Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Newsletter

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Classical music, which aims to improve, expand, copy edit, and maintain all articles related to classical music, that are not covered by other classical music related projects. Please read the guidelines for writing and maintaining articles. To participate, you can edit this page or visit the project page for more details.Classical musicWikipedia:WikiProject Classical musicTemplate:WikiProject Classical musicClassical music articles

Looks like a good thing

A few questions that I'm throwing out there about this:

I'm assuming this will be automatically be placed on users' talk pages or something. How exactly will that work? Will it be by a bot or a user (Alton?)? Will users be able to choose options as far as the delivery is concerned (e.g. a different page than the talk page, a digest)?
Kudos on the Classical works lists on the first issue.
Will archiving be done by a bot?
There needs to be some kind of a box at the top of the main talk page directing people here if they want a request.
Will participants be able to opt out?
Will there be a limit on the number of articles featured in the newsletter, and, if so, how will they be chosen?
The articles needing help and collaboration headings should have links to articles explaining what exactly they mean (what does collaboration mean how does it differ from the former?).
I don't really like the name. wp:cp just looks bad, and it is uninformative to someone who doesn't know what it is. Something catchy or even "Classical Music WikiProject Newsletter" would be far more appealing.
A separate archive for the hints would be a good idea. It would be good if that archive was categorized, too.
Who writes this thing? (Alright. I know who is currently writing it, but how can people help to write it? Will Alton just stay in charge of the whole thing?)
Requests for hints (a good idea by the way)?

These are just a few thoughts that I came up with looking at the newsletter page. I'm sure that I will come up with more. Feedback is welcome. Asmeurer (talk ♬ contribs) 23:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because this project is not that large, some user would distribute it (by means of a commune account or registered doppleganger). I was originally thinking Talk page, but the Signpost method appeals to me too; only requires an update of that template to direct to the latest letter. Most projects, for example the large LGBT studies, have it sent to all members through a human, so the list of members could be separated into those who subscribe and those who don't.
David's working on those lists, and solicited the help of other successful bot operators; MANY thanks to him for developing that aspect.
Archiving could be done either way; human archive shouldn't be that difficult since it's a relatively low-frequency newsletter, andMiszaBot II focuses on WPs.
All members and prospective members will have notice about it.
I don't know if I want to go through with collaboration because it smells of commitment, something I fear.
We can archive the hints, but that requires another bot.
Change the name, yes.
And this content should be absolutely member oriented, but judging by the participation of members in this project, I fear it would only be the same three people working on it anyways. We'll figure it out later. ALTON .ıl 02:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work (despite my nitpick below). One thing I just noticed is that there's two lists of participnants: the list at the Participants project subpage, and the Category page. They don't look identical; the /participants list looks longer...I'm guessing the category's generated by the userbox? Which list will generate the distribution? Or are you thinking of making a third list? I don't envy the headaches :-) —Turangalila talk 15:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think this newsletter is a great idea, and would like to be on the distribution list (I'm in the participants list but not the category). Thanks all for your work on this. Antandrus (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad advice! (links in headings)

Putting wikilinks in headings in the article space is directly contrary to the WP Manual of Style! It's considered to be a hindrance to navigation, and to make the headings blur into the text. There doesn't seem to be an exception for lists – I only know this because links in headers was specifically cited as a reason for opposition just recently when I nominated List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven as a Featured list candidate. Working around this is easy enough: just place introductory paragraphs at the top of sections, or even just {{main}} tags. Doing that for the Beethoven list took me less than half an hour, and I think it actually made the list a bit more user-friendly. One of the real Chopin scholars out there should probably do the same for the Chopin list. —Turangalila talk 15:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really I see very little about the blue text that detracts from readability; I for one would want to know information about the Ballade style, without going to a page for one of his compositions first (a more inexperienced user wouldn't know to do that). But, MOS is hard and fast policy so I've cleaned Chopin's list. I dislike introductory paragraphs, because it really disrupts the flow of the list, and opens it up for people who like to write prose to add unnecessary information.

Good job, nominating that. We need to get the Classical music corner recognized! ALTON .ıl 21:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chopin looks good, I think, w/ the links in the lede. The mini-ledes were more necessary for Beethoven because the article lede is mostly about introducing all the different names and numbers...I personally don't mind the links in headers either--I do it on talk pages alot...but I guess browsers vary; I assume there's some reason the MOS says what it does...—Turangalila talk 01:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I frequent talk pages with linked headers.. well if it says so, do it. I had someone complaining about something because it doesn't fit on 800x600... I understand we're to accomodate everyone, but you can barely fit the main page on 800x600. ALTON .ıl 02:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]