Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles/Outreach/Newsletter/Issue 004

Lead Editor[edit]

The previous Newsletter suffered (in my opinion) for not having a Lead Editor. I propose that I should take the position of Lead for this and subsequent Newsletters, unless somebody else gets the urge. I enjoyed it the time I did it before, I hope I did a decent job, and it means that folk don't have to worry about who is going to do it. Like I said, if somebody wants the role for an issue or more then I will gladly step aside - but I feel that I can contribute more than just SPAG and discussion to the Project by taking the reigns. Since I prefer the concensus approach, I should be grateful if editors would confirm that they are (at least) not unhappy with my suggestion.LessHeard vanU 00:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't quite understand the difference between the Lead Editor and a normal Editor, so I don't have a problem with this. I'll just keep doing what I've been doing. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no difference in editor contribution. In my view the Lead is simply the editor who takes responsibility for doing the cheerleading and, in Kingboyks phrase, bottlewashing. It just means making sure that news from the usual sources gets into the newsletter, and that the newsletter takes precedence over any other subject that the editor contributes to. With the imminent ending of The World Cup, I am prepared to make this contribution for this and subsequent newsletters - a sort of default Lead in case nobody else wants the task.LessHeard vanU 10:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's needful and agree with the definition you gave, Less... I also support you for lead till someone else wants it, at which point I propose a contest of wills, both candidates will have to name a song by The Beatles and whoever can do it in less notes wins. OK, maybe not!! I just support you. And I'm happy to continue to be delivery person. I had to put together a little JS function to do it since AWB didn't work for me but I got it done. Next month I promise to test AWB a bit earlier in the month to make sure it's working. :) ++Lar: t/c 23:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can name that tune in one second. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 23:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon, if you want to be Lead Ed just remove said appellation from my name and add it to yours - I have no problem with that. I do, however, have a problem with the Beatles Song compy, as I am unable to carry a tune in a skip.LessHeard vanU 13:00, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, that's fine, you can have it. I was just making the point that I could probably name any Beatles tune in one second (though I may be a bit rusty with the White Album). ;) —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 08:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of info.[edit]

As it is early in the month I have been including more detail in the newsletter. My thoughts are that superflous data can be discarded when the newletter gets fuller, but it may be onerous to go find that info should the 'letter seem a bit slim nearer delivery day. Some of the more "unloved" sections may benefit from having the editors efforts more fully noted too, as I believe that the newsletter should also be used to foster enthusiasm amongst its readership and reporting the contributions of others more fully can help. I should be grateful if the contributors to the newsletter follow this practice for the time being. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 21:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, right, I forgot to mention: I made it into a list format. It makes it a bit clearer what is being said; plus, it gives us the opportunity to leave it in in the final release. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 18:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessments[edit]

The request for help with article assessments in the last issue had basically no effect whatsoever, so we shall probably have to repeat it again: toughened up this time. The Project needs to do this or the Project is a failure. I think we should ask every member (EVERY member) to assess, say, 20 articles. At, say, 5 mins each that's 100 mins which over a month is 25 minutes a week, not too much ask I think. --kingboyk 12:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is important, I agree, and if you want to stick it in the "Hot Issue" slot; please go ahead. I would comment, however, that demanding editors contribute may not be the best policy - pleading the case may be a better option. I, for one, got very dispirited by the "techno" side of things - I had to make my apologies to Lar! However, if you can find a suitable form of words... LessHeard vanU 13:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, we can find suitable words if and when. --kingboyk 14:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the project will never be a failure. It's already improved many articles! —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 18:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The project is not a failure, per se, we've done good things, but we are stagnating, and we really really need to try to get folks to do this, both for the good of the project itself, and for the good of WP 1.0. If people are having a hard time, please ask for help, I'd love to help you do it. It's really not that hard to migrate existing ones, and even easier to do new ones... Catch me on IRC some time! Any wording we can use to encourage folk would be goodness. ++Lar: t/c 14:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

kingboyk/Lar, I've commented regarding the lack of response and that Lar will help anyone to get to grips with this but if you want to toughen up the language - be my guest. Of course, priorities have changed a little since this was last discussed.LessHeard vanU 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames[edit]

I feel that we should give usernames as the User defines them, and have thus reverted Gordons edit. I would also comment that as there is no policy on this matter, the original format per the editor (me, in this instance) should be used unless changed by discussion/concensus - and that there is precedence (when simonthebold was included in Newsletter 2). I am totally willing to discuss it, and arrive at concensus, but would be grateful if it is not reverted until there is agreement (since I am not going to get involved in an edit war) on how to proceed. Also, if there is any Wiki policy with regard to this then I am happy to go with whatever that is. LessHeard vanU 20:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're not quite right about the precedence. The formatting was actually used with the adoption of an article, not a new user. I had forgotten about that, though. What prompted my revision was the fact that the user used two embedded <small> tags, making the text extremely small and hard to read. However, if you'd look at the new users again and compare them to the Participants list, you'll see that some formatting has, in fact, been removed before. One such instance would be for HighwayCello, who signs with a green "g". The addition of names to the newsletter has actually been quite inconsistent, because, if you'll notice, I added HighwayCello as "HighwayCello", even though (s)he signs with "Highway", but I kept "Vint" for The_Man13. I suppose we should come up with a policy on this now, to prevent future inconsistencies. I propose no formatting, and (actually) using the original username. This helps alleviate confusion. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed previously, since I usually copy over and pay no further attention. If users want to use different text colours/sizes etc. then I don't see why we shouldn't accomodate them. (I usually copy over the entire name - both the "true" user id and whatever it is they call themselves after the "|" - such as Gordon P. Hemsley). It makes it more friendly when they see "their" name (I hope) in the newsletter. Since there is a gentle difference of opinion here, I would like the views of some others so we can get a concensus.LessHeard vanU 22:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Archives[edit]

I mentioned in Talk:The Beatles that the BBC is making their audio visual archives available to individuals and non profit organisations. I got no responses. As there may be much Beatles related media that could be used in these articles I thought it may be appropriate to use the newsletter to ask participants if they would like to check out their regional BBC for material.

I would like the comments of other editors before sticking this up. It certainly wouldn't be lead, that would be the article assesments/migrating comments request, but may be a fun thing to draw one or two (UK) contributors back into the fold. If not here/now, then maybe next issue or the "To Do" listing on the project page?LessHeard vanU 22:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can't use such materials on Wikipedia, because our content is available to profitmaking organisations (just check google and see all the mirrors!). The situation might be different on commons, I don't know. Of course we could link to such content. Either way, I think it's of enough interest to go in the newsletter, whether or not we can use it on-wiki folks would appreciate being told about it I think. God bless the BBC etc etc. --kingboyk 11:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet FA[edit]

Can we agree that the FA review should take precedence for this newsletter? Should we be requesting (demanding!?) that Project members get involved? As this newsletter will be due for delivery in the next few days can we sort this NOW!! (grin) LessHeard vanU 22:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can ask but last month we asked for help and got not very much... worth asking though. ++Lar: t/c 02:52, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, have the FA as the lead "story" (with the assesment as the "hot topic") plus a request from the editors to watch/contribute re the FA review in our slot?LessHeard vanU 15:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of delivery...[edit]

just went and got the latest AWB and it's not working for me, again. So I will be delivering by hand again, probably. When is that? What is the most preferred date? It doesn't seem quite done to me yet, there are red links and suchlike, but it's close ++Lar: t/c 02:50, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and get the newsletter in a deliverable condition this weekend, leaving a couple of days for crossing eyes and dotty teas. Delivery from 1st August?LessHeard vanU 15:30, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer uncrossed eyes and tea sans dots, but August 1st sounds good to me. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 01:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to go?[edit]

I can't find/think of anything else to put in. I think we should remove the "Notable" heading, since anything of note has been mentioned elsewhere. I would suggest also removing the "Hot Topic", unless there is an Admin capability to determine what it is (Hint, Hint, Admins!) which they can do immediately prior to delivery.LessHeard vanU 19:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify that? What exactly needs doing? What is it exactly you want an admin to do??? I was thinking of delivering tonite (my time)... by hand, again... sigh. is it ready to go as is except for substin'g the ToDo list? (which list mabye could stand updating??) ++Lar: t/c 15:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way of determining the "hot topic" other than a straw poll (i.e. part of the mystical Admin powers)? If not, then ditch the heading and stick it in your posties sack!LessHeard vanU 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not that I know of. The pressing need on the project remains article classification (including comment migration) I'll probably do the delivery tonite. ++Lar: t/c 12:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the hot topic bullet it the version that will be delivered. No other changes except subst'ing the work list in like we always do. Issue 5 created and stubbed from a copy of issue 4. I am about to start delivery as soon as I finalise my memberlist file. ++Lar: t/c 01:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it's delivered. I'll start working the shell of #5 over tmorrow if no one else does ++Lar: t/c 03:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]