Wikipedia talk:Release Version

Release version articles by importance
Rated importance	Rated quality
	FA	A	GA	B	Start	NA	None	Total
Top	1	0	0	2	0	0	1	4
High	4	3	1	7	1	0	0	16
Mid	3	3	0	2	0	0	0	8
Unassessed	693	128	195	1385	272	29	44	2746
Total	701	134	196	1396	273	29	45	2774
Release version article ratings by category
	FA	A	GA	B	Start	NA	None	Total
Arts	78	15	19	103	12	0	2	229
Engineering, applied sciences, and technology	39	8	14	90	7	0	3	161
Everyday life	51	6	16	101	21	0	6	201
Geography	87	28	32	443	147	7	10	754
History	125	11	15	139	12	22	5	329
Language and literature	65	11	14	104	10	0	2	206
Mathematics	5	5	6	29	2	0	1	48
Natural sciences	136	19	41	146	30	0	11	383
Philosophy and religion	23	12	11	96	10	0	0	152
Social sciences and society	58	16	21	109	15	0	4	223
Last updated: Mon Aug 25 01:01:38 UTC 2008 (source)

Wikipedia 1.0 — (talk) FAQ — To do
Release version tools Guide — (talk) — (stats)
Article selection process (talk) Version 0.8 bot selection Version 0.8 feedback
IRC channel (IRC)
Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Version 0.8 release (manual selection) (t)
"Selection" project (Talk) schools selection Offline WP for Indian Schools
CORE TOPICS CORE SUPPLEMENT Core topics - 1,000 (Talk) (COTF) (bot)
TORRENT (Talk)
"Selection" project for kids ((t))
WORK VIA WIKI PROJECTS (talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

Leet

I have just noticed that the page "leet" is in both the "language and litriture" section and the "Engineering, applied sciences, and technology" section. Is this allowed or should a redirect page be put in for one of these places instead?

Chrizlax 90.242.27.16 19:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Layout

Does anyone mind if I change the layout of the articles here? The layout we got stuck with at Version 0.5 was an experiment by one person (not a reviewer), and I hated it but never got around to fixing it (it would've been a lot of work moving several hundred articles around!). I'd prefer to have a format like we started with at Version 0.5 (after a few bugs were fixed), see this version for an example. The original layout matches with the categories we use with the template, making it much easier to place an article after reviewing it. Also, these categories are the ones we agreed upon as our top-level categories for all 1.0 related projects (including WP:WVWP, etc.). Walkerma 06:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that if we can see the top-level layer/categories faster then go for it but IMO both are good. Hope you don't burn yourself by trying overwhelming tasks such as this one. Lincher 13:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: This switch was done during January 2007. Walkerma 03:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Article count

Is it me or am I seeing 1959 as the article count for now which is lower than the actual count of the 0.5 release. This is not normal as the articles were "transcluded" from one version to the other plus we already made addition????? Lincher 18:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably haven't moved everything over. I think, from as I read it, that there's a quick re-evaluation process. Adam Cuerden ^talk 19:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast check. Lincher 21:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind these numbers (a) have a short delay till Mathbot picks them up and (b) with such a large number vandalism (usually blanking) often causes us to temporarily lose one or two, even article renaming can do this. Look at the bot's log daily to see what's going on - I do this with Version 0.5, it's very useful. Walkerma 01:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

At this point it isn't a matter of Mathbot picking them up or not, its a matter of the templates not being setup the right way for Mathbot to pick them up. See {{releaseversion}} ... which I just recently modified, I still don't know what to add for it to be picked up by the bot. Lincher 12:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've now set up all the articles tagged with {{releaseversion}} to be picked up by the bot. It should start collecting data in about 30 hours time. Walkerma 05:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"One off" problem

The sections are off by one, so you have to click on the section after the section you want to edit. Does anybody know how to fix this? Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 01:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, can't reproduce the problem mate. I've tried with IE and Opera and logged in and out but still can't find what is the problem you are having. Meaning that when I press edit beside the section I wanna edit, it gives me that section (for all the sections in the page). Lincher 03:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The conflicting sections were on the page Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations, I have fixed them and are now matching the appropriate sections they should link to. Thanks, Lincher 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Red History Version 0.7 Category

Please fix this bug. It is creating a red Category at the bottom of the Talk:Thomas Jefferson page, for example. When you click on it, it takes you to a preview! When you save the preview, you still get the create page header at the top, and the category isn't created! Are the hidden people with their hands on the levers trying to do something overly sophisticated where perhaps something a little simpler would actually work? Please fix this bug. Hu 03:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

1) it wasn't a bug. 2) you tried to save an empty page which won't actually create the page 3) we are trying to fix all the glitches/things related to the template on a daily basis 4) a red category isn't too dramatic and can be fixed when asked for. Thanks for requesting the change and if anything else pops up, just come around and we'll be there for your help. Yours, Lincher 04:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Maybe "it" wasn't the bug, but the behavior was quite unexpected and impossible for one experienced user to fathom. That means there was a bug somewhere. However, the proximate trigger has been removed, so it is fine for now. Hu 09:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Everything listed?

Does this page cover everything selected for the released version? For example I've found that special relativity and general relativity were not here, even though they are selected. This confused me for nominations.

þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 15:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand your comment but if I get the basic concept of what you are trying to explain, I will give you a brief overview of the way the articles get chosen to be on the Wikipedia:Release Version page.

Uno, all articles from the Version 0.5 release are automatically included in the release version page. Which means that the template {{V0.5}} now serves for the release version and the V0.5 release making the articles tagged part of both release.

Dos, all the articles that have the {{releaseversion}} tag are only part of the release version and thus necessitate to be added unto the Wikipedia:Release Version page (done manually as of now).

Hope this explains it well. Thanks for asking, Lincher 16:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think whoever passed those articles just forgot to add them into the list here like they are supposed to! Walkerma 17:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

No, they are already present on the page, FYI. Thanks, Lincher 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I added them! I think there are still missing articles, like geometry. Should I add it as well, or is there a systematic way to take care of this list (like Mathbot?) þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 04:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

The additions are man-made, the bot only works with the categories (I meant Mathbot). Though when we will have the bot's listing we can cross-check which ones aren't included. Lincher 13:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Categorization Question

How are the categories determined? It seems that most of the items in the "Miscellaneous" category would fit well into other, pre-existing categories, for instance, Artificial Intelligence could reasonably be moved under [Science and Technology] -> [Computing].

Also, is there a place for discussion of article dependencies? It seems that some articles are included possibly because of FA status, without a crucial article upon which the article depends to make sense. One example is "History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)" (which, to the point above, is categorized questionably under Social phenomena, movements and subcultures") which doesn't make sense without the inclusion of an article on "Boy Scouts of America." A less clear example might be, in the same category, "poverty in pakistan" which, although it makes sense, seems odd if the article on "poverty" is not included.

wgh 16:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC) -dialectric

For you question dialectric, I can only say that the misc section may serve as a temporary place and that if you feel that these items pertain to a particular section and that it should be moved there ... feel free to make the change or to explain the change and I will make it. "Done for AI". Lincher 00:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You're partly right - those articles were only included because they are FAs. Some things like that Scouting one are hard to place anywhere specific. However, there are Scouting (and United States) and Pakistan which can provide context. For version 0.5 I'm writing a set of navigation pages precisely to deal with such things, and these will allow articles to be listed in multiple places (e.g., Leonardo da Vinci under Arts and EngTech). See this for an early try. Walkerma 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The navigation system is good for now but I hate having to go to subpages to add articles, this can only make the process more tedious and complicated. And add to the degree of comprehension of the project. Lincher 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

any category head-scratcher

I am puzzled by the message box left on the Bronze Age talk page. Why is Bronze Age categorized as History? Am I missing something here? What about all the archaeologists who are working hard on bronze age-related topics? Shouldn't Bronze Age be categorized as Archaeology or 'Prehistory' ?!? Mumun 22:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The choice of category is limited to these

category=Miscellaneous

category=Arts

category=Langlit

category=Philrelig

category=Everydaylife

category=Socsci

category=Geography

category=History

category=Engtech

category=Math

category=Natsci

So if you feel free to change the category, be aware that you have to choose one of these. As for the actual WP:WPRV page, then you may create new subsections or request other subsections to suit your need. Yours, Lincher 00:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nominations for removing from the project?

Is there a process yet in place to nominate/discuss removing articles from the project, at least for the next release version? The Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood... article under nobility and heraldry is a well written, FA-class article, but the man is not of high historical importance, at least on the scale of others being included. I also would like to discuss whether well written articles about video games belong, especially when, as per my above post about article dependencies, the articles on the systems for which they are made are not included.

wgh 17:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) -dialectric

We try to both show the cream of the cream of WP and have articles that are of top importance. The fact is that both don't match for some top-important articles are still in awful conditions and so we have to come up with articles like this one where it is well written though it might not represent the most important subject. This is my opinion, I hope some other will voice theirs also. Lincher 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I am torn by arguments like this. On the one hand, I think it's silly that in Version 0.5 we have (for example) Hamilton-Temple.... but we don't have Saddam Hussein. On the other hand, we want to show off our "best of" material, and a good case can be made using the basic argument "Why not?" You should also realise the historical background - originally we planned to exclude such FAs, but several people got very upset when we said that the subject of their favourite FA was "not important." So we include them and I like to think of these as similar to a "bonus track" on a CD - an extra, not important but nice to have.

I think the solution to this may lie in importance tags, as Eyu100 has suggested. If we tag the important articles with "Top" or "High" (after agreeing on some fairly objective ways of doing that) we can develop a core of 2000-5000 important topics from which we build all future general release versions. One of my hopes for the 1.0 project is that within a year or so we can develop such a foundation of key topics (maybe we'll have a rough one sooner, by the end of Version 0.7). Once we have that we may even choose to release a CD of these key topics, which should be easy to do. One of the best way someone like yourself (Dialectric) can help is to nominate lots of important topics, preferably in large groups suitable for [[Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations|set nominations. I'm trying to put together such lists myself, as you can see in [[User:Walkerma/Sandbox2|my sandbox) (on Dec 7) (in this case, post-colonial leaders). Thanks for your input, Walkerma 04:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For one, sorry for having commented in such a way for that is how I felt we were orienting the release toward. As for the important topics, there is a big problem when we get into articles that have NPOV, OR, etc. on them and which we cannot determine from an objective perspective what quality this article is. For that matter, I have set up and will use the Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Held nominations to place articles that have not been added as of yet in the RV and that may need a second pair of eyes to figure out if they should be included. The Held nominations page will also have a second utility as it will serve for articles that are less important for the release version but might get included later on. Lincher 05:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't apologise! The above are merely my opinions. We need to reach a consensus that all the active people can support. My comments do reflect some earlier thoughts, where Maurreen (now on wikibreak) and myself felt that future releases should try to stress importance. Maurreen was at that time planning to coordinate the main 1.0 release right after 0.5. Walkerma 06:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarify

I don't exactly understand this. Is it like a new versio of WP and having evrything else deleted or is it like some kind of sub-wiki or wikiproject? Could someone please clarify (preferably on my talk page also)? Thanks. —¡Randfan! 03:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Clarify,

I've commented on this confusion as well, like you, as a non-project-member, I was confused about the naming and nature of the project. This is a project working towards a stable, if incomplete, offline version of wikipedia, which will be called, confusingly, Wikipedia 1.0 (Though it seems to be increasingly refered to as Release Version). The current step in this process is a 'beta' of sorts, a wikipedia 0.7 which is an attempt to include as much as possible information which will be put in this offline Wikipedia version. Users can nominate pages to be included on a Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations page. Once work on 0.7 is complete, the project will begin work on a new version building off of the beta.

A similar project with different members is the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, which has a more specific target audience, children in english-speaking schools, and thus a more limited breadth of articles. If someone on this project could comment on whether there is any overlap/sharing between the projects, I would find that helpful. It might also clarify things if the top of the Articles for release version 0.7 gave a detailed explanation of what's going on. Finally, is this the "Official" release version? such that this might be described as Wikipedia Official Offline 0.7, beta version?

wgh 17:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) -dialectric

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

More clarification

What's the purpose of the release version?

What benefits will it provide that the online Wikipedia doesn't?

What benefits will it forego?

What needs will it fulfill?

What will its distribution method be?

Is there money involved?

What licenses is it being created under?

Who will its users likely be?

How many users are expected?

Very curious,

The Transhumanist   20:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of these questions are answered at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/FAQs. We will know more accurately later this month when WP:V0.5 goes on sale at http://www.wikipediaondvd.com. For this test version (5000 CDs only), it will only have limited distribution, but all future versions should be available in WH Smiths, WalMart, Asda, Best Buy, etc. It will be open source (GPL), with all future versions planned to be the same. It will be available for free download - including the offline browser/search software. Our main users will be the 99 % of the world who don't have broadband internet access! To really see, you'll have to buy/download the CD....! Cheers, Walkerma 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Who'll be distributing it through WalMart, etc.? The Transhumanist   01:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably the people making the V0.5 CD for us, Cinram. Walkerma 02:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Now we need one targeted at children! sj 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

the Wikipedia:2006 Wikipedia CD Selection is intended for children, though not written in simpler language Dialectric 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Please!

How do you change which of the sections an article goes in? Because you've got Kakapo in the mammal section of biological sciences and the wretched thing is a bird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to make the edit yourself if you spot an error like this. I decided it was about time we had a new section for Birds (should reduce future errors like this), and now the Kakapo is chirping away happily in its new home. Thanks for pointing this out, Walkerma 03:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

different icons

I suggest changing some of the icons, particularly the physics and astronomy icon, since the crescent moon is more closely associated with astrology/religion. Perhaps the general science icon (atoms?) could be moved to physics and astronomy, and something else chosen for general science?

Less important, the economics icon doesn't read very well in its current size, and several of the icons currently have white backgrounds rather than transparent.

On an unrelated note, maybe the Geology/Geophysics category should be under science rather than geography?

Dialectric 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make any changes you think are worthwhile; please compare with WP:V0.5, there may be better icons there. I agree that geology & geophysics are borderline - obviously they are sciences, but many of the topics covered also come close to geography, for example mountain or glacier. If we had an active geology project I'd ask there to get a consensus. Note that putting it with geography does not mean it's not a science, merely that it has been grouped with the science of physical geography rather then the science of chemistry/physics. Walkerma 18:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Screenwriters

Could you include the screenwriters Aaron Sorkin and William Monahan in the next version? They are both FAs.-BillDeanCarter 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominated. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 10:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy and Religion

Philosophy should be with the social sciences, not conjoined with religion. It is true that philosophy often is interested in the same sorts of issues as religion (the arguments for the existence of God, the justifiability of belief), however this does not make philosophy like religion anymore than the fact that physics is interested in the creation of the universe makes physics like religion. Philosophy probably can only comfortably be given its own entire section, but at the very least it needs to be moved to 'Society and social sciences' rather than being placed with religion. Religion draws on philosophy often for the topics its interested in, but it also draws on science. We shouldn't mistake cross-discipline events as showing two very different disciplines as being the same. I place philosophy with the social sciences because like the other "soft sciences" which aim to accurately describe the world, it is difficult for philosophy to rely on empirical evidence to justify its hypotheses (e.g. what experiement could show the nature of universals). Of course psychology, political science, etc. all rely on empirical evidence to some degree, but what makes these sciences "soft sciences" is exactly their inability to rely on empirical evidence to the degree of physics or biology. This is not a problem with the soft sciences, but simply a result of the nature of their subject matter. - Atfyfe 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually our categories were originally designed by a philosopher! We spent several months discussing various options in detail, and this was the consensus we came to. There are lots of choices, of course, but I'd be reluctant to change things at this point unless there are a large number of people who feel strongly on the issue. I personally like philosophy where it is. Thanks for your thoughts. Are there a lot of others who feel strongly on this issue? Walkerma 02:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC meeting to discuss Version 0.7

On Sunday May 27th. Please sign up on the 1.0 page if you can attend. Walkerma 17:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Scope of V0.7 project

We've been debating how to define the importance criterion more precisely for Version 0.7. Please see this discussion, and then vote! Thanks, Walkerma 05:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

chemistry articles

i've noticed some of the chemistry articles that made it in are pretty lack-luster. for example: Einsteinium made it in, despite being start class and mid importance by the assesser, and wikiproject physics putting it at start class and low importance. is this covered by the 'need' scale because it is an element in the periodic table? i found all this while trying to assess the Tin(II) chloride nom and looking for an equivalent - i also find it lack-luster despite it being core/A class/mid importance and a GA (really?!). to me it is a pretty poor article. it has info boxes and formulas but no history of use/discovery, it has a how-to section and its prose are gobblety gook. maybe i need to have more of a background in chemistry? JoeSmack ^Talk 17:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Joe, you can find einsteinium etc because we voted to have the complete set of all chemical elements included in Version 0.5. Even with the Start-Class ones, they are that way NOT because they are badly written, poorly sourced or biased etc, but simply because they are short. The content that is there is generally of a high standard. Regarding tin(II) chloride, you should fail it if it doesn't come across well. I suspect it has degraded somewhat since last year (there was no how-to originally) and something like history of use is not usually covered in a chemistry article. There is often a limit to what you can usefully say about a specific compound, without it getting really specialised. Yes, it is specialised enough that you need to know some chemistry - but if you don't like the content, it's not so important that we need to include it. Thanks for dealing with our oldest outstanding nomination! Walkerma 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, no prob; trying to clean up the oldest noms first! :) Gotcha, I can understand Einsteinium being included as part of a set (though I wish it was better). Poking around for an appealing example article through Tin(II) chloride's categories I found Zinc_chloride. It's easier on the eyes and less bullet-point-style facts. I walked over to the talk page and saw it was a failed GA, and read some of the dialog around that and see some of my feelings mirrored, as well as some of yours. I do understand that some articles are really hard to approach if you don't have specialized knowledge, yet that information shouldn't be left out or dumbed down inappropriately or repeated for every chemical article (a compound is...). Maybe its Tin(II) chloride's choppy word style that irks me the most. I do only have layknowledge of chemistry (I went into psychology in college and didn't look back), but I think there should be some middle ground with accessibility. Am I echoing complaints others have had with assessing chemical articles? Is there some long discussion out there with an end consensus I can read through?

I sort of though i'd be able to start assessing nominations for the release version anywhere in topics and see some clear shining stars and some clear duds, but I'm being to think not... JoeSmack ^Talk 19:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you will see this problem of accessibility with many more specialised articles. (I've waded through some multi-dimensional math articles myself for V0.7!). You would probably be able to understand Kohlberg's stages of moral development (a well-written GA) much better than me: Culpability is frequently turned from being defined by society to having society itself be culpable. This stage is often mistaken for the moral relativism of stage two as the individual views the interests of society which conflict with their own choices as relatively and morally wrong. Pretty heavy too, but you can't get away from that! The accessibility issue is one we are trying to deal with at WP:Chem, we have had a lot of flak over this lately.

One key thing in reviewing - importance is the main deciding factor, as long as the article is of usable quality (usually B). In other words, the first question you should ask is, "Is this topic important enough that we want it in this release?" If the answer is yes, that's when you check that we won't be embarrassed by the quality. Cheers, Walkerma 20:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see I probably should have left this nom alone because of my limited contact with chemistry - this may be highlighting a cause for concern for the review team. For one others may have run into my same problem and kind of 'bluffed through it' with their noms without throwing concerns on talk pages. For another, the very reason this nom may be the oldest still unassessed is because so few hold advanced chem knowledge (you, Walker, are an exception, and you nom'ed it besides).

Regardless, I tend to like to finish what I start, and doing this one together will be a learning experience :). WP:Chem has a nice little assessment subpage. It meets the Class-A quality requirements there, and hit mid importance too ('Subject fills in more minor details'). If we're running with importance being the first question, I'd say no both by WP:Chem's assessment and mine. Therefor I'd fail this nomination. Does this make reasonable sense, and is this the right hat to be wearing when I review other noms? JoeSmack ^Talk 07:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The WP:Chem's quality/importance assess template also says Core - this is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist. At first I thought this meant it was part of the core topics list that was automatically swept into 0.5 and after, but really it's just an item for the project's participants to work on. This is kind of a confusing thing to put on the assessment template for that reason. JoeSmack ^Talk 07:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it seems fair. At 1.0 we often have to make inexpert judgements, we just do the best we can, and get second opinions as needed. It is best to work first on the topics you know best, but if an article is not getting reviewed someone has to take it on. As for the assessment at WP:Chem, maybe "core" is a little confusing but please be patient - this is in fact where the whole assessment scheme started. That worklist is actually older than the Core Topics project, too! Cheers, Walkerma 07:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Book of Kells

I notice this classified as "langlit" which is wrong - the text is a standard Latin Vulgate Gospel Book. It should be under arts; it is the illuminated miniatures it is famous for. I changed it on the article page, hoping that would move it here, but it hasn't. Johnbod 01:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've met Johnbod while working on Biblical manuscript articles. I come from the LangLit side of things and I agree with him. Kells is more important to art historians for its art, than it is to textual critics of the New Testament for its text. (There are a few manuscripts that might be equally important for art history and text criticism, but most fall clearly one way or the other. Kells is art.) Alastair Haines 16:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Automated lists from other projects

We may make a list of notable projects and collect their list of articles with "Top" importance. What do you think? Can somebody write a bot for it? -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈ^ʝɘɖı 05:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there is already work on that: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SelectionBot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicistjedi (talk • contribs) 05:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's right. A quick update - the developers have been getting lists together, there is a lot of progress on this behind the scenes right now! I hope that soon we will have another superb bot to use just like Oleg's WP1.0 bot. Physicistjedi - can you help us evaluate the bot's output? Walkerma (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Halo

I was wondering if the article about the video game Halo: Combat Evolved should be included. It has been the main page article, and is currently at FA status. RedZion^X 21:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your comment. OK, I'll post this on the nominations page and tag it as nominated. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Prostitution in Georgia (country) included in 0.5!?

I'm not sure which is less likely, that this very short article was rated as an A-Class, or that it was included in 0.5. Both are rather unlikely, though, despite the tag on the article's talk page saying it is in 0.5. Someone might want to verify this, maybe? John Carter (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

removal

I added several things to the release list (Topeka, KS. Sum 41. Metallica. Toby Keith. Liverpool.) they were all removed. Please do not remove them again because i've passed them and they are all historically significant enough to be on here. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 04:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that happens sometimes, probably just a mistake. As long as the talk page tags remain intact, the articles will get included; we do a cross-check between the list here and the bot list. Walkerma (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment on choosing historical versions

Not sure where to put this but choosing which historical version of an article to go for will be tough. The Germans used the most recent save by a trusted editor but with the Schools Wikipedia we have found too many "recent changes patrol" style reverts of a single bit of graffiti by serious editors which have missed vandalism one or two steps earlier. The community isn't disciplined enough or undo/rollback is used too readily. In the end first cut we have gone for taking two recent versions by trusted editors at least 6 edits apart and maually checking the diffs for vandalism. Updates we do based on manual check of diffs to our last good version. TDS but with good database tools it is doable. --BozMo talk 09:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I'll bring up the issue with Emmanuel. That sounds like an excellent system for checking. Maybe we could write a script that could generate a list of diffs, to save a lot of manual clicking? FYI, we plan to work a lot on the Selection Bot starting in a week or so. Regards, Walkerma (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Plans for Version 0.7: Autumn release?

I am hopeful that the Selection Bot is almost ready to use, after we do the final fixes and testing during July. I think we should be able to generate a good selection list of around 20,000-30,000 articles by August, and provide this to our publisher (Linterweb). If there are no delays in publication, we should have Version 0.7 ready for sale by autumn. We will need people to help out with the logistics, checking etc. Please let me know if you want to be involved. Walkerma (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sum 41 should be delisted

Sum 41 should not be included in the release version. It should not be included because (1) the article is not of good quality as it currently stands, and (2)the band is not of high historical (or commercial) importance. The article as is multiple citation needed tags, less than 20 citations, several of which are to npov commercial websites and 'MTV News' and is quite short relative to those on other musicians of high historical importance. The band is not notable relative to many others. If the release version includes only the 100 most popular (largest selling, or highest polling) popular music groups and artists, it seems unlikely that this group would be on the list. The article states that they've sold 10 million albums total. Some more notable artists sell 10 million records with each new release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.83.137 (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I Disagree. They helped form the genre known as Pop-Punk. that makes them notable very notable. - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 10:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

as the pop punk article shows, that assertion is difficult to justify; pop punk has been around since the early 1980s, or before. 69.203.83.137 (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The modern incarnation of Pop-Punk has been around since the late 1990's... - -[The Spooky One] | ^{[t c r]} 17:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

For the next release, we will mainly be using the SelectionBot to judge borderline cases, because that gives a pretty objective assessment of importance. Looking at these test results it looks pretty likely that the article will be in the next release (which will be a much larger release, about 30,000 articles). They're only test data, but it's likely that any score over 1300 (that's for quality importance) would make it into Version 0.7. Even if the article were re-assessed to C-Class, there is a good chance it would make it: 405 articles link to that one, there are 31 foreign language Wikipedias with articles on Sum 41, and the article gets a lot of hits per month, so based on all our parameters the topic ranks pretty high in importance (though lower than Celine or Nelly!). If the article is not of good quality, the folks from the Rock Music project should perhaps re-assess the article, and those who look after the article should perhaps aim to add more refs (to address the cleanup tags). Walkerma (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

But thanks for raising the issue! It's good to ask these questions! Walkerma (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahem... the intro

It'd be real nice if the intro to your page told people what the project was all about instead of making us guess! // FrankB 03:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It seems that this page should really be titled "Release 0.7" and there should be a whole different page at "Release Version" explaining what a release version is. Thelem (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair point. Someone wrote it who's no longer involved, and I haven't updated it. I'm away now, but it's on my ToDo list for when I get back - unless someone beats me to it. The reason for the single Release Version page - we don't want to have to keep amending lots of links every time we do a new release - and the time between releases will get much shorter soon when SelectionBot gets fully working (end of August). You'll begin to see LOTS of activity over here during September. Walkerma (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

IRC discussion on Version 0.7

We will hold an IRC meeting at #wikipedia-1.0 on Monday, August 11th at 1900h UTC. Complete details are on the main 1.0 talk page, please sign up there. Walkerma (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Schools and Version 0.7

Sorry if this has already being worked on or unrelated, but I looked at the provisional selection list and WikiProject Schools wasn't on the list. Education, Education in Australia, Education in Canada, and Universities all have selections, but our project doesn't seem to appear at all. Is it because none of our articles scored high enough? The manual nomination list at Wikipedia:Release_Version only includes two schools from the 0.5 release: B-class Hopkins and FA-class Stuyvesant, and I think articles like Stonyhurst College and Baltimore City College are possibly worthy of inclusion --Jh12 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

That is most odd, because the project shows up here, and the bot picked it up as a project needing a principal article, but for some reason it's not displaying anything. Even if zero articles were selected, it should show up. What we're finding, though, is that many individual schools like Baltimore City College are getting very low scores - only about 2000 hits per month, and zero interwikis, and my old school is similar. A few like Eton College get higher scores (26,000 hits/month, 22 interwikis) and will probably make it into the selection. Thanks for letting us know, we don't want to miss out a major project like this! Walkerma (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I do think this project may be one that might consider putting together its own Schools selection, as well. We at 1.0 could help if needed. You have a good number of articles, and if you have one geographical area that is well covered, you could do a release like "Schools of Ontario" or whatever. This could work extremely well if it was given as part of a collection to the schools in that area (such as Ontario), perhaps in conjunction with Wikipedia:Wikimedia School Team (though this has been inactive over the summer). Just a thought! Walkerma (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response and all the fantastic work! I'm tempted to say that for now, it's easier to simply go along with any possible bot results and then for our project to supplement with a minimum list of a few Top-importance and higher quality articles. I will, however, mention your proposal at our project page tomorrow. In terms of geography, our project is really expanding on a daily basis. US, Canada, UK, Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore are perhaps covered best in terms of quality and number. How many of these areas warrant a special release I am not sure of, primarily because we have a lower percentage of high-quality articles. Still, it makes a lot of sense to include articles about schools in a collection for schools! Could even inspire them to improve the articles... --Jh12 (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that to create a specific collection, you'd want to be comprehensive (no pun intended if you're British!) - you'd want to include every school in Ontario, say. I'm glad to hear that things are going so well! Meanwhile, I've mentioned the bug to the bot operator. Walkerma (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparently the SelectionBot was very fussy about how the categories were named (probably a stray capital letter or something) - CBM has fixed this and Schools should show up in the final selection (coming tonight). Walkerma (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that some more school articles have now been selected for inclusion in the next release. The selection bot has been very helpful as it has brought to our attention some important articles which had been previously overlooked or incorrectly assessed as low importance. You should however note that the number of inter-Wiki links is not always an accurate measure of an article's importance, and I wonder if the weighting ought to be reduced to reflect this. The bot has given Auckland Grammar School in New Zealand a very high ranking mainly because of the large number of inter-Wiki links. However I have been advised that the school itself requested all the translations, and people very kindly obliged (see the article's talk page). While the school is a top importance school in New Zealand it is much less internationally important than some of the other schools below it on the list which haven't been selected, all of which also have much higher page view stats. It's also possible that commercial organisations such as fee-paying schools might try to boost the number of foreign-language articles to inflate their importance if too much weighting is given to this measure. Dahliarose (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The scale is a log scale, meaning that 100 interwikis only makes twice the impact of 10 interwikis, and that's on just one of four parameters. So you have to do a huge amount of translation work to boost your score by a significant amount - though it looks like this was done in this case (I've never seen another example like the Auckland school, though!). I remember the long waits to get just one article translated into English - so it must have involve a huge effort to get that one school translated into Gaelic, etc. The score can be much more easily manipulated by improving its quality, which I hope would be the normal pattern! The nice thing about the interwiki score is that it tends to indicate worldwide importance, and counter what would otherwise tend to be a strong US/UK bias in the selection. It is only one of four parameters, so a strong interwiki score along would not win it a place in the collection. But I accept, no system is perfect. Walkerma (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Expansion of the foreign-language Wikis is something which we should perhaps be encouraging anyway, and perhaps the system will encourage some healthy rivalry and promote improvements to important articles which don't yet meet the requirements. Dahliarose (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

How many copies will be released?

We had a discussion in WP:MILHIST wondering how many DVD would be released. Depending on the number we would scale our efforts contributing to this project. Currently, we can't imagine many people with a DVD drive and no internet access and question the whole sense of the effort. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

There are three uses for the collection - DVD sales, downloads, and other releases. As a test release, this will not be major on DVD - perhaps 10-20,000 DVDs, I'd guess; but the Germans and the SOS kids release have shown that there is a much bigger potential than that for schoolrooms, traveling laptop owners, etc. People like User:Wizzy will get the collection put onto hard drives in African schoolrooms, and we're working with One Laptop per Child, too. See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/FAQs for all the reasons. But if MILHIST is interested in cleaning up its highest profile articles, then I think it should work on this list anyway. Walkerma (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WP 0.7 duplicate selections

I apologize if this isn't the correct place to ask, but is anyone aware of duplicates on SelectionBot's lists? For example, there are several The Legend of Zelda articles that can be found at both User:SelectionBot/0.7/V-3 and User:SelectionBot/0.7/T-2. Do we need to remove one set of these? Pagrashtak 16:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is just my guess. Articles were listed by wikiproject because we want to make it easier for the wikiprojects to give versions of all their articles, but that means there could be conflicting versions if different wikiprojects select different "best" versions. Since Legend of Zelda articles seem most closely associated to me with the Legend of Zelda wikiproject, I'd suggest you leave a note on the 0.7/V-3 copies of those articles directing them to 0.7/T-2. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That was my concern. I've got four FAs in that area and am planning to put oldids on them, but was wondering what would happen in the event of a conflict. There has been talk of converting the Zelda project into a VG task force due to the limited scope and relative inactivity, so it may be better to point the other direction eventually, but I'll make sure one points to the other before long. Thanks for your input. Pagrashtak 18:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This is certainly an issue - on average, each article is selected about 2.3 times! In the event of a conflict, then (barring other comments) we will just take the latest listed VersionID. If you want to cross-post your VersionID to other projects (with a quick comment to that effect), I think that's fine - most projects will simply appreciate that the work has been done. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Release?

When will this Release version be released and till when will articles be able to be put in? Was signed,

Jouke Bersma (wikipedia ever since 2005 and highly interested in especially Frisians) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We are aiming to close things on October 20th, and review all articles by then. The DVD will come out shortly afterwards, perhaps early December. Walkerma (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Will Greate Pier be on that DVD in October? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 (talk) 10:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Quick question... I assume that template tags (refs, POV etc) will be stripped from the text of the release version prior to publication? --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

They weren't for 0.5. I'm not aware of plans to strip them for 0.7. To the best of my knowledge, we will be trying to be honest about the fact that 0.7 is a snapshot of Wikipedia and that people should expect from the DVD roughly what they expect from Wikipedia. I know that we want to try to do better with 0.8. I'd guess that there would be an enormous howl on Wikipedia if an NPOV tag were stripped off a page without anyone determining whether there were actual NPOV issues. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Many will be, but it's possible that some could be left on. Citation needed and "calls to edit" will almost certainly be gone (they were removed in V0.5, I'm fairly sure), because they can't be fixed once offline; but for things like NPOV there is a strong case for leaving those in. It will be an agenda item at an IRC meeting when we get closer to publication. Do you want to make a particular case for/against here? If so, we will take your thoughts into account when the topic comes up. Walkerma (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Selection discrepancy

Why is 4X marked as selected here, but not listed at User:SelectionBot/0.7/V-3? Pagrashtak 05:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We're unsure what caused this, but we're working on it. Thanks for pointing it out. Walkerma (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Animal articles rated Top- / High importance but Start-class

I've had a go at improving Chordate, Arthropod and Mollusc and have posted requests for review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals. Hoever apart from my requests there's been no activity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals since 26 Aug. Is there any way to expedite reviews in time for the issue of v 0.7? -- Philcha (talk)

Although there is a conflict of interest in assessing your own articles, generally most wikiprojects don't mind if you (honestly) assess your own articles up to B class. If you think you have met the GA standard, you could submit them to the Good Article queue, but that won't meet the v0.7 deadline. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Although I'm tempted, I can't honestly assess the article as I have no means of checking the recent (post-Cambrian!) taxonomy -- Philcha (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I re-assessed Arthropod and Chordate, so all 3 are B class now. Regardless of the recent taxonomy (which I did not check), there is no way they are either C or Start class. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Hroðulf! - Philcha (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Redirects?

How are redirects selected for inclusion? Does a bot select them all automatically, or do they need to be individually tagged by WikiProjects? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand all of the technicalities, but our French WP collaborator has written a script that does this. All redirects are automatically included, even in things like the Hit Counts which are needed for importance calculations. So projects can focus on improving articles and finding good versions of those articles. Walkerma (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway

This appears to have been included only because it was mistagged as top-importance in Ohio. Please fix. --NE2 23:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello? --NE2 21:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, we'll be removing it from the list. Walkerma (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --NE2 02:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Automobiles

As I'm writing, the Road transport (not roads) section of the list features the following articles: Automobile, Automatic number plate recognition, Bicycle, Hours of service, Maserati_MC12, Plug-in hybrid, Mini, Trucking industry in the United States. I doubt that the MC12 is more important than iconic cars such as the VW Beetle, the VW Golf, the Ford T or the Fiat 600. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because you're only looking at the manually nominated & selected ones. The final selection is mainly based on the SelectionBot list, which you can find here, as mentioned in this post to the Automobiles project. All the ones you mention are already selected, along with about 150 others, except for the Fiat 600 which was mainly excluded because it was only Start-Class. Walkerma (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

auto mobils = car —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 (talk) 13:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Next release suggestions

Can I suggest two things:

1) WikiProjects are notified much earlier of the proposed articles to be included from their specialist areas. Last time, there was an undignified scramble and you chaps were too busy to respond to the questions we posed. 2) The project page is much clearer about what has and has not been included. Can you simply post one list, whether selected by bot or approved manually? And please work on some plain English text to explain the process.

Many thanks --Dweller (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all these are good points. I think you've succinctly summarised many of the issues we should focus on for Version 0.8 - thanks! Walkerma (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

One more thing I think (after I tried v0.5, pocket Wikipedia and school version) is that the off line version is hardly editable(you could but much trouble). This lost the most useful function of Wikipedia--editing--I really hope the v0.7 or v1.0 could have this important function for offline user(people could edit the articles (on their computer hard-disk, DVD may be installed to the hard drive, etc,.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.208.219 (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Questionable links

Please check these links. I found the first link in each pair by searching the Prefix Index of the Wikipedia namespace.

• Wikipedia:0.7/0.7geo/Côte d'Ivoire -- Côte d'Ivoire
• Wikipedia:0.7/0.7geo/Côte d'Ivoire -- Côte d'Ivoire
• Wikipedia:0.7/0.7geo/Lebabon -- Lebabon
• Wikipedia:0.7/0.7geo/Lebanon -- Lebanon
• Wikipedia:0.7/0.7geo/Léopold -- Léopold
• Wikipedia:0.7/0.7geo/Léopold -- Léopold
• Wikipedia:0.7/0.7geo/Paleste -- Paleste
• Wikipedia:0.7/0.7geo/Palestine -- Palestine
  

-- Wavelength (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks - this is very strange! We'll have to see how these were generated. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The Léopold and Côte d'Ivoire pages with the funny characters were from a software bug that I fixed (that's why the correct names also appear). The other two erroneous pages must be from typos in the assignment of categories to countries. I double-checked that the links are all in the correct pages and then deleted the erroneous ones. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, CBM, thanks! Thanks also, Wavelength, for helping us fix these bugs. Walkerma (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

They were created again, I re-deleted them. Cenarium (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)