Talk page for the Collaboration Department

• /Collaboration - Collaboration department itself

Discussions

Regular visitors here might like to see Wikipedia talk:Template namespace#RfC: Should the collaboration template appear on the article page. --Scott Davis ^Talk 08:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The apparent consensus resulting from this discussion was that templates of active collaborations should go on the article page, whilst those of comparatively inactive collaborations should be relegated to the talk page. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need an archive for past nominations. I don;t want to get rid of all this.--Robert Waalk (talk) 06:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to the current year archive? Past collaborations are currently stored there. Did you have something else in mind?

Also, if no-one seriously objects within 24 hours (since the "current" collaboration hasn't been announced for two days), I'd like to re-instate the Novel article as the current collaboration until 30 November. I'd like the COTM to start following the calendar months once again – it just makes sense, really. Personally too, I'd like more time to compile some information. With an article this long, and needing so much work (a few months at least to do a decent job of it), surely an extra week for collaborative improvement wouldn't hurt?

Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 02:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with all of the above. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its been here for a month with little to no work done by anyone in this group aside from me. I don't object to giving it another week though, especially since none of the other articles stick out as clear winners. I think we should get on the main novel talk page and try to draw some people in asking them to get involved, and support one of our upcoming collaborations. Right now it looks like that might be Flowers for Algernon or The Counterfeiters, which I still have not read.--Robert Waalk (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to do a barnstar or something for participation in the improvement drive? Sadads (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there should be a barnstar awarded. I don't have anything special in mind other than the standard ((The Literary Barnstar)), unless there is something more appropriate, or we can modify that with a "5" on it. maclean (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a modified one would be good that way it is more commemorative. Do you think you could do that? I would call our drive a success by the way, even though we didn't draw too much attention from other editors. Lets keep it going and I will send around another reminder of a February drive at the beginning of the month,Sadads (talk) 18:31, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I make the barnstar this week or next. As I have other priorities I want to get to, I won't be able to contribute as much to a drive in Feb as I did in Jan. maclean (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to include the collaboration of the month in the template inviting people as well? I think it has sufficient support, 18:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I see a list of people there who think a collaboration on The Westing Game would be a good idea in principle. But to actually implement improvements is something different. It is my opinion that the collaboration should go ahead if has someone in a leadership role — someone who willing and able to spend the time/effort to compile resources, synthesize the research, and write paragraphs. As I said in my 'support' statement, I will provide resources I have access to, if someone is willing to synthesize them. -maclean (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we seem to have missed March, will there be an April collaboration drive? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 11:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, do you want to pick a theme and I can notify people! Sadads (talk) 13:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was very busy IRL in Feb/March, but I'm able to participate in an April Drive. maclean (talk) 17:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a theme? I'd be up for an April drive anyways. :) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 23:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should be purpose to the drive. Otherwise, how would it be any different than normal editing? maclean (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... Point. Cleanup drive or...? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 19:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about getting Ivanhoe, Les Misérables, or Where the Red Fern Grows to GA? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 21:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of Ivanhoe, it's a good book, and I am taking a course on historical fiction in Summer term, so I wouldn't mind reading the critcism of Ivanhoe to get grounded in that sort of criticism. I don't have much time in the next week and a half to work on it however, but will put it on my watchlist, Sadads (talk) 22:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Ivanhoe article is decently fleshed out to start. Of the three I think this one would be the easiest to get to GA class (relatively speaking, that is.) --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 22:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Ivanhoe to GA is ambitious, especially considering the article is barely referenced and none of us have touched it yet. There should b realistic objectives that momentum can build from, like getting a specific section to GA-quality or compiling references. Such an endeavor would require a leader to coordinate and lead-by-example. If you are willing to commit to taking the lead, I can email some academic articles on it for you to read and incorporate into the article. maclean (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can lead if necessary. My major problem is that while I have access to academic technical articles, I have little to no access to their literary equivalents. Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 22:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, considering other GA-class literary articles (eg. Eragon), it's not too ambitious of a goal, I think. FA class, certainly; but much of the guts are already in place and just need to be referenced in some way. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 22:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hardest part about Literary GAs is getting a tight but effective plot summary. The rest of the article is just reading closely on the sources. If you have access to Newspaper databases you should be able to find a sufficient amount of stuff, and if you give us names on the journal articles, I can get the articles to you, Sadads (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How odd. I find the plot summary to be the easy part; it's the themes, reception, and inspiration sections that always kill me. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 23:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The summary needs to be cut - considerably. Sadads is right on that point - a novel such as Ivanhoe is hard plotwise. I do think that finding scholarly work won't be hard though. For what needs to be done, have a look at True at First Light (currently at FAC) and The Sun Also Rises (currently at peer review). I'd like to suggest having members of this project work on Alice in Wonderland. The page is a mess and is in desperate need of help. I seem to have run out of steam doing it myself. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For such a influential work as Ivanhoe and an influential person as Walter Scott, I'd expect the style/themes and impact on society sections to be most time-consuming. The list of books at Walter Scott#Further reading look like they'd be relevant to this article. maclean (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My university library has none of those books, but I may be able to obtain them through an inter-library loan. Does anyone have access to this article? --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû _(blah?) 01:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can email you the article if you enable your email in your user preferences. maclean (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]