Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia 1.0 Projects (talk)
Main bot list
Release criteria
Review team
Version 1.0 (Nominations)
Version 0.5 (t) (bot) (Nominations) (t) (FAs) (t), (Sets) (t)
Suggestions to nom
CORE TOPICS CORE SUPPLEMENT (Talk) (COTF) (bot)
TORRENT (Talk)
TEST VERSION (Talk)
WORK VIA WIKI PROJECTS (talk) Full list Arts Econ/Business Hobbies Humanities Science Technology Places
WIKISORT (Talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

/Archive 1

Contents 1 ? 2 Kerala and Krakatoa in Europe? 3 "Miscellaneous" category 4 How many days left? 5 Warning on statistics! 6 Disputes page again 7 Template 8 Realignment period 8.1 New discussion 9 Missing priorities 9.1 Humanities 9.2 Missing natural science and technology 9.3 Everyday life 9.4 Society and social science 9.5 Missing biographies 10 Missing midlevel items 11 Deadline? 12 Red links in release versions? 13 Importance 14 Biographies 15 Categorization 16 {{V0.5}} 17 What's next? 18 2 main sections 19 Reviewers please sign up! 20 Core biographies 21 Nature 22 Final Fantasy VII?? 23 Main articles of a subject (Literature: Literature, Geology and _:Geology, _) 24 Images on the assessment tags 25 Common Unix Printing System on FAR 26 Removal of the misc section idea 27 End of reviewing 28 a missclassification 29 CD assembly, reader

[edit]  ?

Pardon my naivete, but what exactly is V0.5?--Josh Rocchio 19:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We would like to publish Wikipedia's best articles. To create a CD or DVD with our best works. Now we're making a Version 0.5 where we can find out our faults, the hardest parts of the nomination procedures in order to get ready for Version 1.0 which could be released on CD. Let's join! :) NCurse _work 20:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahhh, publish where, exactly? Thanks for the quick reply!--Josh Rocchio 21:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe on CD. But our goal is to creat a stable version of the best works. It is not defined exactly, where to publish. NCurse _work 21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Finding a publisher for V0.5 won't be hard, it will just be a single CD containing the most important quality articles on Wikipedia. The Germans found that their DVD release went straight to #1 last year on amazon.de, so I think publishers will be glad to work with us! A test CD has already been released in English by a kids' charity, and they are advising us here. As for the longer term, a new Static content subcommittee is being assembled at Meta right now, in order to help organise these things across different language groups. Walkerma 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I was going to ask exactly the same question as Josh Rocchio... Maybe this question should be answered in this article? :) --ZeroOne 01:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

About the purpose -- some of are interested in the most important articles, not just the best articles. Maurreen 02:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kerala and Krakatoa in Europe?

Why are Kerala and Krakatoa listed under Europe? They are both in Asia. --Ideogram 06:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A bit of continental drift perhaps? Now fixed, thanks, Walkerma 06:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Miscellaneous" category

We have a miscellaneous category on the talk page. I passed the article Space exploration, and I couldn't find a place to put it. I put it under engineering. Should there be a separate miscellaneous section?

The misc section on nominations is mainly needed because many people nominating will not be familiar with the layout - but the people assigning sections at V0.5 are reviewers who are more familiar with things. I think you made the right choice for now, but at some point we should probably create an appropriate section for space-related articles like that. One trick - if it's a GA, see where it is located there. Since we stole our layout from them, you should be able to put it in the same place! Thanks, Walkerma 03:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many days left?

I'm just curious. Maybe we should close recent nominations first before nominate new ones. NCurse _work 17:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning on statistics!

I noticed that an error in the template {{0.5 set nom}} was causing the bot to consider each set nominee to be already passed. This has inflated our statistics temporarily. I think I have fixed the problem, but that means our numbers may be down temporarily. However, once we start passing some of these the numbers will bounce back - there are over 50 articles listed in the European Countries listing. Please try to nominate and review at the V0.5 Set Nominations page to help this process along - the Euro countries have been up for two days with no comments from our review team so far! I am considering the Continents passed. Walkerma 03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputes page again

Well, I would quite like to dispute the quality of an article which has already been selected, The Giver, if I could figger out where and how. It's a FA, but I've just put it on WP:FAR for review.[1] Bishonen | talk 18:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC).

Thanks. We will have a look at it after the FAR. We refresh FA articles in Wikipedia:Version 0.5 FA Review, so we will see it at the end of version 0.5. NCurse _work 18:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, why not let the FAR run its course first, rather than spreading discussion on the article's qualities (or lack thereof) over multiple pages? Kirill Lokshin 18:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Since this idea keeps coming up, is anyone opposed to having a page for disputes? Maurreen 19:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Kirill Lokshin, I wasn't trying to spread the discussion, that's why I didn't mention what problems I see with The Giver. Bringing it here after the FAR is what I had in mind. It does seem like it would be convenient to have a disputes page for things like that. Meanwhile, perhaps people who frequent this page here might like to join in over at FAR, since the article is one of "yours"? Bishonen | talk 20:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC).

A disputes page is much needed, can someone set one up? I'm pretty busy right now, and I also still need to set up the Core Topics review page I promised? Thanks, Walkerma 04:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Please see Wikipedia:Version 0.5/Disputes. Maurreen 06:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully we won't need it too much... Walkerma 15:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't say that! I started to use it with 3 articles. :) NCurse _work 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

The template also adds articles to BozMo's CD, Category:Wikipedia CD Selection. Could someone better at templates than I am change the template so that it makes the same categories as 0.5 for Category:Wikipedia CD Selection? Thanks. Maurreen 17:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Realignment period

Following on from discussions here, I would like to propose a realignment period during September (and October if consensus is that we need it). Here are some of the points, mostly copied from before: Walkerma 04:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Copied from earlier discussion, new material in italics

My original goal for the project was around 2000 articles, but that began to look unlikely, and I envisaged 1000 articles as a minimum. My secret goal for V0.5 as of July 1 was for us to reach 500 articles by month's end, and we instead made 600! Thanks to all who have helped with that! Things had slowed down, but the new FA review page has really helped people speed up the process. I think the 1000 articles is attainable, especially bearing in mind that we will keep reviewing after nominations close.

However, the new system has one down side - most articles are passing on quality rather than importance. Thus we have an article on Ann Arbor, Michigan - a notable place, but surely much less notable than many US cities we don't have such as Philadelphia, (B-Class). If we simply carry on our current track we will be quite productive, but our test release will be quite unbalanced. That isn't a disaster - we can point out that it is a test release - but I would like also to test out systems for achieving balance. Some of those systems are already in place - the new Core Topics Review page, for example, where we can assume importance is OK and we only need review for quality (in effect the reverse of the FA page). Another thing we can all do is to nominate more of the important topics - particularly sets of important topics (like capital cities in Asia, or the 30 most important chemical elements). I would like us to consider having a realignment period after August 31st, where we would focus on the question, "What still needs to be in V0.5?" We can perhaps set up a list - sort of "Vital articles plus" and work through that list. We aim to edit/review that by September 30th, or later if it looks really long. Meanwhile we can leave the general nominations page open - we don't have a torrent of nominations! Once that realignment list is all checked off, we go to press. Thoughts? Ideas? Walkerma 16:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree overall. I have been concerned about the balance of 0.5. On later releases, or editions, I would suggest using importance as the primary factor, or baseline list to work from, over quality. Maurreen 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

End of copied section

[edit] New discussion

What do people think about this issue? Should we close nominations after August 31, as originally proposed, or keep things open? Do people have any ideas for helping us achieve more balance- VA reviews, lists of top-importance topics from top-level WikiProjects? Thanks, Walkerma 04:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There a few ways this could be done. I'm ruminating on more of a reply, but I think a large factor is how much time you want to give it, which could help decide other things. I'm guesstimating maybe 400 articles were approved in one month and 200 the second month, so it might be able to continue at the pace of 200 per month. Maurreen 05:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Numbers are as follows: Began on May 25. We had 75 by Jun 1st, then another 208 added by Jul 1st and a further 334 added by Aug 1st. Qualitatively that's an initial flurry, then a slowdown, then a clear pickup in speed. If you (Maurreen) & I were to look over just the countries, that would add a lot to the total. The same would apply to the Core Topics, which have assessments to hand to make the job even easier. Personally I don't want the project to drag on past the autumn, as long as we have the countries and core topics as a bare minimum of balance. Walkerma 05:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would lean toward closing the general nominations the sooner the better, but with at least a week's notice. I'm not sure I (Maurreen) am up to giving half the countries a quality review. We might not need all the core topics. See the next section, list below.

Also, we might consider supra sections -- roughly speaking, a microcyclopedia that is balanced, plus a showcase (the stuff that is not balanced). Maurreen 09:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

For the sake of efficiency and balance, we could handle coutries essentially similarly to how FAs are now being handled. That is, include them unless decided otherwise. Maurreen 16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm working with that assumption, and I'm hoping we can work through Country Review very quickly. When you say "quality review" do you mean "a thorough review" or "a review of quality"? If we take your last sentence as policy, "Include them unless decided otherwise" then only the latter is necessary. Indeed, we could hardly (say) countries A, B, C, D, E from a region then exclude country F because it's only Start; the review is more a quick check for us to spot any glaring problems so we have time to fix them. Based on the 70 or so countries I've looked at, all of them are B or above, and a handful have POV issues going on. Assuming all the countries are like that, I think we can race through the list. They all have a standard format which makes it easier: Intro - (Name in some) - History - Politics - Administrative divisions - Geography - Economy - Demographics - Culture - References. If those sections are all there and not written abysmally, then it's at least a B. Some countries have "no culture" (I won't list them here!) but that's the only blank section I've found. So I think we can get countries done very quickly, and that will give us a good foundation to build on. Walkerma 18:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Mainly by "quality review" I meant "thorough review". But as this discussion is evolving, we're at least leaning toward essentially just making sure that we have all the country articles and that none of them will embarrass us, more or less, right? Hopefully, if any are awful, we'd be able to see it and to fix it quickly.

The initial evaluations of core topics was very cursory on my part. It took me less than five minutes on each article. Is that what you have in mind for the countries? Maurreen 03:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing priorities

Here is a rough list of priority items we are missing. It does not include geography or places. Maurreen 09:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The missing articles you list below are EXTREMELY helpful, thank you! I will try to set up a page for them, (perhaps /Missing articles?, and I think we should consider all of these as nominated. A few of them like Dance are already on the noms list, but most are not. Many, many thanks for these lists, Walkerma 18:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm glad you like them. It took me a good while to do. I tried to consider the context and balance of the entries that had already been included, if that's clear at all.

Some historic figures and the like need to be added to balance the celebrities, but that was more detail than I felt up to at the time. Maurreen 03:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see Agriculture items in the proposals; did I miss it? I believe it belongs under "natural science and technology"? I propose Wheat, Rice, Cotton, Flax, Animal husbandry (currently not a good article, but high priority imo), Cattle, Chicken, Fishing, to begin. RickP 11:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Agriculture is not missing. It has already be approved.

I'm not sure that agriculture many agriculture subjects need to be included. It's not that I don't think it's important, but I'm trying to move this toward overall balance and keep the number of missing priorities fairly small.

So, maybe half as many farming topics? Or put some of them under "midlevel missing"? Maurreen 16:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it more, if these articles of sufficient quality, it would be even better to nominate them through the standard process. Maurreen 03:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I nominated:

• Wheat, Potato (Rice is already on the 0.5 list)
• Cattle, Chicken, Fishing
• Coffee
• Wool

RickP 11:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humanities

1. Architecture
2. Bible
3. Dance
4. Ernest Hemingway - GA - Maurreen 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Literature
6. Painting?
7. Philosophy
8. Religion
9. Sculpture?
10. Theater

[edit] Missing natural science and technology

1. Science or Natural science

Nominated Science... NCurse _work 11:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Biology and medicine

1. Animal
2. Plant

Nominated both... NCurse _work 11:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Earth sciences

One or more of the following:

1. Earth - already included. NCurse _work 11:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
2. Geology
3. Mineral

Nominated both... NCurse _work 11:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating those. Maurreen 21:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Weather -- One or more of the following:

1. Climate
2. Meteorology
3. Weather

Physical sciences, other than earth

1. Astronomy
2. Atom
3. Chemistry or Chemical
4. Chemical element
5. Universe

Technology

1. Automobile
2. Energy
3. Engineering
4. Fuel
5. Ship
6. Technology
7. Tool
8. Train

[edit] Everyday life

1. Clothing
2. Food
3. Home or House
4. Jesse Owens
5. Language
6. Mass media
7. Jackie Robinson

Recreation

One or more of the following:

1. Game
2. Leisure
3. Recreation
4. Sports

[edit] Society and social science

1. Adam Smith
2. Adolf Hitler
3. Anthropology
4. Business
5. Congo war?
6. Government or the like
7. History of the world
8. Napoleon
9. People -- Probably several leaders and historical people.
10. Psychology or the like
11. War
12. Weapon

[edit] Missing biographies

These are the top nine as I see them. After the top four, a number of people could be serious major contenders. Maurreen 07:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Artists

1. Michaelangelo
2. Leonardo da Vinci

Politicians and leaders,

1. Winston Churchill
2.  B  Adolf Hitler
3.  B  Napoleon I of France
4. George Washington

Philosophers

1.  B  Confucius
2. John Locke
3. Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Religious figures

1.  B  Gautama Buddha
2. Jesus
3.  B  Muhammad

Scientists

1. Charles Darwin
2. Albert Einstein
3. Sigmund Freud
4. Galileo Galilei
5. Isaac Newton

[edit] Missing midlevel items

This is a rough list. It does not include geography or places.

Art, 3

Leonardo Da Vinci | Michelangelo | Frank Lloyd Wright

Business and economics, 2

Employment | Finance

Education, 5

Caltech | Cambridge University | MIT | Ivy League | Oxford University

History, at least 4

Probably several people | Non-Western history or separate articles for different regions or continents | Ancient history or Ancient world | Middle Ages | Modern history

Literature, 1

Fiction or Novel

Media, 4

Broadcasting | Charlie Chaplin | Alfred Hitchcock | Laurence Olivier

Music, 3

Beethoven | Elvis Presley | Mozart

Philosophy, 3

Ethics | Plato | Socrates

Politics and government

Probably several people, etc.

Maurreen 16:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Later suggestions by someone not involved with Version 0.5

Freddie Mercury, Bohemian Rhapsody.

Great though both of these are, we have Queen I suggest we hold them over for nomination in V0.7 - neither are FAs or top 1000 topics, and officially nominations have closed. Walkerma 04:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deadline?

What is the date of deadline? What if we reach it? What will happen then? NCurse _work 15:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Please comment in the above discussion at #Realignment period! I was hoping more people would comment! I'm expecting that we will close general outsiders' nomination on August 31 as planned, but once we close nominations we will keep reviewing until we are finished. We mainly need to decide what other things we need to nominate/review, and come up with a deadline for finishing the reviews. I'd like people to finish the FA reviews they signed up for by August 31 if they can so we have that out of the way. Walkerma 17:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

If we would get onto it, we could finish FA reviews in some days. Anyway, we should appoint "topic-leaders" who would be responsible for a specific topic. They should list all articles that are still missing in their field in a subpage. I think this is the best way not to leave anything important article out. NCurse _work 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good suggestion! We could ask people to comment on the fields they picked for FA review, perhaps. We should use Maurreen's above list as a starting point. Once I finish with exams (one tomorrow and another Thursday, then the marking) I can set up such a page if there are no objections. Walkerma 03:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

"List of European countries and all countries listed there (52 in all) are now included." Are they counted? So are they in the Total: 696? NCurse _work 06:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like us to aim to finish reviews by September 30 if possible. Anyone disagree? Walkerma 20:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Red links in release versions?

Technicality: are 0.5 and 1.0 going to be processed by a bot that unlinks wikilinks to articles not included in the release? RickP 06:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've always wondered about that. :) Walkerma will reply... And what about images? What about main articles in the sections? External links? NCurse _work 07:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed that some pages in ver 0.5 retains the phrase see this page, but it is a red link and only the red link marking is removed leaving rather meaningless phrase without a link. Usually the page can be rewitten to encluce the linked page in a sentence which makes sense. Some times there is a whole section called See also and there is a whole list of unlinked redlinks, which can be a bit irritating. Snowman 10:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

We'll be using User:BozMo's scripts from the SOS CD, this removes redlinks and "See also" sections. We are also now in touch with the Polish 1.0 people, so we'll take a look at their code as well. We should probably get a group of people started on this in the next couple of weeks. Fancy helping us? Walkerma 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

Why does the template show nothing as assessed for importance? If it is being done, why can't I find a link to where it is taking place so that I can help? — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 02:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Currently we are not using the importance template, it doesn't really help us. Also, determining importance can cause upset to some people who have their article classed as "unimportant". In practice, you can regard anything in Core Topics or any country as "Top-Importance", then after that it's up for debate - but let's not spend time debating! Cheers, Walkerma 05:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biographies

The biography wikiproject is making a list of the most important 200 bios. We are up to about 180. Maurreen 08:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization

Here's a concern that depends on how you organize the CD. Joan of Arc appears on your project page under military biographies. She's certainly that, yet she's also a canonized saint (and a very popular one). It's taken careful editing to balance different aspects of her fame for the article. Would it be possible to cross-reference her? If you develop a general biography heading that might be still better. Durova 04:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of cases like this - is Benjamin Franklin a politician, a figure from history, or a prominent scientist? (He's all 3). Like with books in a library, we can only put the article in one place in our list - and it tends to go where the nominator put it. But for the CD I hope we will be able to put things in multiple categories, as in the online Wikipedia, e.g. Biographies of French people, saints, military figures. Incidentally, I have put in a request for saint nominations, but had no response so far. Thanks, Walkerma 05:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{V0.5}}

Since {{V0.5}} is generally used as a secondary assessment, at best—in other words, there is almost always at least one WikiProject template with an assessment already on the talk page when the 0.5 template is added—I thought it might be neater to try and condense this template somewhat. Hence, my edit here; any comments would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 04:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, as the project assessments spread across Wikipedia, we don't need the prominent A-Class or whatever like we used to. I like the change, I'm a believer in keeping templates reasonably small. While we're on the subject, I blundered my way through the creation of a template called {{Chemical Element}}, now being tested at Talk:Samarium (my favourite element!). Since all the elements of significance are in Version 0.5, I proposed to the Elements WikiProject (which had no template) that I combine the two, they seemed OK with that (though only the main person there replied). You'll notice, Kirill, that the V0.5 part is even less prominent! Let me know if you see any obvious bugs, I'm a bit like The Sorcerer's Apprentice when writing templates. I wanted to test out the idea of us moving towards combined templates - I think once we have a lot of articles assessed we might be able to set up a scheme where we simply include the version # in a project template to generate our Version X.X lists. Walkerma 04:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's next?

I've posted some ideas on what we still have to do before publication here. Please can you comment on these? Thanks, Walkerma 17:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 main sections

I'd like to suggest that the release might have two main sections: the "cyclopedia" and a "showcase." The cyclopedia would have more balance; the showcase could be considered extra. This setup could reduce the potential for complaints that the release has x but not y. Maurreen 17:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good! Things are still rather fluid right now, and I expect that the two will be quite well joined, but it's a nice approach. Walkerma 02:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewers please sign up!

I have set up a page called Wikipedia:Version 0.5/To do, which lists the outstanding tasks. We have about four weeks to try and get through various lists - we can do most of this if each reviewer can take on about 40 articles, or 10 a week. If you review sets of similar articles together it can often go quite quickly - up to 10/hour. I don't think we'll get through every article on every list - but let's try to do what we can. The good news - after Sept 30, all reviewers can take a well-deserved break for a while. Please sign up on the new page for something, to help us through this final review stage! Thanks, Walkerma

I'm going though important articles for the rest of the night. I would try to add as many as possible. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Core biographies

Following Walkerma's suggestion on the "to do" page, I've created a review page for the core biographies. The review process will be similar to FA review. I haven't yet checked to see which of the 200 are already nominees or have already passed, so I guess that's the first step. -- bcasterline • talk 04:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Please sign up to help review - most of those names are "must-haves" for any encyclopedia. Walkerma 04:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nature

I'd like to approve Nature, but all the categories are too narrow. Thoughts? Maurreen 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

"Geography and places"? "Unclassified Places" is pretty vague -- although nature isn't really comparable to Antarctica, the other article under that heading. -- bcasterline • talk 00:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe for now we just need an extra section on the page called "Miscellaneous," as there will be other core topics like this. I think our plan for the actual release was to use something similar to the categories found on the nominations page, as these match with the template categories, by which Nature would go under category=Natsci (Natural sciences) in the template. The list as it is now is based on Silence's test, which no one found time to switch back. Walkerma 00:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now created a Miscellaneous section for these types of things. It'll be small, but this isn't the first time we've had this problem. Walkerma 01:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy VII??

Is it just me and firefox or is FFVII listed twice? Also, Video games are popular pages, but they have no need here. People that end up grabbing a CD of wikipedia don't buy it for video game knowledge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.14.146.146 (talk • contribs) .

You're right, it got double-listed in the "recent additions", but that's not critical. I think it was chosen because we have a set of featured articles (FAs) on the Final Fantasy series, and we are trying to showcase a lot of our FAs. OK, it's not traditional encyclopedia stuff, but it may appeal to some readers. Don't worry, we're trying to cover the basic stuff as best we can, these articles could be seen as a bonus read. Walkerma 01:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it legal for WP CDs to be sold? If the CD is sold they'd care about having game stuff, but if it's free they shouldn't mind. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 ^{(T | C | @)} 04:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand, there is nothing in GFDL to stop someone selling copies of the CD, as long as they acknowledge Wikipedia as the source. We plan to make the Version 0.5 collection available for free download, with production/distribution on CD for more-or-less cost by a publisher; the Foundation itself is not in the business of publishing or of turning a profit. It will be made clear in the CD description that the collection is made up of a core of important topics, with an emphasis on Geography, but with perhaps 500 articles (out of the expected 1900 or so) on less important topics, used to showcase some of our FAs. Walkerma 05:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main articles of a subject (Literature: Literature, Geology and _:Geology, _)

Right now, we put these in the miscellaneous section, but they should probably have their own section because they are very important. Also, a person looking for "Literature" would not be able to find it. There should either be a "main articles" section for each subject or an entire top-level tree containing all the other top-level trees and their main articles. Which one would work better — any thoughts? Eyu100 05:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images on the assessment tags

I don't have a problem with there being images on the assessment tags and all, but they should probably be made transparent, because they don't look very good as is. I'm not capable of working with .svg files, so I can't do it myself. --Coredesat (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Common Unix Printing System on FAR

Common Unix Printing System have been put on FAR, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Common Unix Printing System _→AzaToth 10:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, we might need to delist that if the review finds serious flaws. Walkerma 02:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of the misc section idea

Why aren't Demosthenes & Leonardo da Vinci in the Historical figures subsection? Also, the Food and drink section could be Goods which would be able to include such topic as shoe polish in a subsection called Household objects or something like it. Lincher 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to make those changes, unless anyone objects. I found Leonardo very hard to place - he deserves to sit alongside painters such as Michelangelo, and also alongside scientists/inventors like Galileo. We need to be able to put him in at least three categories in version 0.5. Walkerma 02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the misc section a bit useless by itself. If it was as populated as the other sections then fine but it is not. I agree that LDV should be in three sections but the first thing he is known for is painting, as he started painting before everything, the rest came with it. Lincher 02:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it can be very valuable as a holding place, and for that reason it should be small, and should disappear in the finished Version 0.5, though. People usually move things out as you're doing. It's 3am and you're tired, you've just reviewed 19 articles (as I did tonight), you think, "Where the heck does this go," you can stick it in Misc. Interesting your comment on LDV, I watched a program on public TV recently - he is best known for painting, but back then (roughly speaking) artist = artisan = engineer. He studied anatomy, how to build things, mathematics and painting, because those were things artists were expected to know. It seems there has been a resurgence of interest in LDV's machines, and I can even see a time when he becomes more known for that. That's all academic, though, and I'd be happy to see him under Painters or Historical Figures. Thanks a lot, Walkerma 05:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I know what reviewing is all about, I lend a hand with it at GA and it is a hassle because they are all of different level. If you ever need me for help on some reviewing, just pop by my user page or send articles to review in GAC and I will gladly review them. Lincher 14:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End of reviewing

At last it looks as if we are reaching the end of reviewing, and we have a pretty good collection of articles. Assuming that we finish Core Topics (very likely), I'd like to propose we end the reviewing process at the end of next Saturday (November 11th). If we haven't reviewed every FA and GA by then it's not a problem IMHO - we have a good core of important topics covered, and we should now start focussing on producing the final product. After our IRC discussion earlier tonight, we have a possible publisher willing to release Version 0.5, although we need to sort out details of an agreement before we can be sure. I think we need to start working on getting the articles and pictures organised and formatted properly, and running scripts for obvious vandalism, gratuitous bad language, cleanup tags etc. It would be nice to get the CD produced in time for (fairly late?) Christmas shoppers, say by the end of November, even if it is just a test! Does this seem reasonable? Walkerma 04:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for not being able to go to the meeting earlier today, but I was away from my computer at the time. I think that is very reasonable, and hopefully the publisher (whoever that is!) will tell us what is needed. Titoxd^(?!?) 04:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is great. It seems like there has been very little progress on V0.5 for the past month. I wasn't there for the later part of the meeting; what is the publisher? Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 05:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we've had much more progress in the last month than we had in September! Partly thanks to you, Eyu! Still, we are almost there. I've emailed you the log and info on the publisher - we'll make the publisher info public once we have formalized the agreement. Cheers, Walkerma 07:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] a missclassification

Having noticed that Cryptography has been chosen for v 0.5 (for which I thank those involved on behalf of we in the WP crypto corner), I have finally realized it's been misclassified under the wrong heading. Cryptograpy is a branch of engineering (see cryptosystem and cryptographic engineering) not a branch of mathematics. It's methods are indeed mathematical in many respects, and its uses mathematical results (eg, in re randomness) heavily. But it is a practical enterprise, and with G H Hardy's view ringing in my head, I must suggest that it be moved to a more appropriate heading. ww 09:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've moved it into the Engineering category. Thanks for the clarification! Walkerma 05:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CD assembly, reader

Thanks, folks, for all this work. The biglist I got from Eyu weighs in at 1494 articles - but I think a build script should pull directly from the category. Perhaps User:Titoxd could come up with a one-liner for us ? Regarding a reader - what would this be ? A Windows executable ? What about Mac or Linux ? I still think a javascript search is the way to go. Wizzy…☎ 07:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, we still are trying to double-check it... you can see that discussion here. Titoxd^(?!?) 16:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like an out-of-date list, the total should be around 1960 articles. User:Kelson (French Wikipedia) is evaluating an offline reader for us, it includes a search capability. He should be able to let us know tomorrow how it went. See the ToDo list, please add/update that page as you make progress. Must get to lab. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, the elements are not included in this listing, nor the countries... I've added the countries, but I'm running out of time to do the elements. :( Titoxd^(?!?) 17:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll add them tonight. Walkerma 21:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)