This page is a placeholder for discussion of what to say in the NEXT newsletter. Since a recepient characterised Issue 001 as "not finished yet" when it was delivered... :) maybe this one we talk about a bit more? or less, maybe?? Oh I dunno. + + Lar: t/ c 21:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
If we go with a project tips box for issue 002, should Project be capitalised? ("Some project tips" vs. "Some Project tips") I oppose changing what issue 001 says, it's historic now, and should not be changed. I'm of two minds about issue 2. Usage to me suggests it not be capitalised but I'm not all atwitter about it. + + Lar: t/ c 15:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Did I miss something in the talk pages regarding the last issue, but do we have a schedule for the newsletters? Are they to be monthly, quarterly or "when we have enough content"? Should we not, my opinion is that the last is a complete no-no; it would mean that the second newsletter may well be the last. Quarterly is too long to maintain a regular flow of "prompts" and "nudges" to build the momentum which should be the purpose of the thing. So, am I assuming that it will be monthly? My opinion about this is that it would divert the major contributors to the Project from doing editing the articles to creating the newsletter (this is not me, I hasten to add). This may be a short term loss for long term gain for the project, but perhaps it could be managed so that the time spent on the newsletter does not interfere too much with work on the Project.
I am going to suggest that the 'current' editors (that is those named from the previous newsletter - less any who are no longer involved - plus those contributing to the forthcoming) have a intense brainstorming day (to deal with timezones) a week before the newsletter is due to run to agree content and stuff, and then write, discuss, checkover and test over the rest of the week and let it fly. This gives the various editors 3 weeks in the month to work on the Project (plus other Wiki interests - also other internet stuff and that peculiar process outside of the internet termed "life"), then a day devoted to the upcoming issue and a fairly relaxed week fine tuning it (where time can be wasted on those other activities mentioned above.)
Would this work for the would be editors of Issue 002? LessHeard vanU 21:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
A template seems very useful, well done. Another trick is to keep the whole new issue inside noinclude tags till we are ready so that it doesn't appear in the archives. (perhaps leaving just a "still being written, come help" tagline?) I would say starting from last issue is not bad but we do want to say new things. Does the tips section stay? stay with changes? or go? Again, I am happy to deliver it but don't count on me for much actual content. Happy to nitpick small changes, and provide tech support where I can too, of course. + + Lar: t/ c 13:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
So... I'll try and find the template at stick it the project page. You lot will start to fill it in? LessHeard vanU 20:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The above is good stuff. My suggestion would be to recap the talk page debate points, go with the above items, and also talk a bit about the effort to get History straightened around (we mentioned it last month but...) that's actually a rather full issue. Do any of them go to the right as tips or special notes or whatever? + + Lar: t/ c 03:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
One other issue - there may or may not be news about Wikipedia 1.0/what will be expected of us regarding article classification. I think Lar might have a better idea about this than me. (Or, it will have to wait until next month). -- kingboyk 20:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Should we include the creation of the Project navbox in the news? If so, (a link please, so I can refresh my memory) I think that that would be enough news for now - and that any important stuff that appears before publication should be at the expense of a "weaker" item e.g. the McCartney/Mills piece. LessHeard vanU 21:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The newsletter is getting a little lopsided with the amount of news. Should we move to the fine tuning stage? Can we also move the "to do" section (I would like to mention "History" and DavidWBrooks input - and a plea for assistance) to under the editors comments (not a big deal if it is not worth the work)? LessHeard vanU 21:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
In general this looks really good. If anything it's fatter than I expected. Some thinning out of words may be needed, not sure. In particular this bit" Whilst there has been a couple of Beatles related items in the news recently, the work on The Beatles Project continues as before. This newsletter is intended to keep you up to date with what has been happening and, perhaps more importantly, what needs to be done (see "History" above and "To Do" list left)." seems a bit wordy. What I was getting at was to briefly mention the newsitems but say that we focus on articles not news. Not sure how to say that! ... What is our target delivery date? I will do the delivery, with a subst of the todo list just before delivery. As for the 1.0 stuff, best not to mention it or if at all just suggest people keep an eye on developments. Steve and I have yet to have our chat about what it means to the project and my (increasingly backlevel) automation, so I say next month is soon enough. Good work , all you contributors! + + Lar: t/ c 21:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
There's been a little flurry of activity today, as with the assistance of User:Lar I've overhauled the article classification system and our main Project talk page template. Please see Template:WPBeatles, Template_talk:WPBeatles#This_template_just_got_serious_:.29, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Article_Classification#Changes_to_grading_and_templates, User_talk:Lar#Beatles_WikiProject and Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index_of_subjects#So.2C_how_do_we_use_it.3F for all the juicy info. -- kingboyk 20:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Any credits due for Wikipedia:Version_0.5? I understand Lar was involved? LessHeard vanU 21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I really do not like the "Editor in Chief" appellations*! I feel this is a community project, and thus newsletter, and I don't think promoting one persons contributions as more important than another is the way to go (even if this is not what was intended). If anyone is interested they could look up in the history to see who did what. This is not false modesty, I think it may discourage other contributors; either they may believe there is some standard to be achieved - or they think there is a set group of people in place already so they don't have to bother. I shall not change it myself as there is the views of others to consider - much as I won't list Lar as an editor (though I feel he should be) as it is against his wishes. LessHeard vanU 13:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow. After the "gee what are we going to say" discussion at the start, I was quite amazed/impressed/pleased/floored with how FAT this issue was!!!! Well done all you editors... but of course we don't want it to be TOO fat. So I've given the issue a copyedit, looking for ways to take words out and tighten up the prose, but keep meaning. I think I've done OK at that. I also clarified and expanded a few things and gave a few more links. I also put a skeleton for issue three in place and put a link to it on the outreach page, and in the newsletter itself.
Are we ready to go with this issue? I'll get this out (regenerate the subscriber list, subst the todo list into the issue so it's "frozen" and do an AWB run to leave a copy with everyone except GP who wants only to be notified) later today if so. Of course, please feel free to change any of mychanges (goes without saying but I DO like saying it!) Oh... and of course this qualifies me as an editor... tee hee. + + Lar: t/ c 13:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I know I've wiggled around on this a lot. I just got to MSP about 2 hours ago and after catching up on WP:AN/I (what a mess!) I'm out of time for tonite, so I'll do it tomorrow (Tuesday) after work. That will be May 30, May 31 in some parts of the world which is close enough. If something really huge happens late May 31, we'll hear about it next month. I do want to do the delivery, don't anyone else "hog the fun!" (please?) + + Lar: t/ c 04:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
If anyone has any complaints, you know what to do... + + Lar: t/ c 01:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Could someone move these pages to the relevent section in... um... er... wherever it was that Issue 001 was placed? LessHeard vanU 11:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
This page is a placeholder for discussion of what to say in the NEXT newsletter. Since a recepient characterised Issue 001 as "not finished yet" when it was delivered... :) maybe this one we talk about a bit more? or less, maybe?? Oh I dunno. + + Lar: t/ c 21:32, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
If we go with a project tips box for issue 002, should Project be capitalised? ("Some project tips" vs. "Some Project tips") I oppose changing what issue 001 says, it's historic now, and should not be changed. I'm of two minds about issue 2. Usage to me suggests it not be capitalised but I'm not all atwitter about it. + + Lar: t/ c 15:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Did I miss something in the talk pages regarding the last issue, but do we have a schedule for the newsletters? Are they to be monthly, quarterly or "when we have enough content"? Should we not, my opinion is that the last is a complete no-no; it would mean that the second newsletter may well be the last. Quarterly is too long to maintain a regular flow of "prompts" and "nudges" to build the momentum which should be the purpose of the thing. So, am I assuming that it will be monthly? My opinion about this is that it would divert the major contributors to the Project from doing editing the articles to creating the newsletter (this is not me, I hasten to add). This may be a short term loss for long term gain for the project, but perhaps it could be managed so that the time spent on the newsletter does not interfere too much with work on the Project.
I am going to suggest that the 'current' editors (that is those named from the previous newsletter - less any who are no longer involved - plus those contributing to the forthcoming) have a intense brainstorming day (to deal with timezones) a week before the newsletter is due to run to agree content and stuff, and then write, discuss, checkover and test over the rest of the week and let it fly. This gives the various editors 3 weeks in the month to work on the Project (plus other Wiki interests - also other internet stuff and that peculiar process outside of the internet termed "life"), then a day devoted to the upcoming issue and a fairly relaxed week fine tuning it (where time can be wasted on those other activities mentioned above.)
Would this work for the would be editors of Issue 002? LessHeard vanU 21:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
A template seems very useful, well done. Another trick is to keep the whole new issue inside noinclude tags till we are ready so that it doesn't appear in the archives. (perhaps leaving just a "still being written, come help" tagline?) I would say starting from last issue is not bad but we do want to say new things. Does the tips section stay? stay with changes? or go? Again, I am happy to deliver it but don't count on me for much actual content. Happy to nitpick small changes, and provide tech support where I can too, of course. + + Lar: t/ c 13:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
So... I'll try and find the template at stick it the project page. You lot will start to fill it in? LessHeard vanU 20:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
The above is good stuff. My suggestion would be to recap the talk page debate points, go with the above items, and also talk a bit about the effort to get History straightened around (we mentioned it last month but...) that's actually a rather full issue. Do any of them go to the right as tips or special notes or whatever? + + Lar: t/ c 03:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
One other issue - there may or may not be news about Wikipedia 1.0/what will be expected of us regarding article classification. I think Lar might have a better idea about this than me. (Or, it will have to wait until next month). -- kingboyk 20:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Should we include the creation of the Project navbox in the news? If so, (a link please, so I can refresh my memory) I think that that would be enough news for now - and that any important stuff that appears before publication should be at the expense of a "weaker" item e.g. the McCartney/Mills piece. LessHeard vanU 21:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
The newsletter is getting a little lopsided with the amount of news. Should we move to the fine tuning stage? Can we also move the "to do" section (I would like to mention "History" and DavidWBrooks input - and a plea for assistance) to under the editors comments (not a big deal if it is not worth the work)? LessHeard vanU 21:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
In general this looks really good. If anything it's fatter than I expected. Some thinning out of words may be needed, not sure. In particular this bit" Whilst there has been a couple of Beatles related items in the news recently, the work on The Beatles Project continues as before. This newsletter is intended to keep you up to date with what has been happening and, perhaps more importantly, what needs to be done (see "History" above and "To Do" list left)." seems a bit wordy. What I was getting at was to briefly mention the newsitems but say that we focus on articles not news. Not sure how to say that! ... What is our target delivery date? I will do the delivery, with a subst of the todo list just before delivery. As for the 1.0 stuff, best not to mention it or if at all just suggest people keep an eye on developments. Steve and I have yet to have our chat about what it means to the project and my (increasingly backlevel) automation, so I say next month is soon enough. Good work , all you contributors! + + Lar: t/ c 21:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
There's been a little flurry of activity today, as with the assistance of User:Lar I've overhauled the article classification system and our main Project talk page template. Please see Template:WPBeatles, Template_talk:WPBeatles#This_template_just_got_serious_:.29, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_The_Beatles/Article_Classification#Changes_to_grading_and_templates, User_talk:Lar#Beatles_WikiProject and Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index_of_subjects#So.2C_how_do_we_use_it.3F for all the juicy info. -- kingboyk 20:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Any credits due for Wikipedia:Version_0.5? I understand Lar was involved? LessHeard vanU 21:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I really do not like the "Editor in Chief" appellations*! I feel this is a community project, and thus newsletter, and I don't think promoting one persons contributions as more important than another is the way to go (even if this is not what was intended). If anyone is interested they could look up in the history to see who did what. This is not false modesty, I think it may discourage other contributors; either they may believe there is some standard to be achieved - or they think there is a set group of people in place already so they don't have to bother. I shall not change it myself as there is the views of others to consider - much as I won't list Lar as an editor (though I feel he should be) as it is against his wishes. LessHeard vanU 13:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow. After the "gee what are we going to say" discussion at the start, I was quite amazed/impressed/pleased/floored with how FAT this issue was!!!! Well done all you editors... but of course we don't want it to be TOO fat. So I've given the issue a copyedit, looking for ways to take words out and tighten up the prose, but keep meaning. I think I've done OK at that. I also clarified and expanded a few things and gave a few more links. I also put a skeleton for issue three in place and put a link to it on the outreach page, and in the newsletter itself.
Are we ready to go with this issue? I'll get this out (regenerate the subscriber list, subst the todo list into the issue so it's "frozen" and do an AWB run to leave a copy with everyone except GP who wants only to be notified) later today if so. Of course, please feel free to change any of mychanges (goes without saying but I DO like saying it!) Oh... and of course this qualifies me as an editor... tee hee. + + Lar: t/ c 13:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
I know I've wiggled around on this a lot. I just got to MSP about 2 hours ago and after catching up on WP:AN/I (what a mess!) I'm out of time for tonite, so I'll do it tomorrow (Tuesday) after work. That will be May 30, May 31 in some parts of the world which is close enough. If something really huge happens late May 31, we'll hear about it next month. I do want to do the delivery, don't anyone else "hog the fun!" (please?) + + Lar: t/ c 04:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
If anyone has any complaints, you know what to do... + + Lar: t/ c 01:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Could someone move these pages to the relevent section in... um... er... wherever it was that Issue 001 was placed? LessHeard vanU 11:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)