Wikipedia talk:Literature collaboration of the fortnight

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Literature goings-on in the week starting Sunday May 1, 2005

Literature articles gaining featured status recently

Literature-related Wikiprojects

Current literature-related featured article candidates

Current literature-related featured list candidates

On Peer review

Most recently on Main page

Literature pages under construction

Literature pages on WP:VfD

To add this table to your user page for regular updates, 
just add the {{Wikipedia:Goings-on in Literature}} template.

Might also be of interest:

Wikipedia:WikiProject poetry

A little narrow?

I fear "literature" is a little thin, in that only a very narrow section of Wikipedians will visit and add to the Literature COTW. I was considering creating a COTW for arts music (so-called "classical" and jazz), and believe we also need one for visual arts... Perhaps it would be wisest, and of greatest benefit at-this-time to Wikipedia to have an "Arts Collaboration of the Week" - encompassing literature, visual and audial arts... If, in the future, too many items are being nominated - or it is felt they could survive independently, we could work on seperating them... --213.105.224.18 11:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, while I agree that COTWs have to try to remain broad and open I feel Literature is broad enough - encompassing authors, books, poetry and so on. Also, people into literature wouldn't necessarily be interested in music. I think an arts COTW would be a good idea. PS - if you think this is specific, check out The Telly show COTW. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 16:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My point was not that literature itself is narrow - it is certainly not, walk into any bookstore - my point was that the number of Wikipedians interested in actively assisting this project may be few. This project could be more effective if those interested in other arts (and hence disposed to liking literature) would also help...

Disappointment

I feel Week 1 has been a complete failure - look at the article A Tale of Two Cities - its still quite frankly too short and un-informative. Next week we must pick a topic more people are capable of writing about. --CGorman 18:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ya. We really have two options - try and get more people by advertising it and looking for more contributors or broaden the scope by, say, broadening the scope to arts as the anon suggested above. JOHN COLLISON | (Ludraman) 21:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's something that I've noticed with this - it really requires one or two people to be prepared to get the meat of the article there, and then you'll find a bunch of other people chipping in to add corrections and little bits and pieces. For the Australian collaboration of the week, two of us wrote the bulk of Cyclone Tracy, and it was featured. Then, the second time, both of us were too busy and didn't have the necessary resources for the one that was picked, and no one else had a chance to write it up in detail, so although it's improved the article, it's still nowhere near featured status. So, I think there's two solutions to this - one, pick topics that a lot of people are going to know about (I'm a bit surprised A Tale of Two Cities was a failure on this count, but I suppose you could get more common), and secondly, be prepared to do a fair bit of the work yourself if you want it to succeed. Ambi 23:10, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Firstly, sorry for not doing much on this this week but I've been much engaged on a bunch of articles (all literary, by the way: H.D., Djuna Barnes, George Moore (novelist) and Lady Gregory) that I had already started work on. I think we need to learn a bit from other COTW projects if this is to be a success. A few points (reflecting mistakes I personally have made in the past) I'd propose for discussion are:

People should be encouraged to consider a vote as a committment to work on the article if it is selected.
One week is probably not enough.
Advertising is good.
A definite interest area works well; that is, I think 'literature' is more likely to work than 'the arts' is.
Really really consider 'Am I nominating a hobby horse or a topic of potential broad interest?'

Back to the drawing board, maybe? Filiocht 12:22, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it's okay for the main COTW, but for us, a vote should IMnsHO, mean a contribution (though it doesn't have to be any sort of major one, or that would discourage voting. JOHN COLLISON [ L u d r a m an] 16:10, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

George Moore (novelist)

Hi: this article is posted on WP:FAC and so far has attracted only one vote, an object now changed to a support. Please consider voting for or against. Thanks. Filiocht 08:20, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

A Template

On the French Wikipedia, they have a great literature template, which you can see here. what do you think about creating a similar template from English, or even copying the French template? Danny 19:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Now I am angry

I logged on today and ws told that I had new messages, which turned out to be a template that was an offer to come help with this. The article in question is Oscar Wilde, which I did not vote for and know very little about. I was against the template idea on the general CotW page, but now I am genuinely angry. If I post support for an article, and I get the template, then I admit that it is my obligatation to come help if I can. But if I express interest in anything on this page, and something else entirely becomes the LCotW, you cannot expect me to pitch in. To put it bluntly: People operate where they feel useful. Not everyone can help with everything. I am taking this template off, and unless a reasonable justification for this is offered, I am not going to participate in the LCotW anymore. -Litefantastic 13:51, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chill man, that template will update when the selection is changed. Just wait until an article appears which does interest you and dive in. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 15:56, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Litefantastic and I have come to an amicable understanding on this via out talk pages, I'm happy to say. Thanks to him for making the resolution so easy. Filiocht 16:08, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I would also strongly prefer that people not place templates on my user talk page. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:25, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Not sure what the anger is about. I've only just found out about the LCOW, and I'm interested but do not feel obligated. If I know something about the subject and have time to contribute, I'll chip in. If not, then I'll help next time. Anyone have a problem with that as a philosophy? Quill 23:15, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No. That's what I was saying. You see, there was a big template discussion on the main CotW talk page, where they wanted to do something like this, and I said I didn't like the idea. Here, it just happened, and I made the somewhat unreasonable annoyed conclusion that the people running this page, who had apparantly gotten the template idea from the main CotW crew, had ignored the controversy behind it. But we (Filiocht and myself) did settle this amicably, and the template has been modified. And I did help out a little with the Oscar Wilde page, although it was mostly detail stuff. -Litefantastic 01:25, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[Q heaves sigh of relief] Oh, goody! Quill 00:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Literature project guidelines

hi,

I am curious as to whether or not there is wikiproject literature, or some such thing? I can't find one. If there is, where is it? If not, has anyone discussed protocol for categorizing novels? They seem very poorly done right now. Shall we sort by nationality, period, style, or all of the above? Just wondering before I go blundering about making a mess of things. Peregrine981 14:15, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Hi You might look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels. There's also Wikipedia:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry and Wikipedia:WikiProject Irish literature, and probably more. Plus, blundering about seems to be one of the primary ways in which people improve Wikipedia, in my experience. Filiocht 14:42, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Pruning?

This page isn't being properly pruned - do we have an archive? Shall I set one up? I can hardly make heads or tails of what's up here right now. --Woggly 08:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Go for it. Filiocht 09:05, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Save the LCOTW

I worry for this place. I just updated the COTW list template, and this and the Gaming COTW are the only 'subject' ones left. I'm not sure how a COTW dies, but since they're participation driven, you need something like fifteen people to keep it from bottoming out. This place has been on the verge of abandonment and although it's done better than most (Just look at Science and Music, which went straight from cradle to grave), I'm not sure if the wiki-age of specialty COTWs isn't drawing to a close. -Litefantastic 15:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Current article "in use"

What is the point of advertising an article for collaboration when it has an "in use" tag on it? Especially since it's been there for nearly a week with no change? --Phil | Talk 15:53, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)'

D-oh! I apologise, Phil. That was my fault. I placed the tag in it, started editing, copied the text to a file on my flash drive, and completely forgot to remove the inuse tag from the original article. I apologise. I've been working on the article on my spare time (real life caught up with me and stuff). I should have a finished article by the end of this week. Again, I apologise. I'll remove the tag ASAP. Project2501a 16:32, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The problem with that is that if I make any changes, they're likely to be over-written with your offline version. Once again, what's the point of advertising it "for collaboration"? --Phil | Talk 09:59, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

Strikes me as a very inappropriate use of the in use tag. Filiocht 10:13, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

LCOTF

Should this page be moved to Literature collaboration of the fortnight? Filiocht 16:28, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Why bother? If it's the same 2 (or more) weeks in a row, so it goes. -- Jmabel | Talk 17:34, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)