Web Analytics

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team

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)
WIKISORT (Talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

If you are new to this page, please see the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/FAQs.


Core topics discussions – Wiki sort discussions – FAs first discussions – Work via WikiProjects discussions – Pushing to 1.0 discussions


Contents

[edit] Archives

[edit] Wikisort software suggestion

I think it would be easier to use a bot + a script. The script would create a "rate" tab on each article and post the rating to a user subpage. The bot would look at the ratings on the user subpage and get the final rating somehow. This way, we don't have to wait for the developers to make changes to the software because the bot can be run by one user and the scripts can be posted on the scripts page. We could make the script more well known by posting it on the village pump. The bot doesn't need to be well known because only a single user has to run it. I posted this on the Wikisort discussion page too. Eyu100 23:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The script (untested, requires addTab):

function write_to_ratings_page() {

document.ca-edit.click();
document.editform.wpTextbox1.value = document.editform.wpTextbox1.value + "(" + quality + " and " + importance + " and " + pagename + ")";
document.editform.wpSummary.value = "Added rating";
document.editform.wpMinoredit.checked = true;
document.editform.submit();

}

function get_rating() { var quality=prompt("Please enter a quality rating from 1 to 6, 1 is stub, 6 is FA","") var importance=prompt("Please enter an importance rating from 1 to 4, 1 is low, 4 is top","") }

function rate() {

  get_rating();
  document.ca-cumbersome_tab.click();
  write_to_ratings_page();

}

addOnloadHook(

function() { 
  var pagename=getPname();
  addTab("javascript:rate()", "rate", "ca-rate", "Rate this page", "");
  addTab("http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eyu100/Bot_area", "DO NOT CLICK THIS", "ca-cumbersome_tab", "PLEASE _DON'T_ CLICK THIS", "");
}

);

Sorry your note has been ignored. But this is too technical for me. Maurreen 16:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Work remaining for version 0.5

We are now close to the ending of general nominations for Version 0.5 on August 31, 2006. However, a lot remains to be done before we publish (October/November?), and the outstanding tasks are summarised below. I have probably left out a few things, please feel free to add them. Some questions also need to be answered. I am posting this here rather than just at V0.5, because this may well involve people who have not worked with Version 0.5 as yet. The work falls into two main categories, (A) completion of the ongoing article selection and (B) pre-publication work. For (B) I propose that we set up a Publication task force in the next week or so to work on the following:

[edit] pre-publication work

  1. How should we publish this? As I understand it, the Torrent folks are ready to make downloads available as soon as we have our compilation together. We can presumably make other downloads available too. The main purpose of V0.5 was to test the process, so we could make it a small private CD release if we wanted (see no. 2!), running off a few hundred CDs is not an expensive job. I would argue, though, that we should also pilot the publication process by finding a publisher interested in working with us for Version 1.0 etc. They might well want to test the waters themselves, so they may like V0.5. In that case we need to
  2. Find a publisher. We had a publisher slightly interested last year, but alas that has evaporated. Webaroo (see earlier post on this page) seems like mainly software, not content. Any suggestions? The Poles and Germans found a natural fit with companies specialising in books & CDs on computer-related topics. I'm making a few phone calls myself.
  3. Get the final format agreed upon, then ready for publication. What do we want as a "front end" - should we use the SOS CD front end? Can we use something from the German or Polish WP1.0, or use Emmanuel's software being prepared for the French V1.0? Or should we look at Webaroo?
  4. We also need format the articles for offline release. This involves running scripts to turn redlinks into plain text, organising pictures, etc.
  5. Copyright work - the copyright tags on all pictures will need to be checked. I would propose getting the publisher to do that, they would probably want to do that anyway.
  6. How do we make sure that people can find the articles? We can have categories, but we'll also want some redirects and lists. In the article selection, we've often tried to add in a suitable list to match the set of articles.

What do people think of this? Should we set up a task force? Walkerma 06:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • A few comments, point by point:
    1. The method of publication depends on the exact size of the release; we can probably get away with a hacked, full-featured but read-only version of MediaWiki with 1,500 articles, but we would need for someone to create some sort of installer that puts PHP, MySQL, MediaWiki, and perhaps Apache on a CD, and a database import with the full edit history of the selected articles (to comply with the GFDL). However, this will probably won't scale for 1.0, so we may want to find a way to get dedicated reader software. Should it be a CD or a DVD?
I don't think you need to do this (and people won't like an installer) . you should go for a version which only requires a browser like WPCD did. That was 2000 articles and took 180M so you could get 5000 on a CD IF (like WPCD) you settle for thumbnails only for the images.--BozMo talk 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    1. We can certainly try Lulu Press or something similar, like it was done for Wikijunior Big Cats,[1] but please run that by the Static Content subcommittee first. We had a huge discussion about the Wikijunior as it was done by an individual, rather than the Foundation; we do not want to do the same "mistake" again. Ideally, contact Anthere about it, as she will likely be the one most interested in this. However, as you all know, the Board elections are coming, so that should be done sooner than later.
If the board want to get involved they have to shorten the current one year plus response times --BozMo talk 19:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
eh :-) I certainly would not recommand having the whole stuff approved by the board. For two main reasons. One is slowliness from the board. The second is that it is very important that we avoid setting up a default process where any reuse of content, or any printing of content has to be approved by the board, or by the Foundation. I think that was the sense of the comment made above. It is best to contact the special project committee for three reasons. One is that we need to ensure that we do not have several similar initiatives ongoing, meeting similar problems and each trying to solve it. In this sense, I think it is best we somehow find a place where we can pool experiences. Second, we may (or may not) have "contact" with poeple who could help ease the problems you are meeting; Maybe technical issues, maybe publishing issues etc... Third, it is best to know, at least the first time, exactly where legal issues stand. Imho Anthere
    1. I don't have any preference for the front end, but am concerned with how the back end would work more.
    2. This would be something done by the publisher, agreed, but we should decide whether we are going to use fair use pictures or not. A list of problematic tags is available at Wikimedia and Mandriva on Meta.
    3. I have no clue about the redirects. We can use MediaWiki's built-in search function (it is going to be a static version, so there's no need to worry about purging searchindex tables), but we always have Special:Prefixindex and Special:Allpages, which can be used a bit creatively to provide an alphabetical index.
  • That's just a few thoughts... Titoxd(?!?) 06:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Other thoughts:

  • Don't forget Pediapress for printing.
  • We should meet to talk about this and other developments this coming week. Are Wed or Thurs evenings (EST) good for you? I believe Titoxd posed the same question more completely elsewhere.
  • Scriptwriting is a big part of this; getting a team of a few writers who can work together will greatly help stick to a timeline. +sj + 02:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Pediapress (pediapressDOTcom/)does indeed look very interesting, thanks for that! Either Wed or Thur night is good for me. As for scripts, can't we base this on User:BozMo's scripts from the SOS CD? I think he would be happy to fix shortcomings in those scripts as he is planning a new release of the SOS CD later this year. Thanks, Walkerma 04:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thursday night is probably best for me (although my schedule this week is quite unpredictable, so I don't know if I'll be able to make it anyways). I recall that the pediapress site had some issue with css in templates when I last looked at it; I'll have to see if they're still present. Kirill Lokshin 04:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to be around when you are talking about such issues; Alas, I am away on wenesday. Might be back on time for thursday. I'll check in case I am back early enough. Anthere

Hi,

I work for Wikimedia France to put the french Wikipedia (or a part of it) on a DVD. I'm software developer , and have done two things :

  • a good looking HTML dump of the whole french Wikipedia. (http://sd-2812.dedibox.fr/static/)
  • A prototype of an offline-reader software, portable, with search engine, showing the HTML dump pages (xulrunner + xapian) .

I made a demonstration of both to Walkerman during Wikimania.

I propose myself to do the static HTML static dump. But for that I need an access of the english Wikipedia database, because the database is very very big (with the whole history) and I will be difficult to replicate it. I hope this problem will be discussed next week end, during the meeting.

My software has to be a little bit reworked to be usable, but it does I think what you need :

  • Good looking articles
  • Search engine feature (full text).

I'm now moving to a new country (Zürich - Suisse) ; so I will not be able to invest much time during september. But in any case the whole thing can be done for the end of november, probably october.

Kelson 10:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misc. comments

I agree with considering the publish-on-demand model, such as Lulu or maybe Cafe Press. I don't think I have any objection to any of the above. Maurreen 10:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Completing the article selection

As for finishing up the article selection, I see things this way:

  1. Version 0.5 won't be a perfect balance of topics, but we should try and cover the basics, then go deeper on certain subjects covered well in FAs.
  2. Nominations close soon, but members of the review team need to be able to review and add more articles.
  3. As I mentioned previously here, we need to balance things out better - we have a lot of FAs on relatively obscure topics, and fewer articles on on core topics and vital articles. We need to review Core Topics and VAs, as well as countries/places, plus any other high-importance topics or sets of topics we should include (set noms are very useful ways to add in a lot!). I'd like to set up a new page called Wikipedia:Version 0.5/Missing articles where we could cross off articles as we review them. Fortunately Maurreen has given us this list as a starting point. I would also like to consider the top 200 biographies as top priority for us to include, this is a new list since we started V0.5 but it's extremely valuable.
  4. I propose we do this work through the existing V0.5 infrastructure (after adding the new Missing Articles page) and aim to finish reviewing on 30 September. We have a few more sections of FAs to cover, plus the re-balancing that I mentioned. It sounds a lot, but I think we'll reach 1000 reviewed by month's end. Is this date OK?

[edit] Other points

I (Walkerma) have a record number of organic chem students to teach this fall (~60), starting Monday, and I'm up for tenure next spring, so I will not be able to put in loads of hours once the semester takes hold (Sept is usually a bit lighter). I will be able to check in most days, but often I will have to rely on my colleagues here to keep things pushing forward. This project languished for years, so if we produce even a small CD of 1400 articles we can feel proud that we have finally broken through. And once we've done it once, it'll be easier next time - and with project article assessments pouring in (around 6000 new ones added last night alone!) we may be able to set up new ways of selecting articles - but that's for another discussion. Please (if you've read this far!) give your specific thoughts on whether we should set up a publication team/taskforce, the timing, along with other ideas or answers to my questions. Thanks for all your work so far! Walkerma 06:25, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say our highest priority at this point would be to drag the keisters of the German and Polish editors who were responsible for their releases for help... ;). They, as well as a few members from SPC, can (should?) oversee this work, with of course all of us doing the same thing. Whether we consider it a task force or a different name is a different subject. :P Overall, we need more hands to do the few things that remain to be done. Titoxd(?!?) 06:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup, getting the other languages and the SPC involved is probably needed. We can wrap up assessments here, but if we're planning to do anything more sophisticated than a downloadable release, we'll need to find an actual publisher.
One other point to consider: Anthere noted at Wikimania that trying to publish any BLP articles was likely to be an extremely bad idea from a legal standpoint, so it may be necessary to strip those out of the 0.5 lists even if they've been approved. Kirill Lokshin 19:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of SPC, Sj has asked me if we can have a meeting on IRC with the Static Content Subcommittee this week. When would it be ideal for everyone? Titoxd(?!?) 00:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the meeting last night (UTC). Ideal for me would be any evening EST this week (apart from Sunday), i.e., around 00:01 till 06:00 UTC. If we're going to talk with Europeans, though, we probably have to do this earlier in the day - Tuesday is a very good day for me any time, and Friday is mostly open after 18:00 UTC. In the meantime I'll try to contact (via Wikipedia) Anthere (Board), Polimerik (pl), Mathias Schindler (de) and Emmanuel (Kelson) (fr). Please feel free to contact other people you know. One problem with meta is that it seems dead most of the time, including the Static Content talk, but hopefully we can wake it up for this. Walkerma 01:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I think we should join this: meta:Talk:Special_projects_committee#September_3_2006.2C_2000_UTC Polimerek 10:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I'll be there :-) Anthere

[edit] Have automated user ratings finally arrived???

Folks here might enjoy this - is it a first for us? Seriously, it's good to get feedback like this - sadly I agree with it (though I reverted it for the bot's sake). Walkerma 03:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] other thoughts

You are right about navigation being very important (we need more), but I think you also need to look at the section exclude suggestions I made. SOS have some volunteers lined up for Oct to do the next revision (which will be 500- articles and inevitably include all of the ones you have approved by then): I am happy to run the same script on 0.5 and both post and zip it up somewhere for you to look at and think about. That should as least make the remaining wish list easier. We have got a couple of possible publishers in dialogue for our next version: I guess we would converge at that point. --BozMo talk 19:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish DVD

I was asked by Walkerma to write something. Our approach is quite different. We have started from the other side - by looking for a company to work with. We are going to publish a Polish Wikipedia "as is" just by removing obvious general knowlege mistakes, POV and copyright violations, but without selecting articles or serious changing its content. IMHO the choice of company should be based on its ability to accept GNU FDL licence and power of distribution and marketing. We have just choosen a Polish company which is strong on local market - it is able to distribute and advertise their product all over the country. I guess in case of English Wikipedia it is more tricky. The best choice should be a company able to distribute the CD/DVD in all English spoken countries, or you may cooperate with several companies - one by each country? Polimerek 21:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicharts

People here (and in the WikiProjects) will be very interested to hear that there is now a list available showing the most viewed articles (top 100). Of course I'm disappointed that cannabis (drug) is the only chemistry article (#86) other than periodic table (#19), whereas list of gay porn stars made #4. Maybe core topics should have more sex articles in it??!! This list will be very useful, though, particularly if we can get it expanded to a top 1000 like this old list. Walkerma 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but... where is this new list? ;-) Kirill Lokshin 02:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basis for inclusion in WP1.0

Can anyone tell me what the presumed standard for inclusion in 1.0 is, preferably in terms of the assessment classes? Aside from the implied "improve article to next rung in the assessment ladder", it's not at all clear how the different article classes are "actioned" in any meaningfully distinct way. Alai 16:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

In practical terms, articles at the "B-Class" level have been regularly included in 0.5; and I think (though I may be mistaken here) that some "Start-Class" articles on particularly important topics have also made it in. It's a bit too early to give a definitive answer beyond that, though.
(And we shouldn't underestimate the benefits of the "improve article to next rung in the assessment ladder" approach, either!) Kirill Lokshin 17:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not too early as it effects the design of the assessment system, and the seemingly-consequently mass-tagging of hundreds of thousands of articles, however. If the threshold is going to be B-Class+special-pleading, then for inclusion purposes, the distinctions "above" B-class, and between start-class and stub-class are effectively moot. I don't seek to downplay the effects of the "rung" aspect, and I'm sure it's only a matter of time before someone announces their 1FA+3ACA+10+GA+30BCA adminship standard, but several of these exist independently of this project, and it's not clear to me that simply multiplying the number of classes increases any such benefit in and of itself. Furthermore, if it's orthogonal to the "include or exclude", or "improve to the point of being includible" purposes of this project, which I'd assume it's fundamentally about (if it's not ultimately just assessment for assessment's sake), then the more energy spent on the one, then necessarily the less spent on the other. Alai 17:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
There's two different perspectives here, though. The 1.0 project is generally concerned with the include/exclude distinction, but it's basically getting a free ride from the WikiProjects, which are concerned more with a generalized assessment scheme than with any particular cutoff. Kirill Lokshin 17:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
My main concern is with the "stub-class articles"; these seem to be the least useful "assessments", especially if done automatically, as they'd have to make it all the way to at least B-class (and/or be core topics) to be in danger of inclusion, and yet are responsible for the huge preponderance of such "assessments", which are being done in such a way as to exactly duplicate their being tagged as stubs in the first place. (Over 100,000 such for the biographies alone already, and well over 500,000 (and still growing) if this is carried out for every possible article currently tagged as a stub. Wouldn't it be better to, if not get rid of this article class entirely (which I'd personally favour) then to only make it the practice to only tag them as such where there's some independent need to? e.g. a core topic that's a currently a stub, and is therefore a WP1.0-identified urgent case for expansion, or an article that's not tagged as a stub, but that would be a stub-class article for some reason or another (that largely eludes me, I must admit). Simply mass-tagging all "stubs" as being "stub-class articles" seems to be logically redundant, and to introduce a maintenance overhead and and consistency issue, while imposing an additional labour, server load, database size and cognitive burden (talk pages turning "blue" for no meaningful reason). Alai 18:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's try to take this from the top, then: (I wonder if we need to make a FAQ about this...)
  • The talk page templates will continue to be applied regardless of whether there's an assessment associated with them at the time; they're far too useful in other ways. (See this attempt to stop the tagging; it was shouted down with extreme speed.)
  • If we do not assess stubs, we're left with a vast pool of "unassessed" articles which may be either (a) stubs or (b) not stubs, but actually unassessed. The only way to separate these two (so that the unassessed ones can get their assessments) is, coincidentally, to tag the stubs explicitly—which brings us back to where we started.
  • Because the assessments are done on a per-WikiProject basis, they often differ in scope from various stub types, and are not subject to the same regulations. (I think we ought to stop beating this particular deceased equine at this point.)
  • The assessments provide significant benefits beyond the functionality of stub tags, such as the automatic generation of statistics and logs of tag addition, removal, and changes.
There is, in short, nothing to be gained in practical terms by quibbling over the distinction between stub tags and stub assessments. While the two are similar in that they both identify "stubs", their structure and operation is sufficiently different to make both worthwhile.
(I am also rather concerned that you're misrepresenting the biography tagging; the ~100,000 entries were tagged on the basis of being in Category:Living people, and their selection has absolutely nothing to do with their being—or not being—stubs.) Kirill Lokshin 20:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
From my perspective, I think that in future release versions of Wikipedia 0.X, 1.0 and beyond, we will need to use many B-Class articles in order to get the coverage we need (assuming we want to expand to 10-20,000 articles). Maurreen (who was tentatively signed up to oversee version 1.0) may disagree, but in one of her recent comments she said, "On later releases, or editions, I would suggest using importance as the primary factor, or baseline list to work from, over quality." I'm moving in that direction too, so in the next version I expect:
  • Any B-Class article on an important subject will probably make it in.
  • Any Start-Class article needed to complete a set will probably make it in, or on a really major topic, but in general most Start-Class articles will not be included. See Rivers for an example likely to be in V0.5- no one has yet suggested removing the Yellow River from the list (note that there is a geography emphasis in V0.5).
The result of that will mean: Start means the project can fairly easily get up to B (to get an important article into VX.X); Stub means a lot more work is needed to get it to B. That will help a project decide which articles should be targeted first, based on their priorities.
I think WikiProjects are mainly doing this work because it helps them organise things - getting onto the offline releases is not their top priority. I also agree with Kirill's logic in his argument above. Hope this helps, Walkerma 21:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the additional input, Walkerma. I think it would be worthwhile putting to the wikiprojects in those terms, or at any rate saying this explicitly on this project's "front page", rather than creating the expectation that the WP1.0 Six Point Plan is an objective unto itself, which seems to be the basis on which these mass-tagging exercises are being organised. ("WP1.0 says these classes exist, therefore there must be categories for them; these categories exist, therefore have to be filled out, by bot as necessary.") If they want to go ahead with categorising everything in sight regardless, then so be it. Focussing on the "important" topics, and on the quality threshold required for those articles, should result in more activity in the desired direction, as opposed to effort being expended on articles unlikely to make it in, in any event. (It also seems to me unclear what value the additional level of A-class is, but that's another matter, and not really my immediate concern.) Alai 03:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
You're right, we should probably put something more about this on the main page. When this scheme got going about 4 months ago it was simply one sub-project of one sub-project of WP:1.0, overseen by about 3 people! We can really only make things really specific once we have agreed on specifications for WP1.0, something we'll discuss once article selection for version 0.5 is complete (Sep 30). Although I don't foresee any great disagreement, what I outlined above is merely my opinion on where things are going. It's worth emphasising that many projects find assessment a useful exercise; this particular scheme was in use in WP:Chem long before we "stole" it for WP1.0, and several projects had assessment worklists before the bot came along, indeed before WP1.0 adopted assessment. BTW, the term A-Class also predates Good Articles, and although they are quite similar (at least these days) in quality, it remains a great way for us to tag an article that isn't a GA but probably could be, or isn't quite an FA but could be an FAC with a bit of cleanup. Walkerma 16:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps include a pointer on the front page to an explicit proposal/working document along those lines, then, if it's not quite set in concrete. If people are going to act on these basis of these existing -- and seemingly they are -- the more clarity about what's at least being suggested, and the different outworking of its purpose, the better. I've no quarrel with the talk-page-categories-as-worklists as a concept, though I have extreme doubts that what works for WP:CHEM will in any way scale to the biographies en masse (though that's largely their business). Also note that CFD can be extremely capricious these days about "we're going to delete this maintenance category because we think it 'looks unprofessional', never mind its utility -- just look at the farago around the CFD of Cat:Articles lacking sources, before it was put back by WP:DRV, with a loud collective "duuuh". For that sort of reason, the more established the basis of "we need X for reason Y", the better. I realize that the six-point-scale predates WPx.y (though I was unaware that ACAs came along before GAs; must just have a "lower profile"). If people are happy to regard it as an internal management tool, without any expectation that this is mandated by WP1.0, or even necessarily going to be used by it, then that's fair enough. Alai 17:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Excellent idea, I'll work on it in the next few days. Walkerma 17:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary break

I think it is premature to add anything about quality ratings to the overall project page, outside of the "Work via Wikiprojects" section. I think some disparate elements are getting mixed up in the discussion above.

Alai's question and the ensuring discussion are not entirely clear to me.

The original question was "Can anyone tell me what the presumed standard for inclusion in 1.0 is, preferably in terms of the assessment classes?"

But I'm not sure whether Alai intended to ask specifically about "1.0", release versions in general, or actually 0.5, the version planned for release this fall (not to mention Bozmo's work). I'm also not sure whether Alai is asking more about whatever release version or the ratings themselves.

The basis for inclusion in 0.5 can generally be found at Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations. More information about criteria is here, for both 0.5 and 1.0. The previous plan for 1.0 is suspended, for reasons noted at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Nominations#Status and options. We might have one or more versions between 0.5 and 1.0.

As far as I know, in the great majority of case, the quality ratings have at least generally been handled by wikiprojects that choose to use them. Emphasis on them would make a bias toward subjects covered by those projects. Also, a good number of those ratings have been applied after fairly only cursory review. Maurreen 07:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Publisher

Just for reference, because I am not sure it will lead anywhere yet, nor sure they would be interested selling or publishing english content yet. In september, I will have a meeting with a big big company, which cumulate several types of activities, DVD sales included. Beginning this week end probably, I'll start preparing this meeting and to see if there is anything I can show them from the version 0.5. Can you point out to me to one of the nicest (most complete, very descriptive) part of the version 0.5 ? Anthere

Exciting news! Please keep us updated! We don't have a really nice write-up to show you - maybe I should work on that. Our main listing is here, though the top level categories got changed to an unorthodox system and no one has had time to switch it back (see [[WP:V0.5N for our "orthodox" categorisation). We are aware that content is a bit unbalanced at present, both in general (e.g., weak on politics, stronger on pop music) and even within specific subjects (for example, we have included Ann Arbor, Michigan but not Los Angeles). We hope to try and fix that during September - we won't succeed completely, but remember this is only really an alpha test. We also made the decision that certain articles might be used to showcase FAs on significant but not top-importance topics. I predict that we'll get 1500 articles in place by September 30. Walkerma 17:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self-publishing and publish-on-demand

I would like to suggest that we strongly consider self-publishing and "publish-on-demand", such as Lulu.com or Cafe Press. For one thing, doing so would allow us to maintain more control; it would be more wiki-like. I also have some doubt about the response of a standard publisher to our 0.5, etc. For instance, if someone is interested in whatever we have to offer, they don't need to offer us anything in return. They don't need to anything but uphold the GFDL. I can elaborate on any of this if anyone is interested. If we publish it ourselves, any proceeds could go to the foundation. Maurreen 07:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they would need to offer us something in return, at least if they wish to use the Wikipedia name for whatever they publish (and not doing so would be rather silly; how many of them really want to brand their own encyclopedia?). Kirill Lokshin 09:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kirill... if they use "Wikipedia", a registered trademark, then they need to perhaps contact Brad in Tampa about it. I don't eliminate the opinion, but there's some legal issues to deal with here. Titoxd(?!?) 16:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about the WikiProject full article list

I was wondering how closely this list has been/will be followed for consideration of including articles in 1.0. I ask because it was back in February when the WikiProjects were contacted, and it's been quite some time since then. As I had just joined WikiProject Final Fantasy around that same time, I hadn't yet got to work on improving articles very much and didn't contribute to the suggestions that the WikiProject offered. Since then, however, myself and a few others on the project have put a lot of work into several of our articles. Currently, two of our articles listed on the WikiProject full article list are FAs (though it only shows one FA and one FL; both Final Fantasy VI and Final Fantasy X are now FAs), and several more of the project's articles have since become FAs.

I guess what I'm asking is "How closely will this list be followed?" and "May I update my WikiProject's suggestions on the list if it will be followed closely?" We have five FAs now, and if we were to be asked today which articles we would like to have considered for inclusion in 1.0, those would be the ones we'd suggest. By the way, I'm not sure if this is considered important or not, but three of these five articles (Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy VII) have been reviewed by Wikipedia:Version 0.5 and selected. The other two (Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy X-2) probably won't be reviewed before nominations end. Ryu Kaze 13:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The short answer is, please see my note at Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team #Arbitrary_break. Maurreen 16:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, I'm going to work up either a set of FAQs or an update to the main page or both. This team has always consisted of multiple simultaneous subprojects. It now seems that some of that needs clarification.
And I think the name of the overall project is slightly confusing. For example, it might make people think that our first release is to be 1.0. But we haven't figured out a name that would be better.
I confess that the name is my fault. I think I should have originally named this "Release Version ..." instead of Version 1.0 ..." Maurreen 16:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
So I guess your answer is pretty much "We need to take a step back and analyze our position before deciding anything else"? If so, I'll take that. I guess it's the best answer at the moment given the circumstances. Thanks. Ryu Kaze 20:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
The full article list is rather outdated now - the number of projects has exploded since it was written, and we are revamping the broad categories too. For most of the summer I have been trying to keep things going at WP:WVWP (which oversees that page) all by myself (as well as coordinating Version 0.5), so the project has obviously got out-of-date in some areas. I have managed to update the Arts, Philosophy and Religion, but the others are still outdated. We attack the listing from several directions - for example we review GA and FA tags and listings, so all the FF FAs are being considered from that perspective. Before we put together the listing for a full release I think we will make sure all the projects have had a recent contact and their tables are reasonably current. Please help us with that if you have the time, and please update the FF table here. Meanwhile, the "wait & see" answer you gave will apply for the next few months, I think. Walkerma 03:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the expanded response. Sounds like you've been taking on a lot. If I get the time, I'll try to help out with contacting the WikiProjects for updates. Ryu Kaze 14:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRC Meetings: Friday night for en and Sunday (probably) on meta

You will need a IRC reader like ChatZilla, but even I managed to get it to work, so it must be really easy. NOW THE MEETING HAS BEEN CHANGED TO FRIDAY.

[edit] Discussion on English WP1.0, especially WP0.5

Held at 8pm EST on FRIDAY 1st Sept (I think that's 00:00 Sat 1st UTC?) on #wikipedia-static. Please sign up here if you plan to attend. NOTE - now on #static not #stable. Walkerma 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (Can also do Friday)

Thursday is bad for me... any chance of pushing it to Friday? Titoxd(?!?) 16:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I can probably make it; but I have no objections to moving it to Friday either. Was Thursday something that sj needed? (Yes, but I'll email him - MAW)
(And, incidentally, should the "UTC" above be "IRC" instead?) Kirill Lokshin 16:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (Yes! Too many acronyms! MAW)
(Sj says, "See you then (Fri 8pm) on freenode!")

[edit] General meeting of the Wikimedia Special Projects Committee

Held at 20:00 UTC, probably on Sunday. This meeting will cover several topics, of which WP1.0 issues will just form one part. Keep track of things on meta here. Sign up on that meta page if you plan to attend. Walkerma 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Meeting notes

That was a little confusing. But -- Any deal with a publisher would need to go through Brad Patrick. This is fuzzy, but an official endorsed version is unlikely, because of liability concerns, but there is possibility of making a deal to use the trademark. Another option is using self-publishing, as long as there is no assertion that it is official, as long as the trademark is not used, the name is not too big. Maurreen 22:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! After two hours on the first 3 items, I assumed that we wouldn't have time to reach #8, so I left! We'll talk again on #static next Sunday at 4pm EST, then. Walkerma 22:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scheduling future meetings

Maybe it would be good for those of us interested to indicate here any particular days or times that are good or bad for scheduling meetings. Maurreen 16:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Maurreen -- Weekday evenings are bad for me. Maurreen 16:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Walkerma -- Weekday daytimes are bad for me, except for Tuesdays. Walkerma 02:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Titoxd -- Tuesday/Wednesday/Thursday evenings are bad for me. Titoxd(?!?) 08:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Meeting where? In real or in IRC for example? I'm a bit far from you guys. :) NCurse work 08:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it's on IRC, not in person. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 09:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin -- Weekday daytimes are bad for me. Kirill Lokshin 09:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

NCurse -- weekend evenings/nights are perfect for me. NCurse work 09:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Dna-Dennis -- Almost anytime. --Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 23:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huh?!?!

Is someone gonna buy a release????? Who's going to buy a release when its done?!?!!! Whose going to fund the publication?!?!/etc...!!!?! Please repond on my talk page, thanks!100110100 03:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next release version

Martin, aka Walkerma, set up a page similar to the 0.5 nominations to start nominations for the next release version. Sorry, but I suspended that.

I think we ought to evaluate, see what we've learned and discuss things first.

A few things I've seen:

  1. Some people get upset when their nomination is not approved.
  2. The current set of 0.5 articles is not very balanced.
  3. The standards are somewhat vague, which has good and bad points.

Here is my idea of a general plan for the next version:

  1. At least generally require only one approval, similar to 0.5.
  2. Keep a page for disputes.
  3. The release would have two sections, a "cyclopedia" and a "showcase."
    1. FAs would be included in the showcase unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, that including the article would embarrass us. In other words, I think it's unlikely that we'd exclude any.
    2. Use importance as the main criteria for the cyclopedia. Work fromWikipedia:Core topics - 1,000, Wikipedia:Vital articles or something similar, which would form the list of automatic nominations. Of course, those lists can be improved anytime.
      1. The list could be handled somewhat like the FA Review page has been handled for 0.5. But the articles whose quality is not up to par need not be removed from the list, but just noted, hopefully to encourage people to work on them. Maurreen 18:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I was wrote the post below, and posted it before seeing this. It sounds like we are pretty much in agreement on everything! Great! I hope we can improve the balance at 0.5 during this month, though it won't be fixed by Sept 30. Walkerma 15:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Version 0.5 Nominations now closed, what's next?

Since we are now definitely past August 31 in all time zones, I closed nominations for Version 0.5. Articles already nominated but not yet reviewed should be reviewed during September (please help!). Since we already have dozens of solicitations out there for nominations, I have created a generic page for nominations here, so that people have somewhere to place their suggestions for the time being until we decide what version comes next. When we agree on the next release we can copy and paste this page over, and have the page disabled by ready to use for the version AFTER that when it's needed again.

As I mentioned above, my life is about to get very busy, so I won't be able to take the lead on the next Release Version, but I will still be able to help out with reviews etc.

  • Should we have another version?
I'd say that now the train is moving, we don't want to stop it or we may never get it going again! Walkerma 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What version should come next?
I'd suggest Version 0.7, and aim for a close of nominations in January 2007. Focus on importance, make sure we have all the VAs, any core topics/supplement/core biographies that missed 0.5, etc. Roll over all of Version 0.5, and try for about 3000 articles total. Walkerma 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Should we use the same system next time as for V0.5?
For test (pre-1.0) versions I'd say yes, in general, but try to nominated groups of articles, and use the FA review page as a model - that seemed to be more productive. Walkerma 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • What about for Release Version 1.0 itself, our first major release?
For Version 1.0 itself, I'd like to propose a radical change - use the WikiProject assessments to automatically include articles. We now have over 70,000 articles assessed - almost 50,000 in the last month alone - let's use those data! If we decide criteria carefully, after ranking WikiProjects in terms of levels of priority/importance for WP1.0, we can simply include ALL articles from certain categories quality/importance. We should use stable versions only where these are available (this will probably come on line later this year). We MUST have a system that can scale to tens of thousands of articles, and I think an approach like this is needed - we can't realistically review 30,000 articles ourselves (and anyway, the WikiProject assessments are by subject experts). We will have to do some "reality checks" - some projects tend to be more lenient with the grading than others - but I think we will have to move in that direction. Walkerma 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Who will coordinate Version 0.7?
YOUR NAME HERE?
Eyu100 04:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (possibly)

Any other thoughts or suggestions? We can also discuss some of these issues on IRC tonight or on Sunday (see details further up this page), and we can schedule more IRC discussions as needed for weekends after that. Walkerma 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future versions, editions, continued

OK, it seems like Martin and I agree in general principle on the procedures for the next edition.

As to when to start that -- I think we should hold off until at least we have few nominations left to check. Otherwise it would diffuse energy, take away time from 0.5. For example, there are more than 100 nominations at the main 0.5 nomination page that have not been reviewed.

As to 1.0, I'd prefer that we figure that out at least after we are done with 0.5. For one thing, that would give us more opportunity to learn from the experience of 0.5. Maurreen 17:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next IRC meeting on Sunday

We will be holding another IRC meeting on Sunday September 10th at 4pm EST, 20:00 UTC, on #wikipedia-static. Please sign up here if you plan to attend, and suggest any agenda items you would like to cover.

Attendees
  1. Walkerma 21:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC) I must apologise - I may have to leave after an hour, but hopefully we can cover most of the agenda in an hour.
  2. NCurse work 21:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (Probably)
  1. Maybe next time. I unfortunately can't be there. NCurse work 18:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  1. Titoxd(?!?) 05:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC) (still uncertain, depends on RL busy-ness)
  2. Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  3. Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 16:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Kelson 11:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jleybov 18:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  6. Maurreen 16:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Suggested agenda items
  1. Progress on a publisher for Version 0.5 (if any) Walkerma
  2. "Front-end" software - any new ideas? Walkerma
  3. What should come after version 0.5? (Other views besides mine!) Walkerma

[edit] Non-article featured content

How does a "featured list" get recorded, e.g., Timeline of discovery of solar system planets and their natural satellites? Rfrisbietalk 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen those tagged as FA-Class before, but I don't know if that's general practice throughout. Kirill Lokshin 20:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Personally I tag an FL as FA-class, and anything else as NA, just because it's hard for a generalist to assess quality & completeness of a list like List of rivers by length. However, lists and the like are often extremely valuable as navigation tools and IMHO we need to make sure all relevant ones are included in offline releases. For all set nominations I have always nominated the appropriate list, too. For that purpose the quality (FL or not FL) is less important in an offline release than relevance - for example, the list of rivers is extremely relevant to help find the rivers we have listed (if these are approved). Walkerma 20:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
You can tag portals and images as FA, as pages don't get picked up by the bot anyways if they're not in the main namespace. (We use that in WP:WPTC.) Titoxd(?!?) 03:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just wondering

Why do we need it on a CD/DVD if we already have it on the internet? And would if someone accidentally puts an srticle with false information on the disc, and some kid uses it for a school project? My guess is that you guys would get sued. Sorry, I'm just not that sure it will sell good. XD375 12:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The German DVD proved to be popular, and we have every reason to believe that other languages will turn out the same. Not everyone in the world has a high-speed internet connection on their laps 24 hours a day. Much of the world doesn't even have electricity! As for false info: (a) We expect it to have much less of this than the online version, as every article has been at least looked at and (b) We will of course have necessary disclaimers, and I don't foresee litigation over high school projects (or Britannica would be bankrupt by now!). As long as the kid cites his/her source, they should be OK, and so should we. There have been zero lawsuits since the first DVD came out in Germany in 2004. Walkerma 15:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
To which I will add: a CD/DVD is much harder to vandalize. Many people who do not want their kids going anywhere near most of the Internet, Wikipedia included, would have no problem with giving them access to certain large bodies of our content on a CD/DVD. - Jmabel | Talk 00:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next meeting

There will be another IRC meeting on Saturday September 30th at 3pm PDT (UTC-7) on #wikipedia-static. Please sign up here if you plan to attend, and suggest any agenda items you would like to cover.

Attendees
Eyu100 04:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (possibly, not sure)
Walkerma 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC) (maybe only part time, depending on family commitments)
Topics
  1. Tasks remaining before Version 0.5 can be published.
  2. Thoughts on Version 0.7 or whatever comes next.

[edit] Interesting link

For history versioning, something that can be really useful is this tool. It gives a statistical overview of an article's history, which may be useful, instead of providing the full editing history of an included article. Titoxd(?!?) 02:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks excellent! Better than the list you get from "cite this article" and much more convenient! Thanks, Walkerma 03:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So what is Wikipedia all about, anyway?

Hi, I am not a member, just dropped by to ask a question. I see from the Wikipedia:Signpost that your group has examined 100,000 Wikipedia articles. Were they randomly chosen? If so (or even if not), do you happen to have kept any count by subject area? E.g. how many are on science topics, history topics, bands, schools, localities, businesses? Even better would be a table correlating ratings with topics.---CH 02:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The main index (in particular, the "statistics" pages linked there) give a breakdown by each participating WikiProject, which should be suitable for rough estimates by corresponding subject area. Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 02:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The Signpost piece is slightly misleading - the team itself didn't assess 100k articles (or we'd be very tired by this point!), we merely coordinated the assessment by WikiProjects. I wouldn't know how to assess the quality of an article on some aspect of The KLF but a member of the project will. The topics assessed so far depend on which projects have signed up - for example Chemistry has signed up, but the Dance WikiProject has not - but we hope in time to see nearly all projects participating, with articles from all corners of Wikipedia represented. Oh, and we're now up to 130k articles! Walkerma 15:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size of CD / DVD

Folks, I had some time to put together a method for producing an HTML tree of these articles. I have made a page at User:Wikiwizzy/CDTools that describes it. Some assembly required, and too many hardcoded paths in the scripts..

This would enable other people to create CDs of specialised content, like military history or mathematics, and update the CD from recent XML dumps. I have no method for selective excising of sections yet, that BozMo needs for his CD.

Wizzy…☎ 21:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

is there going to be a way to click on something that leads to the live version for an updated look/edit? JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 22:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Not currently. Will see what it takes. Wizzy…☎
Thanks Wizzy! We really need people like you who can handle this sort of thing, I'm clueless I'm afraid! We will need to submit Version 0.5 to this process in about a month or so, can we borrow your scripts? Are some of your scripts the same as BozMo's? Is the tree the same as his? If not, where does it differ? Some comments:
You may certainly use my scripts. I asked BozMo for his scripts a while back, but he said they were not freely distributable. Mine are. Wizzy…☎
  1. Do we have to remove references, inline or otherwise? I would have thought we would want to keep all that information. I'd say we would want them for Version 0.5, certainly. By all means remove external links and inter-language links.
    I will leave the refs in. Wizzy…☎
  2. I'd suggest removing any cleanup and "Citation Needed" tags as unhelpful - you can't clean up static content! Neutrality and related tags are more debatable, I could go either way with those.
  3. I'd like to see us run an anti-vandal bot on the articles to screen out bad language, "David is gay" and other erudite comments. No need to write a separate script IMHO, there are already bots out there that have been honed for this purpose.
  4. I'd like to see us incorporate metadata on articles if this is possible; Version 0.5 that might only involve the assessment (eg to say that an article is FA standard, or only a Start-Class). This is included in the same talk page template that generates the Version 0.5 list, categories such as Category:FA-Class Version 0.5 articles. If this is impossible, we can manage without it.
    Currently the XML dumps I download do not include discussion pages. My goal is to make all this completely automatic - there is no way I am hand-editing any of this stuff. Wizzy…☎
  5. In terms of organization, all Version 0.5 articles are organized into 11 top-level categories (the Misc category is very small though), as listed at {{V0.5}}. These also get generated by the talk-page template into categories like Category:Natural sciences Version 0.5 articles. Can the script manage that?
    If it is accessible from the main XML dump, particularly categories, it can be done. Wizzy…☎
  6. The last point highlights another issue we face - organisation of content. That means redirects, lists, etc. That may be separate from the tree, but if you know of scripts that can (for example) find all the redirects to a given article and adds them to the listing, that could be very useful.
    Not yet. Wizzy…☎
  7. Should we have an IRC discussion (Sunday 22nd?) with Wizzy, BozMo, Walkerma, and others who want to join in? Polimerik from pl might give us some insights and share some of the Polish scripts.
  8. You should probably raise this at m:Talk:Special projects subcommittees/Static content as well. Don't be concerned that no one responds immediately (they won't), I'll try and solicit comments when I can via emails and foreign language user talk pages.
I must say I was very pleased to see your posting. Many thanks, Walkerma 05:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Great!

  1. The front page should be our Version 0.5 main page.
  2. References should stay in the articles (maybe the most important part of the project)
  3. Templates shouldn't stay as they're linking to articles which don't exist in our Version.
  4. Pictures really should stay...

NCurse work 05:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Something that would help me greatly would be a mailed hard drive with all XML dumps and pictures from a particular date. It is impossible for me (in South Africa) to get these in a reasonable time, and I pay for bandwidth. I will pay for the disk.. Wizzy…☎ 10:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you need an actual hard drive, or would a DVD of the articles suffice? Walkerma 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
A DVD would be fine. However, the picture dump runs about 100Gig these days - well beyond a DVD. I have the article dump from August - 1.3Gig - I just need a matching picture dump. If you send a newer picture dump, it would be great to send the corresponding article dump. If you cut down the picture dump to our article list, you have done most of the work for 0.5 already :-) These things are big. Wizzy…☎ 12:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
There is always Blu-Ray, but not many people even have a blu-ray player... Nominaladversary 12:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Search

The categories mentioned on the Version 0.5 main page are not main Wikipedia categories, and thus will need hand-sorting. What it really needs is a search. I have been looking at ksearch-client-side, a javascript search engine that runs in the browser. It is a javascript program that holds the search db itself - one-line summaries of the articles, and an inverted tree matching words back to articles. With some tweaking (cutting all articles to 3K, so it searches the lead paragraph only) I have reduced the javascript to a 'mere' 4Meg - still a bit big, but search is great.. It works fine in Opera, but Firefox only searches text up into the Ls - nothing later in the alphabet. It stops on the word length - if I move it earlier, it still stops there, if I rename or delete it everything works.. weird..

A search capability would definitely be a great help. I had assumed that we could lift the search from Wikipedia (or a dumbed-down version of it) and use it offline - but you seem to imply this is not the case. Can you confirm this? Walkerma 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The search in wikipedia relies on a webserver and a database, neither of which is present on a CD/DVD. Basically, it needs a computer. The only computer around is the one running the browser, and the only language we can use is javascript. ksearch-client-side does what we need, quite well, actually. The only downside is its memory requirements - I have it down to 2.8 Meg.
If you want to try out this search on BozMo's CD, follow instructions at User:Wikiwizzy/CDTools. Wizzy…☎ 19:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
What is a tgz file? I've never heard of that, and my computer can't seem to unpack it. Is it possible to put it up uncompressed, or would that take ages on your line? Walkerma 19:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Ungzipped. See ftp://ftp.wizzy.com/pub/wizzy/CDTools/ Wizzy…☎ 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your work here, but it seems I need a UNIX machine to run a tar file, don't I? My Windows XP machine doesn't know what to do with it! Any suggestions? Thanks, Walkerma 03:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Winzip will read tar files (and tgz files). Wizzy…☎ 07:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

The categories on the 0.5 page were someone's experiment, we will be using the 10 categories mentioned above (currently 10 + misc, though I hope misc can be disposed of for the release), the noms page is closer to what we will end up with. Almost every article in V0.5 carries one of the ten categories in its tag, that was done deliberately so we don't need to hand sort. For WPCD2 I notice they have started adding some categories like this, though many articles still have the basic tag. Walkerma 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your categories now -

{ category Miscellaneous | Arts | Langlit | Philrelig | Everydaylife | Socsci | Geography | History | Engtech | Math | Natsci }

And the (very important) Uncategorized category. Still a lot of work to be done there. FYI - my current 4000+ list of articles have these categories on the Main article page (not Talk:) - sorted by frequency:-

144| Category:Living people
105| Category:Chemical elements
 60| Category:Wildlife of Africa
 58| Category:Demographics by country
 54| Category:Coastal cities
 52| Category:African Union member states
 50| Category:Island nations
 41| Category:Landlocked countries
 40| Category:Capitals in Africa
 39| Category:Presidents of the United States
 38| Category:English-speaking countries
 35| Category:Transition metals
 35| Category:Monarchies
 31| Category:Metropolis
 30| Category:Atlantic hurricanes
 29| Category:Fellows of the Royal Society
 26| Category:Freemasons
 25| Category:Cretaceous dinosaurs
 24| Category:Spanish-speaking countries
 22| Category:Herbs
 22| Category:Republics
 22| Category:Members of the Commonwealth of Nations
 22| Category:Autodidacts

Well, I am glad Africa is listed so prominently :-) (Not sure why some of these are red-linked ?) Wizzy…☎ 11:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Monarchies should be Category:Monarchy but I don't know for Category:Metropolis though. Lincher 02:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Further investigation leads me to believe these are recently deleted categories. My dump is from 18 May 2006. Wizzy…☎ 08:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Pictures - yes, it definitely needs these. Some quick math - User:BozMo/wpcd2 has about 4000 articles. They occupy 140Meg uncompressed. That leaves about 500Meg on the CD. That means each article has about 120 bytes (yes, bytes) of pictures :-( My experimentation finds that even a thumbnail needs about 20K. Seems some major selection needs to be done, or ... ??

I think 500,000 kB / 4000 articles means 120 kB per article, so it's not as bad as you say, it's about 6 picture thumbnails per article. But many of the articles on the CD are well-developed articles (B-Class or above) so they will tend to have a lot of pictures, and you may still have to chop things down a bit. User:Polimerek from Polish Wikipedia told me that for their DVD release (also coming out this fall) they plan to (a) remove articles with dubious copyright, (b) strip out all galleries and (c) just keep the first three pictures from each article. For WPCD2 you would be doing (a) first anyway, then (b) if you need to, and only go further as the need arises. Bear in mind the Poles have 250,000 articles to process so everything has to be automated - but in (for example) Bangalore you would remove the modern map of the city, which I would want to keep in. I suspect that just removing fair use images and compressing the rest to thumbnails may be sufficient for WPCD, and is almost certainly enough for Version 0.5. Walkerma 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Working from an old picture archive I have from last year, I have 3034 pictures out of the 18529 total needed. I have put a request for the others here. That is about 1/6th of the ones necessary. I work through the HTML, where the <div> enclosure indicates the required picture size. I use the unix convert command to resize the pictures, and edit the HTML to reference that picture (all automated). Pictures so far occupy 87Meg, at default compression, indicating that when I have all the other pictures it will be under 500Meg. It is looking great! Wizzy…☎ 16:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bot stuff

Does anyone have any insight what is going on around "Obotrites" and "Rukai people" in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Ethnic_groups_articles_by_quality&oldid=82766804 this bot-generated page]? We're just starting on this stuff in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups. - Jmabel | Talk 07:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-article class parameters

Can anyone advise on how the non-article class parameters are supposed to work for the purposes of these combined WikiProject/assesment banners being placed on non-article talk pages? I have seen these banners placed on talk pages for relevant categories and template using class=NA, class=template, class=category, and so on. But the approach doesn't seem completely consistent.

An example is Category:Template-Class_film_articles where the Film WikiProject has grouped templates that have been "rated" template-class. This imprecise wording is avoided if the "NA wording" is used to say that the template is a template and doesn't need rating. Some template have been set up to do this, but I can't find any examples at the moment. Can anyone remind me where they are, or how to tweak the wording?

Going back to the film non-article parameters. The blurb on Category:Film_articles_by_quality shows that the system has been extended to include other classes such as List, Category and Disambig (I haven't found anyone yet using a "redirect" class to organise redirects, though see Category:Middle-earth redirects). I assume, that like the NA classification, these "non-article" classifications don't appear in the film quality statistics page and other stats pages, which I believe are maintained by a bot. I can understand why it doesn't include them directly, but what is the best way to generate statistics based on these non-article parameters such as NA, category, and template?

An alternative approach is seen at WikiProject Middle-earth, where Template:ME-project is used on article talk pages, Template:ME-category is used on category talk pages, and Template:ME-template is used on template pages.

Is there any reason to prefer putting all the parameters inside one template (as in the Film WikiProject), or to use separate banners (the Middle-earth WikiProject)? I prefer the latter approach, but was wondering if the assessment statistcs approach could be adapted to include stats on the number of templates, categories and other non-article pages? Carcharoth 11:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Another approach is the one I have started at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth/Assessment#Page_types, where I am proposing a separate set of "page type" parameters and a separate line in the banner on which to display this parameter. Would this be helpful? Part of the reason for this is that it would be helpful to be able to assess some lists (currently, people tend to mix a "list" parameter into the rating scale), and in some cases to assess some of the larger templates (though this is not essential). Carcharoth 15:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't really answer this, but I've copied it in its entirety over to Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Non-article_class_parameters. We tend to discuss template/bot technical issues on that page, and it gets a lot of knowledgable people passing through. Walkerma 05:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Carcharoth 10:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening up nominations for the next version?

Should we open up Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations? This page was designed to be a "rolling" page that would be perhaps Version 0.7 at first, then become perhaps Version 0.8, and so on. I think we should open it up because:

  • Version 0.5 closed its nominations almost two months ago, and reviewing is getting close to complete.
  • I think we are gearing up to start work on the next release anyway.
  • These general nomination pages don't get that many nominations, so I don't see us getting too many coming in while we finish off Version 0.5. If we're not working on countries or FAs, we can clear any backlog in a couple of days, I think.
  • Two or three people have already tried to nominate.

Do others agree with us opening this up now? Walkerma 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be wary of opening it until we actually are close to finishing v0.5. For example, there may be issues with the nomination process that we haven't observed, and that we may notice when a publisher points them out to us; also, opening the page after an actual release would bring in extra reviewers. By the way, how is work going on the publishing aspect of the release? I haven't beem as active on Wikipedia as I would like to be, so there may be things I missed and don't know about... Titoxd(?!?) 06:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
I've been kept pretty busy with work, I have a pile of 60 lab reports next to me right now! That means all of my wiki-time has been spent on finishing off the reviewing, no time to chase publishers. We are getting close to finishing, but there are still >100 articles to review. We all do what we can! Cheers, Walkerma 05:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Progress

This section should be updated every once in a while. Don't post new bullets; just modify these and sign your name.

Progress:

Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 02:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRC meeting

Walkerma asked me on my talk page whether we should have another IRC meeting or not. We haven't had one in a while, so here are the preliminary details:

Time
3:00 PM PST (Pacific Standard Time), 11-04-06 (23:00 UTC)

Channel: #wikipedia-1.0

Topics
A deadline, what to do next, list more here:
  1. A CVS or SVN repository for files related to the CD
    I would like the ability to select articles by category, with a top-up list of articles. Requirements should be the article dump, the category dump, and a script to pull the thumbnailed pictures (for articles) from the main server or the (huge) picture dump. Wizzy…☎ 09:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  2. Work Via Wikiprojects and the CD
  3. Looking for a publisher
  4. (If time) Use of MartinbotII to automagically generate article lists; see this, the results of the first Chem pilot run and subsequent results on other trials.
  5. A complete list for Work Via Wikiprojects, not separated by wikiproject
Attendees
  1. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Walkerma 17:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Kirill Lokshin 18:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  4. +sj + 19:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. Wizzy…☎ 09:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  6. Martinp23 12:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
  7. Polimerek 23:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Discussion

Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 01:13, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, which day is it going to be? Titoxd(?!?) 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
That was fast! Oops! It is going to be this Saturday. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
It makes 22PM CET if I'm right, I will be there. I'm, in France, in contact with a software company. They plan to realease an demonstration ISO of a an offline-reader for the 14/11/06. It will be a XUL standalone application for windows, working with the last "SOS children village" HTML dump and integrating a self-made search engine. The engine will be able to deal with differents languages specs. They want to manage the publishing stuff themself. Kelson 08:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Can we just confirm that the time for this meeting is 6pm EST and 23:00 UTC? If so, Emmanuel will have to join us at midnight, not at 22:00 CET, I think. I'd like to contact a couple of other Europeans, so I want to make sure we have it right. Walkerma 16:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Followup from IRC

I have added more information to Walkerma's page at m:Static version tools to describe my process. All other input gratefully received. Wizzy…☎ 09:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I see Emmanuel has posted something on the talk page there. Once the Polish group has got their DVD into production they may have time to share their scripts with us too. We need to make sure that every language doesn't have to write their own version of the same software! Walkerma 06:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] update

Hello

So, what's up with this project ? Where does it stand right now ? Can we help ? Anthere

Oh, certainly! Currently, we've selected the articles we are going to include in the test release, Version 0.5. However, we're working on the software (for the CD release), and we would appreciate finding a publisher (for the paper release). Titoxd(?!?) 22:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken, a publisher would also (and perhaps primarily?) be appropriate for the CD release? I would think that pressed CDs/DVDs would be a much more attractive venture for one than actual paper printings of the material. Kirill Lokshin 23:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, mental mistake there. I guess it is because I am personally more excited about a printed release than a CD/DVD release, but that's just me... Titoxd(?!?) 01:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for dropping by, Anthere! If you listen to Episode 5 of Wikipedia Weekly, you can hear the latest (recorded early this morning). We have finished indeed reviewing articles (almost 2000) - last night, to be precise - and now we just need to get CDs produced. I agree with Kirill that we will probably just do a CD this time around, unless a paper publisher appears - but I would like to see us produce a paper edition later on. For software, we are hoping to use the contact Emmanuel has in Paris, we should know by Tuesday whether or not the demo of the offline reader has been successful. The Parisian company will also produce the CD for us - 30,000 copies were mentioned, but maybe that includes a future French release too! If anyone can find out about what software the Germans have (to share) that would be a great help - I've requested information several times from Mathias Schindler but heard nothing back so far. We have set up a place on meta to share software tools.
Tito and Kirill, you're most welcome to help us out! We need to compare the category listing (generated by talk page headers) against the listing on the V1.0 page. I have found that sometimes people added an article in one place but not the other. I hope that by Tuesday we can have a comprehensive list. Eyu100 has been producing a list here, but I'm not sure which source he is using. Let us know if you can help - the clock is ticking now! Walkerma 01:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I had a hack at the big list, and I tried to make it more usable for us. So we only have to strike out whatever is both on WP:V0.5 and is tagged on the talk page, right? Titoxd(?!?) 02:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need to do any strikeouts, since we're dealing with complete lists. Thanks Tito! Actually, I found I was able to do this easily in AWB! I didn't realise this would work so easily. See Wikipedia:Version 0.5/biglist, this combines the category listing with any additional ones found on the Version 0.5 page (most differences came from pages that changed their names, or typos). The talk pages still need to be tagged - I'm very tired and need to go to bed soon. This only gives the article names, though, not the historical version. This week I'll go through the logs to see which articles have declined in assessment, and compare the versions - I'll try and note any articles where we should use the older version (I expect this only to be a handful). If you find anything different doing this job your way, let us know, Tito! Walkerma 04:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are some differences between the two lists we've generated, sadly. So, your list is from the category? Mine is from the listing, so that should be a pretty accurate depiction of what does not match... Titoxd(?!?) 04:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

(unindent) I've posted my "differences" list (generated by AWB list comparer) at User:Walkerma/Sandbox2. This represents the articles found on WP:V0.5 but not found in Category:Wikipedia Version 0.5. It is obvious that the WP:V0.5 list was not always updated after articles were tagged - AWB indicates 421 "missing" articles (though some of these are simply the different spellings I noted above). So I'm treating the category listing as the authentic one, and the V0.5 page simply as a place to catch a few missing ones. Walkerma 05:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I still think we need to be able to pull a list, as a query, from wikipedia. A page with the article list will quickly become unmanageable, and suffers from the standard problem of the same information (the list) in two different places. This is not just a 0.5 project - this is a process and pathfinder for 1.0, 1.1, a chemistry special, whatever. The category, or (better) a category of categories (Countries, Elements, Animals, Plants) and a top-up list to catch the others should be built. The information should be in one place. Wizzy…☎ 06:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

We do already have Category:Wikipedia Version 0.5 (which include all articles) and eleven subcategories such as History, Mathematics, etc. Will that suffice, or is there something else you think needs to be done? Walkerma 07:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
No - I think that is fine. I have not looked that closely, but I was trying to figure out how some articles (like countries and elements) got missed. Wizzy…☎ 10:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, I've added in the chemical elements. Apparently I missed poor terbium from the list - now added into the biglist. I've also gone through the "differences list, and tagged articles that weren't tagged before. Walkerma 07:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Just wondering what happened with Taiwan... if we leave it out, we're going to get accused of bias. Titoxd(?!?) 07:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
It's listed under Republic of China. I had no idea that there were two separate articles! I had spotted that there is a PR China article (about the present state) and a separate China article (about the entity with a rich history going back millenia), and I tagged both. I never thought Taiwan would have two articles. Do you think we need both? Walkerma 07:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I just checked {{0.5 nom}} and {{0.5 set nom}} since some that had been missed still carried one of these templates. I updated the held template and used that a bit, and removed the nomination tags from article talk pages. Walkerma 07:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
I have gone through all of Mathbot's logs for Version 0.5, looking for articles that declined in assessment rating, or were listed as removed from the listing. For the latter, I didn't find any that were permanently removed (except a handful added inappropriately) For the former I've created Wikipedia:Version 0.5/degraded article log, and I will look over these articles in the next couple of days to see whether the articles actually degraded or whether they were simply re-evaluated. If they did go noticably downhill I will tag an older version for inclusion. (Note: Chemists such as myself use the verb degrade as an intransitive verb, I hope that's OK!). Walkerma 08:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Initial responses on the French offline reader suggest that it may not be fully ready for use in Version 0.5, but it might perhaps be used in a later version. Does anyone have access to the German software & scripts? Walkerma 08:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding redirects into Version 0.5 and beyond

This has been raised as being an important issue to resolve. If we end up NOT using an offline reader (I'm still contacting people to try and find out about that!), how can we do this? Can someone who knows Javascripts (or whatever) please explain the various options in terms even a simpleton like me can understand? Thanks! Walkerma 15:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Opening the release version nominations? WP:WPRVN

We have a large review team, and currently they have nothing to do because Version 0.5 reviewing is done, so should we open up the release version nominations? There are still some things that need to be done, like ask Mathbot to keep track of articles, fix the design of WP:WPRV, etc. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 23:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, have been waiting for that for a long time and since I do not know much about the rest of the activity that there is to do (most of it is offline stuff now) I can't lend a hand anyway. I would like to nominate new pages and maybe help with the reviewing this time. Can a WP:0.7 version be created or something like that to organize such. Lincher 03:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes! Please go ahead! (Maybe we need to hear from one or two others, like Tito). I definitely think we should be working on this while Version 0.5 is coming out (I wanted to start it a while ago too!). For myself I will be quite tied up with V0.5, but later on I can help with reviewing. People I've spoken with seem to be happy to call this next release Version 0.7, and to use this to expand things from Version 0.5, should we go for that? The idea of the "Release Versions" page was that it could be a rolling page for whatever is the current version, so we have one standard link where people can nominate things. Once a version nomination closes, the list would be transferred off that page, then the page re-opened for whatever is the next version. Do you think that could work? Meanwhile we can get User:MartinbotII up and running to get ready for a bigger release pulled from the Mathbot data.
As for the approach used, I think we should open that up for discussion. Eyu100, will you be taking the helm for this version? If so, perhaps you could give us your views on the release to kick things off? Walkerma 04:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. How are we going to open it if the format we're going to use is still up in the air? I would think it would be better to figure out which one we're going to use before making that decision... Titoxd(?!?) 06:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, let's agree on that in the next day or two so we can get started ASAP? Since we haven't heard from eyu100, I'll start the ball rolling. Let's do the following:
  • Have general nominations and nominations as with Version 0.5, reviewed as before.
  • Set up review pages for WP:GAs, WP:VAs, the core supplement, plus a cities page listing all cities listed at List of cities by population, List of metropolitan areas by population and all capital cities of the world (as listed here, but limited just to sovereign nations). I'd also like to see a states & provinces page covering Australia, Canada, USA, India, South Africa, China and perhaps Germany and some Anglophone countries I've missed (but UK counties, French departments etc are a bit small for this release, IMHO). If someone has the time, we should probably also set up an FA review page for FAs not covered by V0.5 (new or not reviewed).
  • Set up a Todo page.
  • Contact all members of the review team announcing the new project.
  • Close the nominations on (say) March 31, 2007 and aim to close all reviews by May 31, 2007.
Also see my comments in the "perfecting V0.5" discussion below. What do others think - eyu100, Tito, Lincher, .....? Walkerma 07:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This idea sounds good, I have created a basic To do list at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/To do where everything is red link but everything can be copied from the V0.5 pages. If there are missing things, please fill in the gaps. If you feel I wasn't precise enough, change the wording. Also, everypage is a subpage of Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations which will remove any confusion and be helpful for going back to the nomination page.
I had a question ... are the articles from V0.5 automatically in or not, and that is the reason for the Version 0.5 review page I have created in order to do a quick review of V0.5, maybe at the end of the V0.7 or so.
For everything else, I say let's get the ball rolling. Lincher 15:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Should everything from Version 0.5 be included? I'd say yes, I'm pretty happy with the content of V0.5, and we want to build on that. I'd like to hear what eyu100 thinks on this issue, but I have the impression he's said the same thing. I'm checking the delisted FAs (and other articles that have been downgraded) in V0.5 myself this weekend, but I don't expect to remove any from the list - at worst, if the article really has gone downhill (rare) we'll use the originally-reviewed version.
We also need to think about templates. I'd like to have a Release Version template that works like {{V0.5}}, but also (assuming we're keeping all of V0.5) change the {{V0.5}} to say "This article is in Version 0.7 and 0.5" - that way we avoid cluttering up talk pages with lots of templates (and annoying people who we need to help us!). I think we should give eyu100 and Tito a chance to comment before we open things up, but then let's get things under way. Thanks for your input and for setting up those pages! Cheers, Walkerma 17:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, by default everything is v0.5 should be included into Version 0.7. However, I am still not sure about this method. The part about v0.5 that really annoyed me was that there were so many subpages, that some of them I didn't even know existed until the list below was made. As for the reviewing, I agree, we should start soon, but at the same time, we need to be sure that we're not doing the same mistakes in v0.5. So, the question becomes, "Which mistakes did we do that we don't want to do again?" I'd hold until we get some answers to that question. Titoxd(?!?) 20:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
To Walkerma: Yes, I will be coordinating the release version (unless many people object). I think we should open this after we get all the templates set up. I'm changing the V0.5 template if it hasn't been changed already to use one box instead of two. How much progress is being made at WP:WVWP? There should be a final list for MartinbotII to run through after most of the important Wikiprojects are contacted. How many articles should there be? I'll wait for Tito's reply and then open up the nominations. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 20:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Just make sure you include the other category, not just Category:Wikipedia Version 0.5, in the template, and feel free to nuke the other box. Titoxd(?!?) 20:47, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overview of what V0.5 was/Things to perfect

After standing aside and letting you guys work on Version 0.5 (since I jumped in late and wasn't able to help you guys too much), I can only point to the few things that didn't let me take part of the process :

  • The discussion wasn't centralized : in fact, everything should be redirected to the talk page of WP:1 in order to help the noobs (like me) find their way into the project.
  • There should be a Todo list that is linked from the WP:1 page (the one that was available, you had to know where it was).
  • The architecture is overwhelming. Just having a better architecture of what are the different pages used for the reviewing and a clear master list on the WP:1 page too would help the newcomers. Also, what is necessary is to archive the present Version 0.5 subpages. Here is the complete list (I didn't catch what is on the users subpages) :

I hope that this help the WP0.5 people that are doing a marvelous job as of now. I just wanted to give a few pointers of what could be done to have a better approach toward doing the next release version. Lincher 13:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Great commentary! (And polite, too - thanks for that!) It's good to see the view of someone who hasn't been so close to the project as I have. We did talk about consolidating talk pages early on, but it would've been difficult to do at that point. I disagree that things should be discussed here - at some stages we would have been archiving every couple of days. With hindsight I'd rather have seen things were discussed at Talk, with (perhaps) other talk pages allowed at Talk and Talk. The reason for all this is of course that we changed mid-project from a single nomination page to multiple nomination/strikeout pages; this fresh approach turned out to be pivotal in getting the job done, but a side-effect was the generation of all of these new pages. The Set Nominations subpages were all transcluded onto one page (and an archive after review), so that situation is not as bad as it might seem from the above. For archiving these, I'm open to suggestions - the set nom pages are already archived, though.
Before we started created the navigation template seen at the top of this page - that was expected to show all the pages we would have! We added some of them in as they were created, but this became difficult. Once I found myself reviewing mostly by myself or with eyu100, I gave up on editing the template! The Todo list was only created quite recently, that's why it never got included. I was asked by JoeSmack in September to create a project map for the whole of the 1.0 project (not just 0.5), and I quickly realised that would take me some time - time I couldn't afford to take away from reviewing! ([[WP:WVWP has a labyrinth of pages too!) One of my New Year projects is to do this. Bear in mind that 15 months ago there were only two pages associated with the Wikipedia 1.0 project - so naturally still finding our way.
For Version 0.7, we will probably want a set of similar pages, such as strikeout pages for vital articles and good articles, and perhaps capital cities too. We will probably want a set nominations page again. Since we are not quite so much in pioneer country any more, things are hopefully much more predictable - so we can probably get the navigation system set up now. Based on your comments I would suggest the following for Version 0.7:
  • Limit the discussions to the talk pages of Wikipedia:Release Version and Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations, with more global issues discussed here.
  • Plan what review pages we intend to use, and set up redirects from their talk pages when we create them. Update the navigation template, or design a new one, including all the review pages and the Todo page. Remove old redundant pages (such as Version 0.5) from this template.
  • Set up a Todo page from the start, possibly with its own talk page or possibly using the main Release Version talk page.
Thanks for your work and for sharing your ideas. I hope you can be involved with reviewing for Version 0.7! Walkerma 07:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe for the archiving, it could work like this :
Version 0.5 stays as it is, Release version exists until release and then it is dumped onto Version 0.7 pages. Then, Release version becomes the next version ... 1.0, which will reside on the Release version pages and then be dumped onto Version 1.0, what do you think? Lincher 15:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
That's the plan - that way people can make permanent links to "Whatever is the current version," and these will stay the same through all the versions. Walkerma 17:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/e/r/Wikipedia_talk%7EVersion_1.0_Editorial_Team_4589.html"

Static Wikipedia (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2007 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2006 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu

Static Wikipedia February 2008 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu