User talk:Nehrams2020/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This looks good. Do you have thoughts of merging with categories? I think that we should ask to move to subcategory of Category:Lists of films. But I don't know all that may be implicated. Hoverfish 17:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe "Films on particular issues" can be merged as a subsection of "By subject matter". Hoverfish 18:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on your proposal

  1. I am all for it. Do you intend to re-sort all the la's (etc) that are L (etc)?
  2. We could also give this as in Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/List of films without article, in a more visual way. Also for user-friendliness, I think it should be left to users to simply put the year in parenthesis, but without link. We, or someone else can do it in maintenace rounds. I also made it obvious in the red list that it's more convenient if given in full.
  3. I am planing to create (in project namespace) a work-list with all the films that have a blue link but are only mentioned in the article. Maybe eventually some decision can be taken if they should become red links, stubs or if they are covered enough in the articles context, so they do not need an article of their own.
  4. Could "Multiple titles of the same film" be "For different films with a common name"?

I will also try to think of a way it could become a bit more visually simple. Hoverfish 23:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

One more point: in each list there should be a shortest possible intro, followed by a section (or sections) with these issues. "Guidelines" would also be a simple one, like in the red list. The result is that the index box will stay up top and not under all the explanations. Hoverfish 00:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

How does it look now? I hope I didn't mess up your work, but then you can always revert some changes. Hoverfish 02:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Core list

A few thoughts and ideas:

  • First of all, I don't really see much value in starting with the current Top-rated articles. As we all know, those are choices that individual editors made, and therefore are somewhat less than dispassionate. While most of the list does seem at least decently notable, doing a one-by-one assessment of "Core-ability" is going to be too time-consuming, subjective, and messy. (Imagine a POV war w/o the luxury of a POV policy.)
  • Since the goal of Core is to identify exceptional topics in order to encourage bringing these particular ones to FA-status faster, the Core should not include any FAs. Ideally, this will also free up more spots for other topics.
  • To keep the selection somewhat more objective, we should identify (and achieve consensus on including) several lists which are from uninvolved sources - ie, not Wikipedia editors. These can be both factual (winners of X award, top box-office lists), as well as notable subjective lists (Ebert's Great Movies, Sight and Sound polls, other "professional" lists).
  • Task forces will also be allotted a limited number of spots (perhaps 10 each?), which could be used after the general selections in order to supplement the list. Whether these spots would be decided by task force members or by national lists needs to be decided. These are essential not only for non-title task forces like Filmmaking, but also for more obscure cinemas, such as Southeast Asian cinema, which may be at risk of not having any films make the general list. More popular ones like French and Italian cinema, conversely, could use their spots to rectify notable films otherwise overlooked in the list selection.
  • Core status will be "closed shop". The parameter will be monitored (through watching its associated category) to ensure that users do not add it at whim. The parameter will be removed for all articles reaching FA. When a significant quantity have been removed in this manner, it may be possible that users may nominate additional outside lists for integration into "Core". (Since there is likely to be overlap with some of these lists, even a large list may only have a dozen or so "new" films to be added.) Perhaps this could even be an annual thing. In any case, if we don't make it largely fixed, there will be a regular stream of requests to add this or remove that, and it will become too much of a burden to maintain.
  • Therefore, at the moment, I think it would be of more value to start collecting lists for potential use.

Let me know how you feel about the above. Stay well, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this. Maybe we don't really need to do list compiling - seems like these guys have already done it and with a very wide spectrum of sources. Better yet, it even breaks it down by factors like country, which would make the task force selection more or less automatic. Maybe we could just take all of the top 250, plus the top ten after 250 for each task force's region? We could also integrate an inflation-adjusted all-time gross list so as to appease box-office arguments. Hmm.. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)