Wikipedia talk:Spotlight/Archive 1

Some considerations...

• Do we work on one article to completion, or do we work on one article up to a set limit of time?
• What criteria should we use in determining what articles to spotlight?

- Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 20:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Meta-tasks

Here's a bunch of meta-stuff about the spotlight project to be considered:

• Turnaround - how often do we want to switch articles?
• Recruitment - how many collaborators do we need and how to attract them?
• Choice of topics - should they be easily researchable so that a visible impact can be made in short time, or should they be hard topics, so that we improve articles which are not likely to be improved otherwise?
• Scope - should we choose red links and stubs or poorly written articles of decent size, and should we try to make them just decent, or to make them good or featured articles?
• Workflow - how to achieve the most with the least effort and time expended

Here's my view: We're doing this on IRC and we should adapt to the medium, which is fast-paced and immediate. That means relatively short turn-around, maybe a day or two, maybe less, which would necessitate that we work on easily researchable topics and that we don't try to get articles to FA. That's a good thing, IMO, because wiki is a better format than IRC for hard topics and slow work, and we already have FA drive. A relatively large output of material of decent quality would also be good for recruitment of new collaborators, as well as for the moral of existing ones. A few more links around the project space, and a template to put on the talk page of the selected article would also be useful.

As for the workflow, I once started work on User:Zocky/Article checklist (and never finished it). We may need something like that to guide the work in useful directions. Also, the relatively massive real-time collaboration carries risks of duplication of effort, as we experienced yesterday more than once. In the future, we may get a smarter bot on which you'll be able to "claim" tasks, but in the meantime, we should get into the habit of announcing what we're doing on the channel. Zocky | picture popups 15:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts on this:

• Turnaround: One article per day seems good; I say we stick with that for a while and see how we go.
• Recruitment: I've posted a notice at the Community Portal, that should get the attention of most potentially interested editors.
• Scope: I'm not entirely sure about starting new articles, it's not quite the same as expanding something that's already there, and we have so many articles now I get the feeling that most things that deserve articles have them, even if they're not very good. But if we find a good topic, then I don't see why not.
• Workflow: We're entering new territory here, we're going to have to think of this as we go along. I think the very fact that we're able to talk in real-time already reduced the time expended significantly; as for effort, that remains to be seen – Gurch 03:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On April 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Icelanders, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ad

Ad as a part of Qxz/Gurch's ad cycle...Real96 07:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting

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

Coverage suggestion

I would recommend that coverage be focused on Wikipedia:Vital articles. Many, if not most, are in a sad state and as central topics, Wikipedia would greatly benefit from the attention. Just a thought. Cheers! Vassyana 02:11, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an old comment, for sure, but I strongly agree. There are many Vital Articles which no one with a knowledge of English seems to want to touch. I look forward to helping out when I can. -RunningOnBrains 07:00, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, feel free to add anything you think is in need of collaborative improvement to the list at the bottom of the project page, leaving a little note here. I agree that some of them are in very bad shape and the revitalisation of this project is just the thing to fix that!...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 23:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

New proposal

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

"historical" tag

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

We're active!

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

Kristallnacht

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

Issues.

I have some issues with the perceived way that article selection works for spotlight, (and yes I realise I haven't been around to actually see selection, but this is part of the problem) I dislike the idea of project coordinators of having the final say in the chose of article, since it means that non-coordinators may find themselves on a article that have little enjoyment editing and thus causing disharmony in the project.

Ah ha! I here you cry, "this will lead to the project becoming overly bureaucratic!" and yes it could do to a certain extent, and the downside of a more democratic selection system over the current oligarchic system is that decisions on what article we should spotlight could take longer, however I think that if there is a page is this project where contributors can decide what article should be next after the current article, or next after the next article, I think the project should be better for it, because if we want to envisage a slightly larger project with more people contributing than there are now, we need these decisions to be quick and organised, so that we draw a close on one article, we can say right afterwards "BAM! now go edit this one", which retains the spontaneity of choosing the article on IRC the night before, but means that how we choose is more in the clear, since we can't currently reveal why and/or what grounds an article was chosen due to the rules of no posting of IRC logs.

I also have some concerns over the suggestions section, I can see the list getting very long and unwieldy very quickly, however this situation is yet to happen and I can't foresee that it would cause any major problems in the near future. watch this space.

Also a small note, most of the talk subpages for this project will now redirect here to aid discussion so that no user leaves a message on a rarely visited talk page.

Finally the last issue of the day. Coordinators. Firstly I ask, how to we define one, what there purpose is the wider scope of the project, and what do you need to fulfil to be one? (and yes the reader may take note that I have a small disagreement with Mm40 as to whether I hold the position of project coordinator) Personally I find the idea of coordinators to be a bit of potential problem child.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 00:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I want to implement a democratic system for choice of coordinators and articles. I, personally, think you deserve coordinator status but we can make that the first vote. Like RfA, you need 70% to pass...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 14:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you draw compassions with RFA here, but nit picking slightly, RFA isn't a vote, the vote like aspect is purely so that 'crats can gauge the feeling of the community and peoples opinions of the candidate can be aired, and this is why there are no set limits for RFA, and the only limits to RFA are perceived and based on general trends of who passes and who doesn't.

Now the relevance that this has to the project is that voting for coordinators cannot work in exactly the same way as it does in RFA , I don't want to go out on a limb and say that candidates should have X amounts of edits and have spent X amount of time on the project, because I believe in the words of Bertrand Russel, "that is a wooly-headed idea." and is exactly why WP:IAR exists, but on the other hand the vote must work on a purely democratic basis that is if a candidate gets over 70% support they should be elected, but there should only be such exactness in this sphere alone, so I urge voters to vote on candidates on the ability to fulfill the role, rather than a set of strict and limiting criteria. A further point that we must consider in the creation and running of this project is the the caution which we should use when basing our systems on ones that are already pre-established, for example, there is a noticeable feeling in the community that RFA has grown to rather silly levels, so I again urge caution to make sure that if and or when we adopt similar systems to ones pre-established that we must be wary that our systems don't run into the same problems as these pre-established.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 14:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

(indent) Kerotan, I've been reading what you were saying, and I had some thoughts about this. First off, I agree, we need a sub-page where any contributors, whether members of the project or not, can leave suggestions on what article's should be in the Spotlight, so it's not solely the decision of "the coordinators", but rather having a more friendly, anyone-can-be-involved feel. I really think that being a project coordinator means that you want to be in this for the longer run, or at least for a couple/few months. A coordinator has to want to help start up new areas of the project, coordinate the newsletter discussing it with other coordinators, and basically getting behind things and helping the article get improved by others, and yourself as well. It shouldn't really be a position of having the last say in scheduling articles, and even altering the project in certain ways. If a potential change relates to the project, then it'd be a little group decision amongst those users. Relating to the articles, it would be a community decision, yes perhaps a small portion, on what articles come in the queue, or even ideas for the project itself, but the coordinators are just the ones who are more busy with the project management itself, and working with its system. In a way, it's like bureaucratship (not that serious, of course). A user might have lots of experience being an admin, some folks want to nom him for RfB, and a good deal of people want him to become a bureaucrat. But what if the admin doesn't really like the RFA system in general, and he doesn't want to work with it as the closing 'crat. So he turns down the nom offers.

I know you seem in support of this project and all, Kerotan, but I wanted to ask, would you want to be working with this system? Now, there's the possibility that one could decide to be a coordinator of an area, if others agreed, to change it and solve some potential issues. But do you want to coordinate this project, per my little definition above? I'm not against you being in that position; if you feel that you want to work with this type of system for a little while, I'm all for it. In short, it's not a big deal, but I'd like to know that you really want to be one of the core people involved and working with this project, staying around for a few months. Those are some of my ideas and thoughts. Thanks for reading this, JamieS93 17:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree more or less unreserved with everything you said above, and I would like to confirm that I believe that I will stay contributing on the project in some form or another for as long as I edit wikipedia, and yes I would content with working with the system, since I believe that in order to have the front of the project working correctly, there must be cohesion in the system. Now if you excuse me, I am going to go edit our Wiki-Ad so that it advertises the fact that we are now active, since I have a theory that most people that see that advert are under the the delusion that like ACID, we are no longer active...--^{Kerotan-Have a nice day :)} 19:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Kerotan's election

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Successful with 100% support...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 14:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Closes 31 May 2008.

Support

1. Support: He deserved it, having been a regular and great contributor - especially on IRC...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 13:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Neutral

Proposal

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: The proposal passed unanimously. New pages will now only be chosen if no plausible suggestions are on the list...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 12:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Support

1. Support as it is my own idea.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  19:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
2. Support - I agree with the proposal. If we simply select an article from WP:VA that no one is enthusiastic about, there will be less of a group response and productivity. the list should be used occasionally, but in general only as a back up if we don't have any other suggestions. –Jamie^☆S93 19:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
3. Support and agree whole-heartedly with JamieS93...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
4. miranda 18:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
5. Sounds logical. —KetanPanchal^taLK 06:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Tuskegee Airmen

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

test

Sure Miranda even though you hate me very much for copy right I am in... Danger^Mouse (talk) 04:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Richard Montgomery

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

Points for discussion

I would like to withdraw from editing the Marco Polo article, and in doing so, I would like to clarify a few issues:

1. The use of IRC: Unless you publish IRC logs, it is impossible to tell from the outside where consensus lies if you're not there at the exact moment that a decision if made. Several changes were made in my absence for example, which appeared to me to be the result of one editor's personal preference. Per the usual routine, it would then be open to other editors (such as me) to revert upon disagreement, pending discussion. Blatantly this is different if strong consensus has emerged on one side of the argument (whichever that may be). Solution: publish IRC logs or make it clear in edit summaries that a consensus discussion has taken place. Better still, work it out on the talk page.
2. Referencing: I would like to take this opportunity to clarify my own personal position here. I am in favour, where no living people are involved, of the (temporary) inclusion of a believable fact even if it does not have a little ^[1] next to it. If it controversial, then it can be removed, but we work for the reader. If they find it helpful to have, it's a win-win scenario.
3. Deleting of material wholesale, apparently for no particular reason. Per #1, if there is a good reason, could we have it please? I have been told that there was prior consensus to remove all unreferenced material. Presumably this was interpreted per ^[1][2][3]. I cannot disagree with this more. The article was left unreadable overnight, with references back to bits that had just been deleted. Personally, I find this unacceptable. Consult Wikipedia:Good article criteria for a summary of when references are useful and when not so much.
4. The assumption of good faith. It was accidental. Enough said.

Overall, I really like the idea, and I hope to be able to contribute on the next article chosen (someone mentioned Windows XP, but I have no idea whether that was after a serious discussion, or just part of the mockery "fun". - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 12:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I should add that if I had to pick a version of the article to put up for good article review / leave behind, it would be this revision, just before that blanket revert. I'm not overly bothered about the "See also" section, but as I have said before, it is supposed to include tangentially related article NOT already mentioned in the article; some suggestions for similar travellers seems to me to be a sensible and a plausible navigator route for any reader. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 13:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

To better cope with point one, we have started adding our signatures and placing agreed consensus on the talk page. As for See Also, if you apply to same logic to other pages, we might as well start including Gandhi on Jesus' page due to their similar ideologies. There seems to be a break in logic, when applied realistically. Concepts should apply to multiple situations; not just single articles. I am abstaining from comment on the other three points; I'll allow someone else to share their opinion in response. –blurpeace ^(talk) 12:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the talk page message, which was useful in explaining everything. Thank you! I wouldn't say Gandhi and Jesus on each others' see alsos is quite what I meant. Muhammad, Jesus and Buddha would be more like it, but I wouldn't really advocate that because they do not present a continuous narrative. With the Marco Polo article, explorers to the east are much closer to my idea of a sequence. Certainly, the best use of See also is for related lists, chronologies and perspective type articles. But I don't really mind, I just think it's a waste not to take advantage. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 13:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Next artilce

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

• William Windsor (goat), currently B class, won't need much for GA. Loads of sources on the talk page (and suggestions). Lots of people interested in this BLG, and there is even the supreme award, the Goat Star.  Chzz  ►  00:32, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you sure you want your pride and joy ravaged by us lot Chzz? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 17:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It was an extremely collaborative effort in the first place, very much like 'spotlight' - I called in favours and got all kinds of people involved in making it. It was great fun. I don't own it or anything, and I'm happy to see any article improve.  Chzz  ►  19:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• Agatha Christie, delisted GA which means we will have a prepared list of improvements that can be made. Why delisted? Pluses: No major changes necessary, just expansion of existing and more sources. Well known figure. Dead but modern era; sources exist. Minuses: fan club; obviously, there is a little controversy about here disappearance, but it's rather small scale. Conclusion: I'm happy to file this idea if she's too controversial because of her disappearance. Not perfect, just an idea. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 17:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• Monsters vs Aliens is start class, has all reception and reviews noted on Metacritic and Rottentomatos. Official website has enough info about the production, crew, cast and effects. No controversy what so ever. Just needs some copyediting and reffing. Easily improvable.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:08, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Point of order here, we have a "suggestions" section on the project page itself, WP:SPOT, so please add suggestions there instead.  Chzz  ►  19:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll be working on William Windsor (goat) Mhera (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Notability of Articles

Spotlight isn't here to improve articles to GA class that no one will ever look at. It also isn't here for people to be able to get edits fast. We should have stricter criteria on the articles we recommend and fix. Also we should not limit ourselves to start class and stub class articles. Their are many articles that need out attention and were ignoring them Irunongames • play 22:08, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Spotlight, as far as I know, aims to make better articles. I don't see why it matters what articles we improve, as long as we're making something better - that's the wikipedia philosophy, surely.

You say that we should have a stricter criteria, but then you state that the limitation to start/stubs should be lifted; I don't really understand. After discussions, we thought that it would be better to choose start/stub articles, because then we would have a great chance to get them moved up to at least C or B class, whereas getting from B to A can be extremely challenging. Also, higher-level articles are likely to be edited by other people, and we thought it better to focus on things that others hadn't.

Yes, there are many articles requiring attention - 6,918,238 of them, to be exact, because everything can be improved. I think that we should concentrate on areas where we can make a substantial difference within the short space of time, and stub/start fits that; often the better articles need considerable skills to improve them, and choosing lesser articles means that there is (more likely to be) things that anyone can do.

If you do think that we should include other classes of article though, please explain further here. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  19:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

GA reviewers

Given that a) GA reviewers can't have made any significant contributions to the article and yet b) there is a necessity for a faster than usual review, perhaps some advanced thought should be given to who the reviewer (if GA is the target) will be before work commences. I for one would be happy to GA review some articles and work on others, but you still end up with a COI. Maybe we could find someone who doesn't want to join the project, but would be happy to GA review on request? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 10:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

We moved down on which class we start to stub or start. If it evolves to be near GA we would look for someone who didn't contribute a lot and ask him to do the review. However for now we need everyones help on Marco Polo sheep. So please Jarry1250 join the action. :) --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I had that article in mind when thinking of an article I could contribute to less and review later, given my forthcoming lack of time. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humorous – discuss ]} 13:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)Bold text

Firstly, I want to make it utterly clear: when we started on Marco Polo, I quickly realised the potential issue in my GA reviewing it, and consequently took a back-seat in the developments; I did not make significant contributions to the article. That policy (which is nothing to do with COI, by the way) is to prevent users that create or significantly build articles from performing a 'self-GA' - and that didn't happen. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a GA reviewer helping to progress an article towards GA, in fact, it is encouraged. As with everything on Wikipedia, it's always better to fix things yourself than just tell other people what needs fixing. That's what I have done when performing previous GA reviews, and that is what I will continue to do in the future.

Secondly, regarding the sheep article - duly noted. I am not sure if we will get this one near to GA, but we shall see.  Chzz  ►  19:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Userbox

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

Template on articles

When articles are featured on Wikipedia, they should have some kind of template displayed, such as;

In IRC discussion, some users have objected to this practice.

I think that there should be a template, and that it should definitely include a link that directs the reader to the IRC channel.

Due to objections on IRC, I made a smaller template;

J_Milburn (talk · contribs) appeared to not find this acceptable, because of the link, and changed it to this;

I think that there should be a template on articles, and I strongly believe that it should include a link to the IRC chat, because that is what 'spotlight' is all about.

• It will tell readers that we are actively working to improve the article.
• It gives a simple method for the reader to get involved in the project
• It makes any existing editors aware of "spotlight", and hence the current high number of edits and EC issues

I welcome all comments.  Chzz  ►  01:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As many users made it clear that they approve of this practice (on IRC), and per WP:BRD, for now, I will reinstate the original template; if people object to this, then I sincerely apologise, and I assure you that I will not enter into an edit war.  Chzz  ►  01:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Soft Keep In a nutshell: I like it, but I can live without it Personally, I would like to have it at the top of the article we are currently working on, but I could care less if we decide to or not. Its just an insignificant little box really when you look at it from an overall project perspective and our bigger goals I think we collectively set out to accomplish. So what if it helps us recruit new people. If the debate, disagreement about it causes so much tension amungst ourselves then lets scrap the template. Burningview (talk) 02:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess the tension is mostly due to my comments, but I strongly disagree with this template. I can't support advertising the project enough, but I feel that there are better ways to do this. The Wikipedia space, the user space, all the talk spaces, even the portal space are fair game as far as advertising goes, but the article space is for readers, and readers do not care about some project we're involved in. Readers have come to find out about a species of sheep. I don't think our plan of improving the article is consistent with slapping an ugly template on it, merely to say that we're improving it. The only real purpose of these templates is advertising, which is not what the mainspace should be used for; at the end of the day, we're basically just another WikiProject, and WikiProjects do not advertise in the article space. A final consideration- how is this going to look to people not involved with the Spotlight? Perhaps the original authors, or a WikiProject already covering the article? Out of no where, people have come to improve the article- fantastic- but, at the same time, they're placing a template on it better suited to the talk or Wikipedia space, and making it look awful. Readers mostly do not care about the internal workings of Wikipedia, and editors/potential editors know enough to look to the talk page or article history. J Milburn (talk) 12:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

You make some very good points; I'll wait and see if others have anything to say here. Like Burningview, I'm also not going to push for this too hard; if it's not clear that lots of people want it, I'll also happily concede.  Chzz  ►  17:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Surly, we'll all be able to agree that the template should not be on the article when it is on the main page? Marco Polo sheep should be in the DYK section of the main page soon, and it will not look at all professional if the Spotlight template is present. J Milburn (talk) 00:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I support the final proposal of the template, or its removal altogether. As I've stated in past debates, we shouldn't advertising; notices for editors go on the talk page, not in the main space. J Milburn has already stated our rationale so I'll stay concise and agree. –blurpeace ^(talk) 23:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

After the Comments by J Milburn I think a Spotlight template on the article isn't that much necessary. So I support the new version or its removal. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• There seems to be a leaning towards no template here, and that's within the project- obviously, those outside the project are going to be even less keen on a template. Unless there are further comments shortly, I will be removing the template citing this discussion. J Milburn (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there should be a template. Period. There is barley anyone working on the article. We were strong at first, but now we're beginning to weaken, and I don't want that to happen. We need the link because we need more active workers. Not to be rude or anything.--Cubs197 (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• And you think slamming this template onto the article is an acceptable way of finding more "workers"? The fact fewer people are working on the article is even more support for the idea not to include the template- one of the original arguments in favour of the template was that people would wonder why the article was changing so much, and another was that there was a danger of edit conflicts- the template was compared to Template:Current in spirit. J Milburn (talk) 12:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Great idea!

I just ran across this project, and I have to say it's a great idea! I've gone ahead and listed it on the "Wikipedia" section of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council Directory. Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 07:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope to see you on the IRC channel some time.  Chzz  ►  04:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

New tool for colaboration

hello, One of the short falls of wikipedia is that only one editor can contribute at one time. I use this great tool that i found online while doing collaborative school projects. It is called etherpad [etherpad.com]. It allows for up to 25 people to write in the same text box, with updates to other users apering in real time. It is very useful, and may be helpful in the collaboration on wikipedia aritlces. Tell me what you think, and thake etherpad for a spin here[1]Tim1357 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

The Newsletter

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

Next article?

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

Crazy idea

In order to stave off inactivity, I have an idea (that may kill us all). How about we start a new article, DYK it, and hopefully improve it some more (GA, perhaps). I got Aengus Finucane off the recent deaths page. The subject has plenty of sources (quick Google shows) and is definitely notable. If we can recruit an editor with knowledge of Biafra (an old Spotlight topic), we should be able to go pretty far on this. Thoughts? Mm40 (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Totally for it. JoeSmack ^Talk 01:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Very good idea, I updated everything for the article, Wikipedia:Spotlight/Aengus Finucane is our pre release page, after we have a deletion robust page it can be moved to main space.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

concept is broken

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

Signpost Article

Talking to other project members, I guess we could become active again, and I could give the interview? Of course any one else can volunteer.{{subst:Unsigned|

If you're active again, let me know!--iBen^talk/_contribsIf you reply here, please place a talkback notification on my page. 02:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Invitation to Editing Fridays

Hi Spotlighters! I want to draw your attention to a similar event that the Wikipedia Ambassador Program is hosting: Editing Fridays. It's very similar to Spotlight, except it's more focused in time: there's a specific window for collaboration, and a new one doesn't immediately start afterwards. That way, there's more of a chance to prepare well--with sources and specific tasks appropriate to a range of editors from newcomers to experienced--and more it's easier to reach critical mass and have a fun time editing with others, since everyone participating shows up in roughly the same block of time. In this case, late Friday UTC to early Saturday UTC.

Please join us! It goes well, maybe this could be a good future format for WP:SPOT. I'm about to set up a talk page delivery to everyone signed up on the participants list for WP:SPOT, and will be posting a message to WikiEN-l as well.--ragesoss (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)