Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Coordinators/Election 2

Overview

The project coordinators are generally responsible for maintaining all of the procedural and administrative aspects of the project, and serve as the designated points-of-contact for procedural issues. They are not, however, endowed with any special executive powers.

The Lead Coordinator (one open position) bears overall responsibility for coordinating the project; the Coordinators (four open positions) aid the Lead Coordinator and focus on specific areas that require special attention.

Responsibilities

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators:

The primary responsibility of the project coordinators is the maintenance and housekeeping work involved in keeping the project and its internal processes running smoothly; this includes a variety of tasks, such as keeping the announcement and open task lists updated, overseeing the assessment and review processes, managing the proposal and creation of task forces, and so forth. There is fairly little involved that couldn't theoretically be done by any other editor, of course—in only a few places have the coordinators been explicitly written into a process—but, since experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, it has proven beneficial to formally delegate responsibility for this administrative work to a specified group. The coordinators also have several additional roles. They serve as the project's designated points of contact, and are explicitly listed as people to whom questions can be directed in a variety of places around the project. In addition, they have highly informal roles in leading the drafting of project guidelines, overseeing the implementation of project decisions on issues like category schemes and template use, and helping to informally resolve disputes and keep discussions from becoming heated and unproductive. The coordinators are not, however, a body for formal dispute resolution; serious disputes should be addressed through the normal dispute resolution process.

Some more specific examples of day-to-day coordinator work can be found here.

Incumbents

Name Position Standing for re-election?
Girolamo Savonarola (talk · contribs) Lead Coordinator Yes
Nehrams2020 (talk · contribs) Coordinator No
The Giant Puffin (talk · contribs) Coordinator No

More information on the history of the coordinator positions can be found here.

Election process

=== Name ===

{{user|Name}}
: Statement goes here...

==== Comments and questions for Name ====

*

Candidates

Bzuk

Bzuk (talk · contribs) Background Statement... I am a writer and filmmaker, having directed two documentary films, screenwriter on two others and worked variously as an extra, gofer, grip, gaffer, consultant and on-screen actor on 10 films. It was a brief fling at directing in 2003 when as the screenwriter, I was enlisted to take over two films when the original director was called away to Chile on another project. Being a screenwriter on a documentary is a thankless task anyway and since I knew the context and focus of the documentary projects, I fell into directing. The first film, Bearing his Soul was the life of Gerry "The Big Bear" Barrett, an aboriginal comic starting out as a stand-up comedian that appears on local channels and an Aboriginal network at times. The second film, Zero Over the Prairies was a Canadian-American co-production with PBS. That one also still pops up on television and documents the recovery, construction and flight of a Mitsubishi Zero fighter aircraft. My first book was also made into a film and that one is everywhere, Avrocar: Canada's Flying Saucer (2004) was purchased by Discovery Channel, History Channel, Space Channel, ad infinitum... FWIW, I should have taken "points" instead of a commission/salary, that "flick" is shown all over the world...

After a life-affirming heart operation in 2000, I turned my attention away from my career in librarianship to writing, starting with articles for journals and trade publications and eventually branching out into editing and undertaking book projects, with six books in publication. As an editor, I am responsible for an aviation trade periodical that appears twice a year with an audience that is generally involved with airports and air operations. Much of my background has, over the years, revolved around the aviation world and since my first articles on Wikipedia (starting 17 July 2006), the majority of my contributions (18,000 edits) have been in this arena. Only very recently have I begun to write articles that can be considered "film articles" but the majority again, relate to the aviation connection. The following articles are ones in which I made a major contribution:

Articles with major edits by Bzuk

As the majority of my Wikipedia editing was aviation related, I joined the WP:Aviation Group where I found a number of other editors who were grappling with format and referencing issues as well as content concerns. One of the strengths I may provide is in utilizing the standard referencing protocols that underlined my previous career as a librarian.

One of the major issues I see in WikiProject Films as well as in other groups is in dealing with a consistent referencing format and a clear example of that issue is the use of the "References" section. The use of "Notes" is now established as a part of the references section and when you use other sources, they are part of a "Bibliography" and not a "Further reading" section which implies that these are ancillary sources. This style guide is employed in WP:Aviation and as a format, see the use of Aviation:Films and the multiple uses within this category.

The use of this convention has been very carefully screened since a Swedish editor implemented it last year. It follows and fits MoS guides and has not been reverted even once (well, once- in the case of this article). Admins and other experienced editors use this format throughout the Aviation group. The reason for its implementation was the nonstandard use of references as a "catch-all section" when in fact they incorporated an endnotes or footnotes section and a bibliographical record. The "Further reading" section is just what it says, further to the article's research sources. My background is as a reference librarian and presently, author/editor for a number of publishing houses. See: 49th Parallel, It's A Wonderful Life, The Right Stuff (film) and countless other film articles for examples of this use of referencing.

As to the reasoning behind the use of bibliographic protocols, Wikipedia is mainly created by the efforts of countless editors worldwide. One of the first concerns was that in order to maintain professional standards in writing and research, assistance had to be provided to editors who did not have a background in academic or research writing. The "templates" were offered as a means of helping non-professionals in complex tasks. Citations in bibliographic format are difficult to cite for most editors in Wikipedia and the templates offer a solution. They are guides not policy and are useful up to a point but even now, there are many errors in their format and the use of templates brings in a question as to which style guide is being followed. As an author and a 30-year+ librarian, I have been exposed to many differing styles and formats. Most publishing style guides utilize the MLA (The Modern Language Association) Style for identifying research sources. The very simple form of this style is the tried and true: "Author. 'Title.' Place of publication: Publisher, Date. ISBN: (optional)." The academic or scientific citation style that you have adopted is not generally used in school, public and other libraries. See the following website (one of countless digital aids available)<style guides> for a primer on this bibliographic standard: <style guides> Many of the Wiki templates are written in a APA (American Psychological Association) style guide which is a simplified format that often is used in university and scholarly works although it is not as widely accepted as the MLA guide.

This is the reference guide that editors may wish to use: "Formatting of a Wikipedia article reference list is a secondary detail, and there is currently no consensus on a precise prescribed citation format in Wikipedia." MLA style is the most widely accepted style in the world and certainly is accepted in Wikipedia. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibliographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloging that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloging is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record from an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak."

Let me further explain my use of references. I am a former librarian with 33 years experience in cataloguing and I tend to revert to "scratch" cataloging whenever I am working in Wikipedia. The format chosen for the majority of templates for citations and bibliographies is the American Psychiatric Association (APA) style guide which is one of the most used formats for research works. The most commonly used style guide is the Modern Language Association (MLA) which is the style guide I tend to use. Templates are not mandated in Wikipedia and many editors use full edit cataloging or scratch cataloging since it does away with the variances in some of the templates extant. As a matter of form, a number of articles have also utilized the Harvard Citation style guide as a link to the bibliographical reference. The actual format that I have used is to provide full cataloging in MLA style for a citation if it only appears once in the text as a quote or note and if more than one instance, then Harvard Citation is placed inline and a full bibliographical MLA record is provided in "References." The references area is kind of a catch-all in that it can often incorporate endnotes and footnotes if there are only a few citations. Many editors prefer to provide a "Notes" and "References" section. It is presumed that if entries are made in the references list that the reference source is used for corroboration in writing the article. In some instances wherein an editor identifies a useful source of information that was not part of the research than a "Further Reading" section can be established. In The Rocketeer (film) article, any instances of two citations were placed in Harvard Citation style while all others were set forth in MLA style in the references section. There is no need to re-do an MLA entry into a APA style, in fact, it is most often preferable not to mix formats or style guides for consistency and readability.

I know that your eyes have probably glazed over long ago, but that is the rationale behind my editing as shown in examples such as the The Rocketeer (film) and Anna May Wong citation/reference notes. The "true style" is primarily use one consistent style guide (I choose the MLA as it is the standard worldwide for research articles) and adapt it when needed. If so desired, that is the actual correctly attributed source wherein all the "tracings" are provided and placed in the correct order. A suggestion made by Jeff Finlayson, one of the prolific editors in the Aviation Project Group on Wikipedia (which both of us are also members) was to "shortcut" the electronic citation partly due to reasons of need for brevity but also because many of the sources are not as well defined as our example. The final form that he proposed is one that maintains the core element of the source and provides a "hot link" to the URL where it is found on the Internet.

As to the website citations, the simplest system is all that is required as per editor Jeff Finlayson's suggestion. and FWIW, it works for me and I don't need to go into the full bibliographic record especially for a Wikipedia article. The simpler form should predominate, not to say, that if someone insists on a full bibliographical accounting that another format might be used, but generally speaking, go with the simple system. You may have to read this background note in the edit mode in order to see what I have done to the citations.

Excuse the pedantic rambling, but I thought I might want to establish my background and where I may be able to help in WikiProject:Films as an assistant as I certainly do not consider my experience in the film group as being extensive.

In terms of editing style, I enjoy working in collaboration with other editors and regardless of the complexity of the discussion, I always endeavor to explain my rationale in editing (sometime to the point of eye-watering essays) and have made a commitment to use the tenet of AGF (Assume Good Faith) and never revert an edit but to alter it or ask for clarification, other than when encountering clear examples of vandalism wherein a revert is the more common alternative. As to writing style, I tend to write in declarative, simple sentences and use standard paragraphing and context connections. Use of attribution is also important to me and as explained earlier, I have adopted a combination of Harvard citation and Modern Language Association bibliographic record but I am familiar with other systems and can use or adapt to many styles of writing and editing.

Comments and questions for Bzuk

  • If I wasn't running for the position, you'd have my vote in a flash. Good luck buddy. Creamy3 (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no reason not to vote for your fellow nominees - this is an approval voting election - you may vote for as many of the candidates as you wish. Those with the most votes will win the seats. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Then I will absolutely vote for Bzuk and you Girolamo Savonarola. Good day gentlemen. Creamy3 (talk) 14:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I have two questions for all of the running coordinators which may or may not effect my take on the election. They may seem a bit off topic, but humor me if you will. What is your favorite film? And finally, what is your favorite film of the year? Thanks for your time. MwNNrules (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to the question of my favourite film (sorry I still write in Canadianisms), the difficulty is always in picking one film, and therefore I will hedge my bets a bit. As a child, my first screen epicwas Ben Hur and later as a teen, it was Lawrence of Arabia but surprisingly, the first film that made an impact was a lesser film, Destry Rides Again, which I saw countless times at a small local theater at the Saturday matinees. I was fascinated by the pairing of Marlene Dietrich with her gaudy showy accent and wild over-the-top characterization matched with the "golly gee, shucks, Ma'm" James Stewart role. Of course, two classics stand out, Casablanca and It's A Wonderful Life (I thought Orson Welles' portrayal in Citizen Caine, a bit pretentious, a precocious child, even then). In the comedy vein, I loved both a screwball comedy, Bringing up Baby and a modern film, Princess Bride. Horror, still another classic, Psycho and in science fiction, 2001 and the first Star Wars. I could go on, but I'll stop here for now.
As for this year's batch of films, I was enthralled by the sheer virtuosity of Across the Universe while Atonement hearkened back to a time when I sat transfixed in a movie theater, watching the unfolding of a carefully told British saga, my knees pressed hard against the seat back in front of me, simply savouring the story. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC).
Thank you for your responses on both questions. All of the films you named in response to favorite film are good, except for several which I couldn't verify (Bringing Up Baby, Casablanca, and Destry Rides Again) for I haven't seen them. MwNNrules (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Bringing up Baby is Katherine Hepburn and Cary Grant in a zany comedy revolving around a leopard, lost dinosaur bones, and a bizarre relationship between socialite Hepburn and professor Grant – right out of the "screwball comedy" genre. As for Destry Rides Again, it's a "fish-out-of-water" quasi-drama set in the American "Wild West." Stewart as Destry is a no-nonsense Sherrif who refuses to carry a gun while wise-cracking Dietrich plays the hardened dance hall queen with a heart of gold. The stars apparently had a whirlwind love affair arising out of their film coupling. Casablanca is set in war-torn times in Rick's Cafe where world-weary Humphrey Bogart pines for a long-lost love, Ingrid Bergman, who unexpectedly shows up at Rick's place. Well, why not, everyone shows up at Rick's. The lines are classic, the acting delicious and the story timeless. FWIW, I have all of these on DVD somewhere. Give me a ring (email style) and I'll send you a copy. Bzuk (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC).
Thanks for the offer, but I'd rather not give away so much personal information. Anyways, I'm quite sorry I couldn't respond to your second answer earlier: once again, I haven't seen Atonement or Across the Universe. Too many movies, ya know? MwNNrules (talk) 04:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
1) What do you regard as the Project's most pressing issue.
In regard to the specifics of the question, whether you mean the Wikipedia Project as a whole or the Wiki:Project Film Group, I believe that some of the same issues and concerns permeate. I would classify them as endemic and systemic but not unsolvable. One of the issues is that collegiality has to be encouraged more and that the interchange of experts from all corners of the world should enhance rather than detract from this ambitious venture in which we have all cast our fate. The casting off of the trolls at the ramparts is at once merely a meaningless diversion but it does mean time and effort to continue to "police the battlements." Given that vandalism is going to occur and what young teen doesn't find the occasional foray into Wikipedia a type of "tagging exercise"; yet beyond that element, is a wide array of very informed and dedicated contributers that need assistance, tutoring and a friendly welcome from those who have already experienced the sometimes convoluted tasks involved in creating and developing an authoritative article to be shared worldwide. In checking the ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents) Noticeboard, there is a distressing amount of time and sweat that admins have had to countenance, given that the main issues remain a lack of responsibility displayed by those who wish to be a part of the "Project." Removing the habitual vandal/troll and infantile/"too-much-free-time-on-their-hands" events, it is still a constant melée by seemingly well-meaning players who can't seem to get along without resorting to disruptive and disparaging behaviour. I still adhere to the "honey rather than vinegar" motto and will continue to thread my way through the debris to find the way forward.
I did mean the Film Project, however I like the way you have answered the question as the more pressing concerns of the Wikipedia Project do impact quite tellingly on the Film Project. The adolescent's need to leave a mark no matter how illiterate and destructive is a pressing concern for us all - and you are spot on with the need to encourage those who are willing and able to help the project(s). Regards SilkTork *YES! 12:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
2) Are you happy with the Project's Style guidelines?
Although the guidelines are useful, there are a number of areas in which improvements can be made including a more precise manner of establishing authority. In reading various movie articles, there is a wide divergence in the use of citations, reference notes, end/footnotes and formating that ensues. I would be willing to provide input in establishing a format that would be systematic and follows the generally accepted rules of referencing that are present in cataloguing source material (there goes that Canadianism again). As to writing styles rather that editing formats, I believe that the guides give direction and some latitude for creative writers/editors to express themselves which is entirely the direction that any editor would go. As an editor in the "real world," I am always cognizant of allowing the author's "voice" to be heard and that is one of my primary goals in editing Wikipedia, as well. As to specifics, I tend to group plot and cast more closely together with production notes following the examples set by other more experienced editors who inhabit the WikiProject Films group. This is an extremely minor element in crafting the article but invariably readers are drawn to the interplay of prinicipal actors and their roles first before delving into the intracies of production. I also see the cast list as mainly a list rather than an extensive background on the characters depicted, especially if the roles are referred to in the plot summary. One of the other aspects of the film guide that needs clarity is to address the very detailed plot synposis sections that have appeared with "major" films. The plot section is intended to provide a summary and analysis of plot rather than a comprehensive retelling of the film, scene-by-scene.
3) Is the notability guide working?
Given that my background in the film group is relatively limited, I have noted that some film articles skirt the issues of notability in that the rigid criteria of providing supporting documentation is often limited to Internet sources. One of the main checks on notability is the widespread acceptance of the work and generally the acceptance should include "mainstream" sources as well as reputable reference sources. I tend to require peer-reviewed materials, reviews from acknowledged authorities and finally second- and third-person accounts. I would even open up a "can of worms" in allowing quotes and images from the original film to be included although a very scrutinized and justifiable reason for interpreting from source material must be at hand. The inclusion of countless minor productions can tend to gravitate towards a fandom approach wherin the only interested parties are the editors of the piece which is invariably the crux of the issue in dealing with noteablity. Establishing "street cred" must be the first priority in the decision to create an article. The WikiProject Films listing should not, however, become only a list of Academy Award-winning films as many productions warrant consideration as long as there is merit to their inclusion in the project. FWIW, these comments are merely off-hand as I am on holiday in Mazatlan and am sneaking minutes away from the sand and sun to provide these snippets. Bzuk (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC).
  • In 500 words or less, could you explain how you would welcome a new Wikipedia editor to WikiProject Films? What would you suggest for him or her to do to start making contributions? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I see that Erik already has an inkling that he needed to put a limit to the response (in my case, that's an especially good idea). As to creating a welcome, I have in mind the kind of "welcome wagon" approach that greets newcomers to a neighbourhood. In the case of the prospective new editor who has an interest in films, the standard Welcome! would be the first start but I would like to see a "package" of helpful hints that will direct the fledgling to the WikiProject Films Group, provide a FAQ, list a number of instructors/tutors who could provide a direct answer to the many questions/answers that aren't found in the FAQ, and set up an optional questionaire that will provide the group with the basics on the newbie's interests and where they could best "fit in" given the number of project groups that are available. The number of FA qualified articles that can be linked would also provide a good guide to what is possible. A step-by-step template that could be used in creating the "first article" that can be sandboxed and reviewed would also be a means of review and analysis. Another aspect of getting a novice involved would be the set up a "pair-bond" relationship based on the common interests of an experienced editor working with the neophyte editor.
Here is an example of what the WikiProject Films Group Welcome Wagon would look like:
Howdy, {{Film Lover}}, Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to WikiProject Films. Thank you for your contributions, you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics who love to talk about films! Who are the people in the WikiProject Films Group? We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page.
We actually already have a project welcome template along these lines, although of course anyone looking to revise it would be helpful to the project. :) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Consider this an exercise in thinking out loud. Of course, the project welcome template is a great welcoming message. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC).
  • Which article or articles (preferably film-related, but otherwise if you'd rather) would you consider the pinnacle of your editing achievements thus far? You mention several above, but these seem to have been presented more as examples of your opinions on proper referencing and the like. I have a better follow-up comment/question in mind, which is my "true" question to you, but it does depend upon your answer to this one, so don't feel the need to go into too much detail. :) All the best, Steve T • C 14:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • A very broad disclaimer must accompany all the films as I have always worked within a group of editors rather than being the sole contributor to an article. One of the most pleasant aspects of Wikipedia is the opportunity to collaborate with so many talented and experienced people from all over the world. The other minor proviso to consider is that my submissions to this WickyWacky world have been predominately in the WP:Aviation Project Group. This larger body of work is derived from my primary role as an editor and author of aviation-related writing. I am presently the editor of an aviation/aerospace trade journal as well as writing books (screenplays) devoted to aviators and their stories. My connection to film came about in two ways, as a film "buff" and student/production worker in the past as well as my more recent involvement in the development of film projects based on my books. FWIW, awaiting the next "shoe"... Bzuk (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC).
      • Hi, sorry for the delayed reply, and thanks for the full answer. Sorry for messing you around like this; after having seen you pop up in various film-related places on Wikipedia over the last few days, I'm happy to explain my rather vague and impolite question. Please understand, it was only because you were an unknown to me, and I guess what I was looking for was evidence of film article building which was not related to improving the notes and references sections (I was unsure of your desire to improve articles beyond these sections, after browsing a couple of articles from the list you initially posted which lacked certain details I've come to expect in a comprehensive film article). I also wanted to see how you conducted yourself in other areas of the project (again, merely because I hadn't come across you before). Having had the opportunity to do so, and to look over the short list of articles above (and your contributions to them), I'm happy to send my vote your way. I'm sure you'll continue to be a valuable asset to the project. All the best, Steve T • C 23:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of Bzuk

  1. Support- Seems experienced, so I'll enjoy seeing what he'd be like in a position of "power". MwNNrules (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support - In my dealings with him, I've found Bzuk to be a very good editor, willing to work problems out with sometimes prickly antagonists. In temperment and capability, I'd say that he's ideally suited to do this job. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support; I was very interested in what Bzuk had to say about referencing, and I look forward to his contributions to discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support - based on subject's experience in academia and fondness for older films, which he for better or ill shares with me. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support - based on a strong history of contributions (18500+), a very high percentage of article/talk page edits (79.86% of last 5000), and a good knowledge of film. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support- Very knowledgable about films and Wikipedia. Creamy3 (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support Have seen Bzuk do some great things for WP:FILMS, and hope that as a coordinator he can continue to improve the project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support A very knowledgable contributor, who has obviously done a lot of work for the project. Lots of experience in a range of fields. - • The Giant Puffin • 11:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support No worries about Bzuk. A knowledgeable and articulate editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support. Excellent contributor and a valuable asset. Steve T • C 23:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Creamy3

Creamy3 (talk · contribs)

I love Wikipedia and I love films. Every aspect of both of these things delight me and make my eyes gleam with the imminent tears of joy that are sure to follow. I have been a member of WikiProject Films for several months now and I have to say, it has been a wonderful experience. Wikipedia is the single greatest achievment in the history of the internet and it is an honor to be a part of it. I've made a plethora of film-related articles and I would love to be a WikiProject Films coordinator.
Some of my favorite films are, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Before Sunset, Park Chan Wook's Vengeance Trilogy (Oldboy, Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance, & Lady Vengeance), anything directed by David Cronenberg and David Lynch, and the films of P.T. Anderson.
Why should you vote for me to be a WikiProject Films Coordinator? Simple answer really: I love all films and I have an eye for details. I am a member of several WikiProjects which include WikiProject Films, WikiProject Horror, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, and I am the founder and president of the Creamy Army WikiProject and WikiProject The Wire. I am a local politician, former newscaster, and screenwriter in a small Southern Oregon town and I would be honored to be a WikiProect Films coordinator. I hope you'll all vote for the candidate who most interests you.
The following is a list of film related articles I have significantly contributed to or created:
Articles with major edits by Creamy3
  1. Hurlyburly
  2. Steal Away: Music of the Underground Railroad
  3. Pathogen
  4. Trailer Trash
  5. Hellmaster
  6. BloodMonkey
  7. Frozen Stupid
  8. The Cutting Edge: The Magic of Movie Editing
  9. New Year's Evil
  10. The Onion Field
  11. Last Rites
  12. Coffee & Donuts
  13. Gingerdead Man 2: Passion of the Crust
  14. Chained Heat
  15. Jocks
  16. The Late Show
  17. Broken Vessels
  18. Duplicity
  19. 25/8
  20. The Vengeance Trilogy
  21. Mary Louise Weller
  22. B.D. Kuchera
  23. Dorothy Hale
  24. Duncan Gibbins
  25. Adam Green
  26. Miguel Mas
  27. Roland Park Pictures
Thanks guys. VOTE FOR ME! --Creamy3 (talk) 20:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Paid for by Wikipedians for Creamy3

Comments and questions for Creamy3

  • I have two questions for all of the running coordinators which may or may not effect my take on the election. They may seem a bit off topic, but humor me if you will. What is your favorite film? And finally, what is your favorite film of the year? Thanks for your time. MwNNrules (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
When you ask what our favorite films of the year are, do you mean 2008 or 2007? My favorite film of all time is Kubrick's brilliant science-fiction classic, "2001: A Space Odyssey". My favorite film of 2007 was tied with three, Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, There Will Be Blood, and No Country for Old Men. I did very much enjoy some other films such as Juno, Lake of Fire, Atonement, Zodiac, 3:10 to Yuma among others. It was a great year for movies. Creamy3 (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
2001's a favorite of mine as well. Thanks for pointing out my abuse of the date: I meant '07. I was gonna note that, but was writing my initial questions too quickly for thought. No Country for Old Men was in my top three as well (along with Zodiac, and Eastern Promises). Thanks for the response. MwNNrules (talk) 04:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
1) What do you regard as the Project's most pressing issue.
2) Are you happy with the Project's Style guidelines?
3) Is the notability guide working?
Well SilkTork, I think that the most pressing issue facing WikiProject Films is getting notability established and getting our pages to FA status. I think that the notability guidlines have been very successful and that they should be kept. Creamy3 (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In 500 words or less, could you explain how you would welcome a new Wikipedia editor to WikiProject Films? What would you suggest for him or her to do to start making contributions? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I noticed in your edit history that you very recently created WikiProject The Wire. Given that your account only started editing in December and you joined WP Films last month, I would like to ask how familiar you feel with the project organization and its larger concerns? Also, how confident you feel about actively coordinating two WikiProjects, one of which will require much care due to its size and scope, and one of which will require nearly as much work in order to bring it fully up to a self-sustaining level of activity? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate the question Girolama Savonarola. I feel that I could definitely hold all of these positions. I am involved heavily in a few other WikiProjects, but it is a very beautful thing, running a WikiProject. I'd love to help out with this one. Thanks again. Creamy3 (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Creamy3, would you like to explain this?

    Hi and welcome to Wikipedia. Just to help you out, I know that you're a newcomer, I'd like to give you some pointers. Just like to say that if you edit my user page in any way I will make your head look like a plate of spaghetti. I will also cut off all of your limbs and bury them in different areas so that they will not be found. I will of course pour some sort of acid on your fingertips and face so that you will be unrecognizable to the police and I will drop a heavy object on you face until all of your teeth are broken out so they won't match dental records. Have a good one.

    Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 07:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Could you please explain your relationship with Creamy4? I notice that you posted this comment to his userpage which looks like vandalism to me. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe they have their very own cabal, as seen here, so the "abuse" from Creamy3 to any of these users is a likely in-joke. Steve T • C 10:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
      • But that opens a larger question - to whom is Creamy3 dedicated, Wikipedia, or the "Creamy Army" cabal? It's one thing to play fun & games with a "cabal" of friends, but it's another thing altogether to be serious about advancing the interests of Wikipedia and be dedicated to building an encyclopedia. If Creamy3 is truly interested in furthering Wikipedia by helping to advance its articles about films, perhaps he or she might want to leave behind this adolescent "cabal" and commit him- or herself to furthering the interests of the encyclopedia. What say you, Creamy3? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 10:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

FYI...this editor has been indefinitely blocked. — Scientizzle 16:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

So... let me get this straight; while Creamy3 proved to be a resoucefull editor for film articles he/she explored how shall we put it: "interesting depths" of wikipedia with his "creamy army"? To put it in other words (not fancy noir stuff) he was a vandalizer ocasionally and a contributer? Oh and do you think "creamy pirate", the only one who wasn't banned during the trial may continue to vandalize? Yojimbo501 (talk) 23:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of Creamy3

  1. Support- if you are willing to stand for the position, you have my support. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC).
  2. Support- Enjoys many of the same films I do, though that may be a stupid thing to bring up in this situation. MwNNrules (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support- I support Creamy3 because he is a good contributor to Wikipedia, especially in the films department. Also in his work in the Oaker Chronicle his movie reviews are superb, I enjoy every video media he reccomends. Creamy4 (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support- Enjoy the responses to the questions, and believe he will do a great job as coordinator for the project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support - no reason that I can see not to. John Carter (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support - He sounds like a good person and well informed on the subject of films. Flakes41 (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Erik

Erik (talk · contribs)

Hello, everyone! I've been editing on Wikipedia as early as December 2005, though I began to substantially contribute in the summer of 2006. My contributions have been largely focused on films, and I've gotten a few film articles promoted to Good Articles, both on my own and in collaboration with other editors. I've been a prolific editor of articles for upcoming films for a couple of reasons: 1) Many films' Wikipedia articles will come up near the top of search engine results these days, and 2) I want to encourage a more encyclopedic standard for films of the future, moving away from mere trivia and toward more well-rounded content. I'm often involved with WikiProject Films' future films department as a result.
In addition to my goal of standardizing articles for contemporary films, I've been a frequent participant in discussions at WT:FILM and its associated talk pages. I've been disappointed in the past by the lack of response at other project-related talk pages around Wikipedia, so I do my best to share my $0.02 whenever someone makes a new inquiry about WikiProject Films or films in general. I've also tried to encourage in-depth exploration of resources to build up film articles because, unfortunately, not everything can be found on the Internet. One proposal I've had in mind was to provide a guide to utilizing resources for the betterment of film articles.
As an assistant coordinator, I would bring my extensive experience in the mainspace and my frequent involvement in discussions to the coordinators' round table. Wikipedia's film articles need an up-to-date WikiProject to aid in the process of adding cinematic knowledge to this encyclopedia. I hope to contribute ideas and proposals to keep WikiProject Films growing as a strong community with supple resources available to all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Erik

From here: I have two questions for all of the running coordinators which may or may not effect my take on the election. They may seem a bit off topic, but humor me if you will. What is your favorite film? And finally, what is your favorite film of the year? Thanks for your time. MwNNrules (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Fight Club is my favorite film. Don't get me wrong, though; there are many, many stellar films that I have truly admired. Beyond the enjoyable dark humor and unfolding twist of Fight Club, I could relate to the film's message very strongly as a young man in America. Obviously, I don't endorse Tyler Durden's solution, but I understood the need to break loose that was expressed in the film. As a result, I've put in a lot of time in its Wikipedia article, and working on it has actually led me to being more immersed in the critical analysis of Fight Club and other films by academic studies. Alternately to my favorite film, you're welcome to inquire about what I consider "great" films -- not necessarily films I'd watch rabidly, but those that command respect.
It's unfortunate, but I've never seen Fight Club. Fincher's good, though, and he's come a long way from Alien 3. MwNNrules (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Fincher's one of the directors whose work I will see with no hesitation. I'm interested in the upcoming The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, though Fincher's been attached to a billion projects after that one. Hope you get a chance to see Fight Club -- avoid spoilers if you can! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
In response to the film of 2007, I haven't had a chance to see all of the critically acclaimed films. Juno, Atonement, and There Will Be Blood, and others are on my Netflix queue. Taking a look at the 2007 releases in my film list, It's a tough call. I'll identify the ones that stood out for me: Ratatouille, The Bourne Ultimatum, Zodiac, American Gangster, Eastern Promises, The Orphanage, Gone Baby Gone, and Into the Wild. (There are other 2007 films that I enjoyed, but not to this extent.) I would have to say it's a tie between Eastern Promises and Gone Baby Gone. While I saw the Best Picture winner No Country for Old Men and enjoyed it, I feel like I want to see it again to truly understand every aspect of it. Hope that answers your questions! :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I've missed a lot of the big ones as well. Every year, I plan to see each film that's nominated for Best Picture, and I never get to. It happens. Zodiac and Eastern Promsises are the two gems for me, and I'm glad to see that you agree. The rest of the movies you named I didn't see, the exceptions being The Bourne flick, and Ratatouille, which I liked but not as much. MwNNrules (talk) 04:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it's hard to get to theaters nowadays. I just got Atonement from Netflix yesterday, so hopefully I will watch that sometime today. I thought that The Bourne Ultimatum and Ratatouille were exemplars of their respective genres. Anyway, if you ever want to continue talking about cinema, feel free to look at the list of films I've seen recently (just finishing up Rocket Science) and drop a comment on my user talk page. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
1) What do you regard as the Project's most pressing issue.
I think that this WikiProject's most pressing issue is for the community as a whole to be more prompt with feedback. Recently, good article nominations of film articles were severely backlogged. In addition, I do not think that there is tremendous feedback when it comes to peer reviews of film articles. Hopefully the revamped Review department is a step forward, but I think we could come up with ways in which editors can help each other out. The best approach would be a quid pro quo approach, which is not new to this WikiProject, but perhaps one that could be more visible in the community.
I think that there are other issues as well, since there is always room for improvement in every area. Some other issues off the top of my hand: 1) Community review of the style guidelines to address more supplementary sections and provide fresher examples of articles, 2) Review the WikiProject's older Featured Articles, since I believe standards have become a little higher (especially with non-free images), and 3) Explore the possibility of a resource guideline to show editors old and new how to find sources for referencing, either online or offline. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
2) Are you happy with the Project's Style guidelines?
As I've indicated above, I think that the style guideline could go through a community review. I find the spirit of the style guidelines to be strong, but I think that we could revisit the wording and the examples used. Some of my ideas include providing more instruction for "Background/Production", reshaping "Cast and crew information", having more in-depth to "Distribution", and adding "Marketing" and "Critical analysis" sections under "Other article components". Obviously, nobody needs a position to update the guidelines, but hopefully we can foment communal discussion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
3) Is the notability guide working?
I think that the notability guide serves its purpose very well. I think that this topical guide is necessary because films permeate societies all around the world. The clarification in how to maintain articles about films is helpful. Since I've been involved with WP:FUTFILM, I've been involved in a lot of deleting and merging per WP:NFF. I think that this particular threshold has been useful, especially with the writers' strike recently casting a big shadow. One element that I think the guide could address better is the notability of foreign-language films. It's very easy to do a search engine test on English-language films, but I think we should take a closer look at foreign-language films that can be on the fence. I know that there are a few editors who specialize in foreign cinema, so discussion could help clarify notability issues. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of Erik

  1. Support- I worked with Erik on the film article, Beowulf (2007 film) and found him to be a just and fair editor. I think that he would be a great coordinator. -Classicfilms (talk) 15:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support- Has written some good articles like The Fountain. MwNNrules (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support- First person (sort of) I ran into on Wikipedia. Really dedicated to what he does. Wildroot (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support - Erik and I have not always agreed (in fact, it's more true, perhaps, to say that we almost always disagree), but I have nevertheless found him to be calm and reasoned in his dealings with me, an indication, I think, that he is well suited for this position. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support- although I have only recently come across his contributions, Erik has been very willing to work with others and that alone is a prime consideration in placing my vote of support. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC).
  6. Support - More than competent editor with a good history and knowledge of the subject. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support - Well above average editor with huge number of edits (28000+), strongly weighted in the film area with good articles (Fight Club is an exceptional film article), and obviously strong knowledge of project. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support Erik is an excellent editor who always make incredibly logical arguements, and has tutored me in many ways such as fair use, structuring and trivia. His authored articles are amazing, and yet he is humble enough to never rush to FAC. He's an invaluable member of the project. Alientraveller (talk) 10:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support - based upon excellent answers to SilkTork's equally-excellent questions, and upon previous experience working with, and being guided by, this editor. Steve T • C 14:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support - I dont' have any questions for Erik; like Alien and several other editors here, I have collaborated with him on many articles. He has a tremendous knowledge on how things operate on Wikipedia, and he's usually among the first editors to answer film related questions for newcomers. I think he embodies a lot in what we need in project coordinators.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support - I haven't directly collaborated with Erik as much as some of the others here, but he's helped and advised me enough for me to know he's an excellent Wikipedia editor and I know he has a lot of experience with film articles.  Paul  730 23:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support - Erik is one of the editors I most respect on Wikipedia and I enjoy working with him. He will do a great job in helping our project continue to improve in quality and he would definitely be an asset in the coordinator position. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support - Worked with Erik on I Am Legend (film) and was impressed. I like his approach, and he has had an influence on the way I have edited on Wikipedia since. He is calm, respectful and enabling while also conveying a firm authority - mainly because of the quality of his work, his clear intelligence and knowledge, and the time he has served here. SilkTork *YES! 09:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support - I am working with Erik on revamping the Citizen Kane article and have found him to be an excellent editor and contributor to film articles on Wikipedia, specifically all of his hard work on the Fight Club article, which was very well done. He definitely has the qualifications for this position.--J.D. (talk) 13:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  15. Support - My interactions with Erik always have been positive. He has been extremely helpful when I've asked him for assistance and very gracious when doing so. MovieMadness (talk) 17:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  16. Support - Erik is one of Wikipedia's most gifted editors. We cannot let the chance to place him in power go. --Creamy3 (talk) 22:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  17. Support - From what I've seen, Erik will be a solid coordinator. Best of luck! ♦ Luigibob ♦ "Talk to Luigi!" 22:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  18. Support - Erik is a friendly and helpful user here on wikipedia, amoung others, so that is why I support him at becoming the leader of this project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tj999 (talk • contribs) 20:13, April 2, 2008
  19. Support - Erik is a great collaborator and very good at finding sources and just helping out when other editors ask for assistance. Cirt (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  20. Support - Erik already does a great deal for this project. He is knowledgeable about film and about the film project. He would make a great coordinator. --BelovedFreak 20:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support - Erik knows what he is doing, and has contributed greatly to the film and other articles here on Wikipedia. I can think of no better candidate for the job.--EclipseSSD (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Girolamo Savonarola

Girolamo Savonarola (talk · contribs)

"We're gonna need a bigger boat..." I've been the project's Lead Coordinator since the position's inception back in September, and I've had an active hand in the project for a good while prior to that. I originally founded and led the Filmmaking WikiProject, and subsequently brought the task force concept to WP Films, which allowed us to merge WP Filmmaking into WP Films as the first task force.
Much of my work since we started the coordinator positions has been closely involved with overhauling and improving the project banner, setting up task forces as appropriate and tagging for them, liaising with related WikiProjects, restructuring the project as efficiently as possible, and trying to stay abreast of new developments in the larger sphere of Wikipedia which may impact or benefit our project.
More specifically, in the past six months, we have increased our article count by almost 10,000, while not only doubling our good articles, but adding at least 24 new featured articles, which is not only an increase in the raw number of film FAs, but also an increase in the percentage of FAs from the articles within our scope. In the meantime, we have also managed to cleanup and organize our work on upcoming films through the creation of the future films department, consolidate all review-related processes into a single interface at the review department, and overhaul the announcements template and project sidebar. Also in development for the near-future is a Core list and contest department.
One thing that I do somewhat regret is that we didn't start with more coordinators from the start. While I still believe that it was best to start with a measured number of coordinators while the position was still finding its feet and the project was undergoing larger restructuring, I think that a smaller number of coordinators hampered the ability to set up a regular "round table" for brainstorming and creating a development environment. In my view, this type of work is just as critically important as the more mundane coordinator tasks, if not moreso. I'd therefore like to encourage any of our regular contributors to project discussions to strongly consider running.
I anticipate that my candidacy will at the least allow members to examine the changes here at WP Films over the past six months, and I hope that my work demonstrates that I have tried to do right by the project and have allowed it to thrive as much as reasonably possible. I welcome any questions or comments and look forward to answering them. Thank you! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Girolamo Savonarola

  • I have two questions for all of the running coordinators which may or may not effect my take on the election. They may seem a bit off topic, but humor me if you will. What is your favorite film? And finally, what is your favorite film of the year? Thanks for your time. MwNNrules (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Gosh, tough one! Tough for me this past year in particular - I unfortunately didn't get to see much recent fare in 2007 because I was involved in two major relocations, and otherwise was busy working on sets most of the other time. (After working 12+ hours a day on a film, watching one often is not a high priority.) Also, I tend to work my way through friends' DVD libraries often, so that usually means I'm not catching theatrical releases as much, regrettably. Now, after all that prologue, I'd probably have to say either Bourne Ultimatum or No Country for Old Men, but that's from a very limited sample of 2007 films. There is much that I have on my to-see list, however...
Quite sorry it's tooken so long to get a responce. Thank you for answering my second question. I've only been able to see a few films of 2007, though I got around. Thanks again. MwNNrules (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
1) What do you regard as the Project's most pressing issue.
At the moment, I think the main issue is figuring out more ways to facilitate user involvement with the project - we certainly have no lack of film articles and editors who have worked on those articles, and this is natural because films are a very popular medium across most of the world. Even though they probably are a small fraction of the total editors working on film articles, we also have a large number of members (both active and inactive). However, oftentimes the discussion at WT:FILMS fails to pick up on certain threads, including some of the most fundamental questions facing the project. We do nonetheless see a regular stream of new articles being created not only on recent films, but older ones too. Many of them require significant attention even to reach an "acceptable" level of stubbiness. I think part of this gap can be bridged by engaging the task forces more. I've also cribbed several parts of other successful WikiProjects such as MilHist, Bio, and Tropical cyclones, amongst others, to retool our processes and make engagement with WP Films easier - for instance, placing all articles under review into a single page on the review department and transcluding the reviews. I'm also working on several new awards classes both above and below our current project barnstar, and hope that the forthcoming contest department will provide a mechanism for encouraging more editors to join in, or at least allow us to better recognize those who already are doing the hard work. Last, I believe that a redesign of our project banner to place less of the infomation in hidden tables will probably boost task force membership, encourage review involvement, and spur on edits that correct article deficiencies identified within the banner parameters. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
2) Are you happy with the Project's Style guidelines?
This would actually be the second-most pressing issue in my eyes, although perhaps not in the way many think. The current style guidelines, on the whole, are more than fine for our articles on individual films. However, they were developed at a point when the project scope was more limited, and therefore are completely irrelevant to large swathes of our articles such as characters or real-world film topics. This is an area where I believe that the task forces would be well-suited to helping the whole project develop appropriate guidelines - the Awards and Festivals task forces, for instance, each have unique needs, but within their articles, they probably would benefit from more uniformity. It probably would also be in the interest of the Filmmaking task force to split off a separate Companies and organizations task force for the same reason, and this probably would also benefit in this regard were it a joint task force with WP Companies and/or WP Organizations, each of which could provide assistance in drafting said guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
3) Is the notability guide working?
With regard to what? I'm not certain I totally understand the thrust of the question. If the question is "are all of our articles notable?", I would say that we undoubtedly have some which do not qualify and we try to identify and prod/AfD/speedy them all as appropriate. This would be no different than any other project, or the entire 'pedia as a whole, of course. I also routinely go through the logs to make certain that all incoming articles appear notable and are properly tagged on their talk page.
If the question is "do we need separate notability guidelines for film articles?", I would definitely say yes. But this issue already was brought up last year, and seems to have resolved for the moment.
There has been a move to merge some of the notability guidelines which you may be aware I have been a part of, but that wasn't in my mind as I feel that the film notability guideline is helpful and appropriate as a separate guide. I was thinking more of the clarity and teeth of the guide - while starting a sweep through the film articles recently I was struck by how many very trivial films have articles. I put a few up for Afd - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Barbarians (film) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arnold's Wrecking Co. for example. They were kept because nearly every film, no matter how trivial, gets a review, often by a large paper's resident critic who well may be known. Almost every film listed on IMDB will qualify for an article on Wikipedia. Do you feel we should be looking to adjust the notability guide to fit both reality and the will of the community, or should we tighten it up to exclude the more trivial films? SilkTork *YES! 08:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
If you're asking something else that I've totally missed, or have a specific case in mind, please feel free to clarify. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
  • In 500 words or less, could you explain how you would welcome a new Wikipedia editor to WikiProject Films? What would you suggest for him or her to do to start making contributions? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I do occasionally handle the welcome template for new members, but luckily Nehrams2020 has been very diligent in handling this task, as well as many of the other Outreach sections, including the Newsletter. There might be some merit to having the editor who adds the welcome template to the new member's talk page maybe first looking at the user's contribution history to see if they might be interested in any particular departments or task forces within the project. This could allow us to help do some recruiting there. I think the key is not to try to corral users into doing work they would otherwise have no interest in, but rather to help them find areas that already complement their editing history and interests. We could even add this into the template with some simple parameters that will customize the welcome message to mention these areas specifically. I also would advocate keeping the welcome template fairly simple instead of a cluttered suggestion list - if we just have some brief text and a few links, it will encourage new members to explore the project pages more thoroughly and keep them directly engaged with the project content itself. This also will reduce the overwhelming Buridan-like effect that a dozen or so suggestions on the template could have. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of Girolamo Savonarola

  1. Support- Don't know anyone here too well, but Girolamo Savonarola is very experienced and pulls the strings the Assessment department (I think...). He also assessed one of the articles I worked on, which gave me inspiration. MwNNrules (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support- In attempting to create order and provide direction, I compliment and support Girolamo Savonarola's nomination. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC).
  3. Support since I have seen Girolamo's dedication to this WikiProject firsthand and have liked what I have seen. He often engages in topical discussions for this WikiProject, and I hope to see this continue. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support - His dedication and work for this project are nothing less than admirable. John Carter (talk) 19:01, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support - I thought he WAS the project (no reflection on others, btw). :) Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support based upon continued stellar work as current lead co-ordinator. It has not gone unnoticed, though it must at times look like it, Girolamo. Steve T • C 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support- Girolamo Savonarola seems to have the most experience and WikiKnowledge; he's the best suited for the position. Creamy3 (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  8. Support-Girolamo did an excellent job as the lead coordinator, and I was disappointed that, as assistant coordinator, I couldn't help him in improving the project as much as he hoped. Hopefully with more coordinators this project can continue to expand, become more organized, and improve in quality. Girolamo is one of my favorite editors on Wikipedia and I believe he will continue to guide us in the right direction as one of the coordinators. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  9. Support - Hard working and knowledgeable. SilkTork *YES! 09:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support A very hard working lead coordinator, who has done a lot to help WP:FILM run more smoothly. - • The Giant Puffin • 11:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support - Very hard working. ♦ Luigibob ♦ "Talk to Luigi!" 22:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  12. Support - Agree with pretty much everything that has already been said above. Cirt (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support - Girolamo Savonarola has been doing a great job as lead coordinator, and I'm sure would continue the good work. --BelovedFreak 20:13, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  14. Support - Girolamo Savonarola knows very well what is to do. He is also very experienced and did an excellent job here. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Limetolime

Limetolime (talk · contribs)

Hello Everyone! I'd just like to say a couple of things about myself first off. I've been on Wikipedia since November 2006 and have been enjoying it ever since. My contributions to Wikipedia articles were mainly on films, (my weakness), and I will continue to do so as long as I am on Wikipedia. I have also joined WikiProject Oz, WikiProject Dinosaurs, and WikiProject Superman, and have substantially contributed to film articles in all of those projects.
I have currently been reviewing GA film articles, and will continue to do so to help improve and direct film articles being created by other users to their best possible quality. I have also submitted The Muppets' Wizard of Oz for review, and have worked them to the best of my ability. I have also mainly contibuted to and brung Superman (film series) to FA status, and Jurassic Park franchise to GA status, and I am constantly working on film articles to help improve them, and I hope to send them all to GA status or higher.

The following is a list of all of the film articles I have substantially contributed to and/or created.

Articles with major edits by Limetolime

-

  1. 66th Academy Awards nominees and winners
  2. A Charlie Brown Valentine
  3. Anne of Green Gables: A New Beginning
  4. Anne of Green Gables film series
  5. Another Cinderella Story
  6. Au Pair film series
  7. Beyond Jurassic Park
  8. City of Ember
  9. Definitely, Maybe
  10. Ghosts of the Abyss
  11. Gold Diggers: The Secret of Bear Mountain
  12. Good Burger
  13. Hannah Montana (film)
  14. Hannah Montana & Miley Cyrus: Best of Both Worlds Concert (film)
  15. Heart of the Ocean
  16. Herbie: Fully Loaded
  17. Hey Arnold!: The Movie
  18. How She Move
  19. Jurassic Park III
  20. Jurassic Park franchise
  21. Kit Kittredge: An American Girl
  22. Lovewrecked
  23. Media 8 Entertainment
  24. My Date with the President's Daughter
  25. Once Upon A Christmas (film)
  26. One Missed Call (2008 film)
  27. Sense and Sensibility (film)
  28. Snowglobe (film)
  29. Superman (film series)
  30. The Dukes of Hazzard (film)
  31. The Muppets' Wizard of Oz
  32. The Secret Garden (1993 film)
  33. The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants 2
  34. Twice Upon A Christmas
  35. Vanessa Lee Chester
As an Assistant Coordinator, I wish to improve film articles on Wikipedia in many areas, including citing sources, images, and manual of style. I have taken the liberty to list problems in WP:FILM and what I ask to do about them.

References: References are an extremely important part of Wikipedia articles, especially film articles. I was glad to see a link rot template was up, as this was a Major problem that needed to be addressed. But, there are still big problems that need to have something done about them:

  1. Random linking: Putting random links into the article and calling them references, instead of properly citing them. This problem is present on many articles, and needs to be fixed. Creating a tag or even a template could greatly help solve this problem. This was present in The Wizard of Oz (1939 film), but I have addressed this.

Images: Images are also important. "Pictures speak louder than words"!

  1. No Images: I also request that a template be made to address whether or not an article has images or not. Images are neccessary if an article will pass as a Good article or a Featured article, and I have addressed this problem in my GA review for The Secret of Treasure Island.

Manual of style: Although WikiProject Film has very good rules and regulations for writing an article, I still don't believe they have been strict enough in the overall tone of the article. MANY, and I mean Many articles are poorly written, and NEED to be addressed like people need air.

I will not be selfish and yell for you to vote for me, but even if I am not elected, I still wish to contribute all that I can to keep WikiProject Films strong, and a healthy, growing community.

Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 21:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Comments and questions for Limetolime

  • I have two questions for all of the running coordinators which may or may not effect my take on the election. They may seem a bit off topic, but humor me if you will. What is your favorite film? And finally, what is your favorite film of the year? Thanks for your time. MwNNrules (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Questions from SilkTork *YES! 16:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC).
1) What do you regard as the Project's most pressing issue.
I believe WikiProject Film's most pressing issue is that most articles have been written that do not comply to the projects Manual of Style. Most articles, not all, but most, have been written very poorly by first-time Wikipedians and have never been fixed. All most all televison film and direct-to-video film articles suffer from this, such as Once Upon a Christmas (film) and Twice Upon a Christmas, but have been repaired by me. ALL Start/Stub film articles are written poorly, and most of these articles will not be fixed accordingly. Things can be done about this, such as adding {{Copyedit}} to all of these articles. Also, I wish to start a new grading scale to WP:FILM articles. As with quality and importance, I wish to create a grading system that grades how well that article is written. It'll be big, but it will help the article quite a bit.
So you want to grade both article quality and how the article is written? How would these two properties be distinguished? Poor writing usually limits article quality ratings, and vice versa. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this is true, but I'm trying to distinguish the writing quality as a more important thing when it comes to film articles. As I stated before, All film articles that Start/Stub class are of poor writing quality, and they need to be addressed. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 16:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
2) Are you happy with the Project's Style guidelines?
Yes. I am very happy with the Style guidelines. They clearly and precisely show how articles are to be written, and have helped me write all of my Wikipedia Film articles.
3) Is the notability guide working?
I'm not sure I understand this question, but I'll answer it to the best of my ability. For the most part, yes, it's working fine, and it's also helped me write my film articles on Wikipedia. Although they have been the reason some of my articles have been deleted, they are the sole reason WP:FILM has remained a respectable project, instead of an overflooding trash dump.

Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 21:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

  • In 500 words or less, could you explain how you would welcome a new Wikipedia editor to WikiProject Films? What would you suggest for him or her to do to start making contributions? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I would thank them for joining the project, and I would tell them that any edit would be greatly appreciated. Next, I would guide them through WikiProject Films style guidelines, and make sure that they understand them. Because these guidelines are so important, I would also guide them through the film project's nobility guide. These two pages contain all of the information neccessary to make a good, respectable film article, and ALL WikiProject Film users need to read and understand these rules if they are to become good, substantial editors.

Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 16:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Votes in support of Limetolime

  1. Support- In attempting to provide a background to an interest in films, the telling statement that Limetolime made, that his primary role would be to develop film articles, gives me confidence that he would be a good coordinator. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC).
  2. Support as I feel that Limetolime's interest in improving the quality of writing in film articles will be a strong asset in discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  3. Support as per the above. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  4. Support - as above. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
  5. Support - good explanation of intended editing duties, will be an excellent addition. Steve T • C 14:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  6. Support Good response to the questions and has been a great asset to the project since joining. I believe that Limetolime will do a great job as coordinator in furthering the outreach of our project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support A very good contributor, who has clearly done lots to help WP:FILM progress in the past - • The Giant Puffin •

Results

All of the candidates were granted a term as Coordinator with the exception of Creamy3, whose candidacy was disqualified at the end of the election due to inability to fulfill the role because of an indefinite block. While Erik fielded the most votes, he declined his right to assume the Lead Coordinator post, and therefore Girolamo Savonarola chose to continue as Lead. The remaining open Coordinator position will be appointed by the new standing Coordinators, pending discussion.

General comments

Please make any general comments not related to one of the candidates on the talk page.

  1. ↑ The Rocketeer Full credits
  2. ↑ Curtiss, Thomas Quinn. "The Film Career of William Wellman." International Herald Tribune (iht.com), 9 February 1994. Retrieved: 5 December 2007.