Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Newsletter
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Looks like a good thing
A few questions that I'm throwing out there about this:
- I'm assuming this will be automatically be placed on users' talk pages or something. How exactly will that work? Will it be by a bot or a user (Alton?)? Will users be able to choose options as far as the delivery is concerned (e.g. a different page than the talk page, a digest)?
- Kudos on the Classical works lists on the first issue.
- Will archiving be done by a bot?
- There needs to be some kind of a box at the top of the main talk page directing people here if they want a request.
- Will participants be able to opt out?
- Will there be a limit on the number of articles featured in the newsletter, and, if so, how will they be chosen?
- The articles needing help and collaboration headings should have links to articles explaining what exactly they mean (what does collaboration mean how does it differ from the former?).
- I don't really like the name. wp:cp just looks bad, and it is uninformative to someone who doesn't know what it is. Something catchy or even "Classical Music WikiProject Newsletter" would be far more appealing.
- A separate archive for the hints would be a good idea. It would be good if that archive was categorized, too.
- Who writes this thing? (Alright. I know who is currently writing it, but how can people help to write it? Will Alton just stay in charge of the whole thing?)
- Requests for hints (a good idea by the way)?
These are just a few thoughts that I came up with looking at the newsletter page. I'm sure that I will come up with more. Feedback is welcome. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 23:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- Because this project is not that large, some user would distribute it (by means of a commune account or registered doppleganger). I was originally thinking Talk page, but the Signpost method appeals to me too; only requires an update of that template to direct to the latest letter. Most projects, for example the large LGBT studies, have it sent to all members through a human, so the list of members could be separated into those who subscribe and those who don't.
- David's working on those lists, and solicited the help of other successful bot operators; MANY thanks to him for developing that aspect.
- Archiving could be done either way; human archive shouldn't be that difficult since it's a relatively low-frequency newsletter, andMiszaBot II focuses on WPs.
- All members and prospective members will have notice about it.
- I don't know if I want to go through with collaboration because it smells of commitment, something I fear.
- We can archive the hints, but that requires another bot.
- Change the name, yes.
- And this content should be absolutely member oriented, but judging by the participation of members in this project, I fear it would only be the same three people working on it anyways. We'll figure it out later. ALTON .ıl 02:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- Thanks for the work (despite my nitpick below). One thing I just noticed is that there's two lists of participnants: the list at the Participants project subpage, and the Category page. They don't look identical; the /participants list looks longer...I'm guessing the category's generated by the userbox? Which list will generate the distribution? Or are you thinking of making a third list? I don't envy the headaches :-) —Turangalila talk 15:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bad advice! (links in headings)
Putting wikilinks in headings in the article space is directly contrary to the WP Manual of Style! It's considered to be a hindrance to navigation, and to make the headings blur into the text. There doesn't seem to be an exception for lists – I only know this because links in headers was specifically cited as a reason for opposition just recently when I nominated List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven as a Featured list candidate. Working around this is easy enough: just place introductory paragraphs at the top of sections, or even just {{main}} tags. Doing that for the Beethoven list took me less than half an hour, and I think it actually made the list a bit more user-friendly. One of the real Chopin scholars out there should probably do the same for the Chopin list. —Turangalila talk 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- Really I see very little about the blue text that detracts from readability; I for one would want to know information about the Ballade style, without going to a page for one of his compositions first (a more inexperienced user wouldn't know to do that). But, MOS is hard and fast policy so I've cleaned Chopin's list. I dislike introductory paragraphs, because it really disrupts the flow of the list, and opens it up for people who like to write prose to add unnecessary information.
- Good job, nominating that. We need to get the Classical music corner recognized! ALTON .ıl 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- The Chopin looks good, I think, w/ the links in the lede. The mini-ledes were more necessary for Beethoven because the article lede is mostly about introducing all the different names and numbers...I personally don't mind the links in headers either--I do it on talk pages alot...but I guess browsers vary; I assume there's some reason the MOS says what it does...—Turangalila talk 01:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
