) One is vertical, one is horizontal, meaning one fits/works better across the bottom of pages, the other collapses and fits at the top of cluttered talk pages (for example, see my userpage for horizontal template and compare to use of vertical template at WT:FAC, and
2) One is the published file, while one gives me (and others) quick links to the temp file on talk pages to know where to write the article, to make sure we all write on the same page and can see when work has begun (when the link goes blue).
  • Not sure what you mean by "you're faced with a blank page when you arrive at each template".
  • We don't really need to let the Newsroom know we may be late -- they're always late. We just need to plop a link in there by Monday at 5:00.
  • On first step, would rather not say "create the temp" at so-and so place, because there will be errors that way, want a pre-set, standardized name. The temporary links are already provided in {{FCDW/T}} to avoid mistakes and so we all know where the work happens, in a pre-set standardized page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
The blank page at each template foxed me. Is it better now?
Vertical vs horizontal, and different functions. All a bit confusing to a newcomer (and to me). Better not to mention dimensions here? Should the T template be filled in as soon as you start writing the draft? TONY (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Still don't know what you mean about blank template, and the T template title should be filled in as soon as the temp article is in good enough shape for others to begin to help copyedit and tweak it (at least, that's how I was using it). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Click on one of those templates. All you see is a huge white page and a little box in the corner. It's rather off-putting when you've been asked to "add" something to it.

The sequence of preparing a Dispatch is as follows.

  1. Choose a topic and principle writer for each date.
  2. Write the draft at the temporary work file, named [[WP:FCDW/Month day, year]], preferably by the previous Friday. To see the exact formatting, see {{FCDW/T}}, the template that lists the temporary files where we work on each article before its publication.
  3. Collaborate to refine the draft between Friday and the Monday deadline; add the title of the article to {{FCDW/T}} when it's ready for input from other editors.
  4. Go to the Newsroom and insert the link to the temp file after "Dispatches - " (e.g., "Dispatches - [[WP:FCDW/March 24, 2008]]" under "Regular features" by Monday at 17:00 UTC). This is how we alert Ral315 that he has a Dispatch to preview and publish in the upcoming Signpost. He will deal with the rest of the mechanics of moving the draft to the permanent Signpost file.
  5. After publication, add the title of the Dispatch (e.g., "Taming talk page clutter") to {{FCDW}}, which lists the actual Signpost Dispatches, linking to the published Signpost page.
  6. Update the list of proposed topics at FCDW talk.

[edit] June 2

I understand that WP:FCDW/June 2, 2008 will be Tony's monthly update on MoS changes. Tony, can you re-confirm? If there is any need for discussion, perhaps it can be here. Thanks. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, this is underway. Fantastic. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ready for feedback. Posting at Newsroom tomorrow. TONY (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC) PS I've used nudity to lift the impact of the May monthly update in this Dispatch. TONY (talk) 10:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The Newsroom link goes to 26 May edition, not the 2 June one. What's happening? TONY (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Ral clears out the page before the next submission deadline, which is June 2. Then we add June 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 9

I understand that the WP:FCDW/June 9, 2008 dispatch will be from Laser brain (talk · contribs) and Mike Searson (talk · contribs), on what happens when an FA gets to the main page. This is already well underway, which is grand. If there's a need for further discussion, we can have it here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

It has to cover notability, and the issue that any notable article is eligible to be featured, a featured article is eligible to be on the mainpage, and mainpage diversity (per Raul's "Resource starvation" theme) is a priority. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 16

Walkerma (talk · contribs) and Titoxd (talk · contribs) have been asked if they can write a dispatch on changes to the assessment scheme, so long as they can commit to submitting a draft by June 14. See User_talk:Walkerma#Dispatch. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Should be written at WP:FCDW/June 16, 2008. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
By then the situation with the scale should be fairly evident. Sure. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
With a poll ending on June 18, are you all certain you are going to write this article by the 14th? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Concerned that this not be a last-minute rush. Is it possible to write in the already-known bits now? TONY (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The following is copied over from Walkerma's talk page. I'm also a little concerned we might have another no-show, so perhaps a switch is in order? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure we can manage something by the 14th, if that is the best option. However, I want to check exactly what you want. The "second (final) round" poll is currently under way, and it will still be running on June 14th. Do you want to use the dispatch to drum up interest in the poll (so more people participate), or do you want to talk about the result of the poll? If it is the latter, then obviously the following week would be better. Please let me know here - I'm still on vacation, but I'm trying to check in here every 2-3 days. Thanks for the FCDW link, that should be helpful. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 18:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That's in your hands. (I'm not following the poll itself.) If you do not think that June 14 is a good date, we can switch, but would have to know asap. It's also best to reply to WP:FCDW, so we can have a centralized discussion, and to which I will copy this correspondence. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Confusing :-) I offered them the slot because they approached the Signpost about wanting an article; it still seems unclear to them that it's up to them to decide what they want to write or how they want to use the space. I guess we need to ask them to either begin to rough something out, or we need to come up with something else for this date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Publications are usually at least three days after the date, so it won't be in time to drum up voting. TONY (talk) 12:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Hey guys, I hope things are on track for this one. If you need assistance, please ask here. TONY (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Filler

I suggest that we should have a filler interview, ready on standby, in case we're ever in a pinch. I'd like to see an interview/kudos for the people behind the featured processes: Gimmetrow/GimmeBot, Rick Block (WP:WBFAN), Dr pda (prosesize and articlehistory scripts) and Dispenser who put together all those FA tools I don't understand. Anyone want to put together a piece on these four editors, who keep FA and other featured processes running, so that we can use it in a pinch? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a go, but it's just the area in which I'm a dumbo. Maybe that's an advantage, since I'll go back to them if I don't understand, to make it dumb-friendly. TONY (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm likewise a dumbo here. I have no idea what they do, and what the bot does. Which means I'd love to read the interview, but wouldn't know what questions to ask.
Another potential interviewee would be someone like Mike or Awadewit who's high up on the list of FAs by users. And/or someone who wins the FAC reviewers' award: Ealdgyth, for instance. Those interviews I could do more easily. Or we could interview you, SandyG. Or Raul. All of those would be worthwhile, and I'd be happy to do them. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I feel strongly that we must run an article about the people behind the scenes who keep these processes working; that several of you aren't aware of how much they do, how useful their tools are, or (translation) how screwed we'd be without them is another indication of the need for this article. I can't see any benefit to interviewing me; I just read, count and interpret. Others do the real work; reviewing articles is much more rewarding than sorting out reviews :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, a Sandy interview after a year might be of public interest. But if "you" refers to me, um ... what a laugh; I've trashed so many nominations and been rude to so many people—it wouldn't be taken seriously.

Tell me whether this is a good scheme for interviews:

  1. Approach interviewee(s), asking whether they'll participate in a short written interview-style piece that may be used in the next few months, and may or may not be coupled with other interviews of people—whatever makes a cohesive Dispatch of the right length.
  2. Point out that we'll need to edit their text to make a homogenous article, and may or may not have to cut, nip and tuck—but that the final product will be passed by them for approval. And that it might be necessary to return to them with a few more questions after reading their responses.
  3. Suggest that responses of ?several sentences are typical, but longer would be fine where details are important or interesting.
  4. Confirm that the interviewee can do it via email; if not, establish a user-space page for the purpose, I suppose.
  5. Prompt them for info for a short introductory paragraph (just in note form).
  6. Write a sequence of questions in this format:
  • The Signpost: What prompted you to [build the ... bot/create the ... page]?
  • [User:X|X]: [Response ...]


  • The Signpost: What was the most challenging thing about [building the bot/creating the page]?
  • [User:X|X]: [Response ...]


etc.

Any suggestions, comments? TONY (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine, but also ask them what questions they should be asked (I'm sure they'll have ideas). This particular interview needs to explain how much these folks do to keep the processes working; I can add that later if no one else is able. I can't imagine the FAC workload without Gimmetrow, and Dr pda is indispensable as well, and so on ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Tony, I am familiar with all of the FA scripts/tools and can help with those articles. Some other topic ideas:
  • Ealdgyth is drafting an article on sourcing. What about Elcobbola/images?
  • I could have interviewed Raul a few weeks ago at a meetup, but didn't think of it. Might have had something to do with the beer. I'll drop him a note, but it might be better to wait till all the hoohah about TFA has settled down.
  • I'd like to see a retrospective on surviving a difficult FAC nom. Perhaps the Natalee nominators?
  • What do people think of an article about how WP:MILHIST members manage to turn out so many FAs? It could cover the review process, the new logistics department, and prolific MilHist FA writers like Piotrus, Blnguyen, Cla68, and TomStar81. Might be best to put this one off for a while, though.
Maralia (talk) 17:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Beautiful suggestions, Maralia ! Just Do It, and have them ready when we have an opening :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I don't mind not doing them, and Marialia's knowledge of scripts and tools will be an obvious advantage. TONY (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] June 23

For June 23, we have Ealdgyth (talk · contribs) on sources. A draft is at User:Ealdgyth/FAC, Sources, and You, but Sandy wants to work on it for a while, as I understand it. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 09:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)