Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5

message: Pardon my naivete, but what exactly is V0.5?--Josh Rocchio 19:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We would like to publish Wikipedia's best articles. To create a CD or DVD with our best works. Now we're making a Version 0.5 where we can find out our faults, the hardest parts of the nomination procedures in order to get ready for Version 1.0 which could be released on CD. Let's join! :) NCurse work 20:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahhh, publish where, exactly? Thanks for the quick reply!--Josh Rocchio 21:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe on CD. But our goal is to creat a stable version of the best works. It is not defined exactly, where to publish. NCurse work 21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Finding a publisher for V0.5 won't be hard, it will just be a single CD containing the most important quality articles on Wikipedia.  The Germans found that their DVD release went straight to #1 last year on amazon.de, so I think publishers will be glad to work with us!   A test CD has already been released in English by a kids' charity, and they are advising us here.  As for the longer term, a new Static content subcommittee is being assembled at Meta right now, in order to help organise these things across different language groups.  Walkerma 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just out of interest, isn't a hard and therefore uneditable version of Wikipedia an idea that runs counter to the philosophy of Wikipedia? The free encyclopedia anyone can add to?124.178.83.120 09:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A central part of the philosophy of Wikipedia is to disseminate knowledge to the world - not just people with a broadband internet connection.  This CD (which is going to be manufactured in the next few days, by the way), and those that follow, will give help a lot more people have access to Wikipedia, many people who couldn't otherwise be reached.  These are just snapshots of the online Wikipedia - and they don't interfere in any way with people being able to edit the online version.  Free access to knowledge is the main purpose here, and the wiki is just a means to that end.  Walkerma 15:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

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

message: Why are Kerala and Krakatoa listed under Europe?  They are both in Asia.  --Ideogram 06:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit of continental drift perhaps?  Now fixed, thanks, Walkerma 06:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kerala and Krakatoa in Europe? 

message: We have a miscellaneous category on the talk page. I passed the article Space exploration, and I couldn't find a place to put it. I put it under engineering. Should there be a separate miscellaneous section?
The misc section on nominations is mainly needed because many people nominating will not be familiar with the layout - but the people assigning sections at V0.5 are reviewers who are more familiar with things.  I think you made the right choice for now, but at some point we should probably create an appropriate section for space-related articles like that.  One trick - if it's a GA, see where it is located there.  Since we stole our layout from them, you should be able to put it in the same place!  Thanks, Walkerma 03:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Miscellaneous" category 

message: I'm just curious. Maybe we should close recent nominations first before nominate new ones. NCurse work 17:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many days left? 

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

message: Well, I would quite like to dispute the quality of an article which has already been selected, The Giver, if I could figger out where and how. It's a FA, but I've just put it on WP:FAR for review. Bishonen | talk 18:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. We will have a look at it after the FAR. We refresh FA articles in Wikipedia:Version 0.5 FA Review, so we will see it at the end of version 0.5. NCurse work 18:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Mmm, why not let the FAR run its course first, rather than spreading discussion on the article's qualities (or lack thereof) over multiple pages? Kirill Lokshin 18:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since this idea keeps coming up, is anyone opposed to having a page for disputes? Maurreen 19:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Kirill Lokshin, I wasn't trying to spread the discussion, that's why I didn't mention what problems I see with The Giver. Bringing it here after the FAR is what I had in mind. It does seem like it would be convenient to have a disputes page for things like that. Meanwhile, perhaps people who frequent this page here might like to join in over at FAR, since the article is one of "yours"? Bishonen | talk 20:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A disputes page is much needed, can someone set one up?  I'm pretty busy right now, and I also still need to set up the Core Topics review page I promised? Thanks, Walkerma 04:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

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

text: Don't say that! I started to use it with 3 articles. :) NCurse work 16:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputes page again

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

message: #Architecture
#Bible
#Dance
#Ernest Hemingway - GA - Maurreen 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Humanities

message: #Science or Natural science
:Nominated Science... NCurse  work 11:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nominated both... NCurse  work 11:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nominated both... NCurse  work 11:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for nominating those. Maurreen 21:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing natural science and technology

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

message: This is a rough list. It does not include geography or places.
;Art, 3
Leonardo Da Vinci | Michelangelo | Frank Lloyd Wright
;Business and economics, 2
Employment | Finance
;Education, 5
Caltech | Cambridge University | MIT | Ivy League | Oxford University
;History, at least 4
Probably several people | Non-Western history or separate articles for different regions or continents | Ancient history or Ancient world | Middle Ages | Modern history 
;Literature, 1 
Fiction or Novel
;Media, 4
Broadcasting | Charlie Chaplin | Alfred Hitchcock | Laurence Olivier
;Music, 3
Beethoven | Elvis Presley | Mozart 
;Philosophy, 3
Ethics | Plato | Socrates
;Politics and government
Probably several people, etc.
:Maurreen 16:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great though both of these are, we have Queen I suggest we hold them over for nomination in V0.7 - neither are FAs or top 1000 topics, and officially nominations have closed. Walkerma 04:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing midlevel items

message: What is the date of deadline? What if we reach it? What will happen then? NCurse  work 15:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please comment in the above discussion at #Realignment period!  I was hoping more people would comment!  I'm expecting that we will close general outsiders' nomination on August 31 as planned, but once we close nominations we will keep reviewing until we are finished.  We mainly need to decide what other things we need to nominate/review, and come up with a deadline for finishing the reviews.  I'd like people to finish the FA reviews they signed up for by August 31 if they can so we have that out of the way. Walkerma 17:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If we would get onto it, we could finish FA reviews in some days. Anyway, we should appoint "topic-leaders" who would be responsible for a specific topic. They should list all articles that are still missing in their field in a subpage. I think this is the best way not to leave anything important  article out. NCurse  work 19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good suggestion!  We could ask people to comment on the fields they picked for FA review, perhaps.  We should use Maurreen's above list as a starting point.  Once I finish with exams (one tomorrow and another Thursday, then the marking) I can set up such a page if there are no objections. Walkerma 03:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like us to aim to finish reviews by September 30 if possible. Anyone disagree?  Walkerma 20:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadline? 

message: Technicality: are 0.5 and 1.0 going to be processed by a bot that unlinks wikilinks to articles not included in the release? RickP 06:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always wondered about that. :) Walkerma will reply... And what about images? What about main articles in the sections? External links? NCurse  work 07:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have noticed that some pages in ver 0.5 retains the phrase see this page, but it is a red link and only the red link marking is removed leaving rather meaningless phrase without a link.  Usually the page can be rewitten to encluce the linked page in a sentence which makes sense.  Some times there is a whole section called See also and there is a whole list of unlinked redlinks, which can be a bit irritating. Snowman 10:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll be using User:BozMo's scripts from the SOS CD, this removes redlinks and "See also" sections.  We are also now in touch with the Polish 1.0 people, so we'll take a look at their code as well.  We should probably get a group of people started on this in the next couple of weeks. Fancy helping us? Walkerma 04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red links in release versions? 

message: Why does the template show nothing as assessed for importance? If it is being done, why can't I find a link to where it is taking place so that I can help? — User:ACupOfCoffee@ 02:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Currently we are not using the importance template, it doesn't really help us. Also, determining importance can cause upset to some people who have their article classed as "unimportant".  In practice, you can regard anything in Core Topics or any country as "Top-Importance", then after that it's up for debate - but let's not spend time debating!  Cheers, Walkerma 05:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance 

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

message: Here's a concern that depends on how you organize the CD.  Joan of Arc appears on your project page under military biographies.  She's certainly that, yet she's also a canonized saint (and a very popular one).  It's taken careful editing to balance different aspects of her fame for the article.  Would it be possible to cross-reference her?  If you develop a general biography heading that might be still better. Durova 04:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of cases like this - is Benjamin Franklin a politician, a figure from history, or a prominent scientist? (He's all 3).  Like with books in a library, we can only put the article in one place in our list - and it tends to go where the nominator put it.  But for the CD I hope we will be able to put things in multiple categories, as in the online Wikipedia, e.g. Biographies of French people, saints, military figures. Incidentally, I have put in a request for saint nominations, but had no response so far.  Thanks, Walkerma 05:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categorization

message: Since  is generally used as a secondary assessment, at best—in other words, there is almost always at least one WikiProject template with an assessment already on the talk page when the 0.5 template is added—I thought it might be neater to try and condense this template somewhat.  Hence, my edit here; any comments would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin 04:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as the project assessments spread across Wikipedia, we don't need the prominent A-Class or whatever like we used to.  I like the change, I'm a believer in keeping templates reasonably small.  While we're on the subject, I blundered my way through the creation of a template called , now being tested at Talk:Samarium (my favourite element!).  Since all the elements of significance are in Version 0.5, I proposed to the Elements WikiProject (which had no template) that I combine the two, they seemed OK with that (though only the main person there replied).  You'll notice, Kirill, that the V0.5 part is even less prominent!  Let me know if you see any obvious bugs, I'm a bit like The Sorcerer's Apprentice when writing templates.  I wanted to test out the idea of us moving towards combined templates - I think once we have a lot of articles assessed we might be able to set up a scheme where we simply include the version # in a project template to generate our Version X.X lists. Walkerma 04:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{tl|V0.5}} 

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

message: I'd like to suggest that the release might have two main sections: the "cyclopedia" and a "showcase." The cyclopedia would have more balance; the showcase could be considered extra. This setup could reduce the potential for complaints that the release has x but not y. Maurreen 17:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good!  Things are still rather fluid right now, and I expect that the two will be quite well joined, but it's a nice approach. Walkerma 02:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 main sections

message: I have set up a page called Wikipedia:Version 0.5/To do, which lists the outstanding tasks.  We have about four weeks to try and get through various lists - we can do most of this if each reviewer can take on about 40 articles, or 10 a week.  If you review sets of similar articles together it can often go quite quickly - up to 10/hour.  I don't think we'll get through every article on every list - but let's try to do what we can.  The good news - after Sept 30, all reviewers can take a well-deserved break for a while.  Please sign up on the new page for something, to help us through this final review stage! Thanks, Walkerma
I'm going though important articles for the rest of the night. I would try to add as many as possible. Jaranda wat's sup 22:34, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviewers please sign up! 

message: Following Walkerma's suggestion on the "to do" page, I've created a review page for the core biographies. The review process will be similar to FA review. I haven't yet checked to see which of the 200 are already nominees or have already passed, so I guess that's the first step. -- bcasterline • talk 04:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot!  Please sign up to help review - most of those names are "must-haves" for any encyclopedia. Walkerma 04:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core biographies 

message: I'd like to approve Nature, but all the categories are too narrow. Thoughts? Maurreen 00:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Geography and places"? "Unclassified Places" is pretty vague -- although nature isn't really comparable to Antarctica, the other article under that heading. -- bcasterline • talk 00:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe for now we just need an extra section on the page called "Miscellaneous," as there will be other core topics like this.  I think our plan for the actual release was to use something similar to the categories found on the nominations page, as these match with the template categories, by which Nature would go under category=Natsci (Natural sciences) in the template.  The list as it is now is based on Silence's test, which no one found time to switch back. Walkerma 00:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now created a Miscellaneous section for these types of things.  It'll be small, but this isn't the first time we've had this problem. Walkerma 01:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nature

message: Is it just me and firefox or is FFVII listed twice?
Also,
Video games are popular pages, but they have no need here. People that end up grabbing a CD of wikipedia don't buy it for video game knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.146.146 (talk • contribs) 
:You're right, it got double-listed in the "recent additions", but that's not critical.  I think it was chosen because we have a set of featured articles (FAs) on the Final Fantasy series, and we are trying to showcase a lot of our FAs.  OK, it's not traditional encyclopedia stuff, but it may appeal to some readers.  Don't worry, we're trying to cover the basic stuff as best we can, these articles could be seen as a bonus read.  Walkerma 01:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it legal for WP CDs to be sold? If the CD is sold they'd care about having game stuff, but if it's free they shouldn't mind. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (T | C | @) 04:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I understand, there is nothing in GFDL to stop someone selling copies of the CD, as long as they acknowledge Wikipedia as the source.  We plan to make the Version 0.5 collection available for free download, with production/distribution on CD for more-or-less cost by a publisher; the Foundation itself is not in the business of publishing or of turning a profit.  It will be made clear in the CD description that the collection is made up of a core of important topics, with an emphasis on Geography, but with perhaps 500 articles (out of the expected 1900 or so) on less important topics, used to showcase some of our FAs.  Walkerma 05:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Fantasy VII?? 

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

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

message: Common Unix Printing System have been put on FAR, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Common Unix Printing System →AzaToth 10:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, we might need to delist that if the review finds serious flaws. Walkerma 02:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Common Unix Printing System]] on FAR 

message: Why aren't Demosthenes & Leonardo da Vinci in the Historical figures subsection? Also, the Food and drink section could be Goods which would be able to include such topic as shoe polish in a subsection called Household objects or something like it. Lincher 21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to make those changes, unless anyone objects.  I found Leonardo very hard to place - he deserves to sit alongside painters such as Michelangelo, and also alongside scientists/inventors like Galileo.  We need to be able to put him in at least three categories in version 0.5. Walkerma 02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the misc section a bit useless by itself. If it was as populated as the other sections then fine but it is not. I agree that LDV should be in three sections but the first thing he is known for is painting, as he started painting before everything, the rest came with it. Lincher 02:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it can be very valuable as a holding place, and for that reason it should be small, and should disappear in the finished Version 0.5, though.  People usually move things out as you're doing.  It's 3am and you're tired, you've just reviewed 19 articles (as I did tonight), you think, "Where the heck does this go," you can stick it in Misc.  Interesting your comment on LDV, I watched a program on public TV recently - he is best known for painting, but back then (roughly speaking) artist = artisan = engineer.  He studied anatomy, how to build things, mathematics and painting, because those were things artists were expected to know.  It seems there has been a resurgence of interest in LDV's machines, and I can even see a time when he becomes more known for that.  That's all academic, though, and I'd be happy to see him under Painters or Historical Figures.  Thanks a lot, Walkerma 05:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know what reviewing is all about, I lend a hand with it at GA and it is a hassle because they are all of different level. If you ever need me for help on some reviewing, just pop by my user page or send articles to review in GAC and I will gladly review them. Lincher 14:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of the misc section idea 

message: At last it looks as if we are reaching the end of reviewing, and we have a pretty good collection of articles.  Assuming that we finish Core Topics (very likely), I'd like to propose we end the reviewing process at the end of next Saturday (November 11th).  If we haven't reviewed every FA and GA by then it's not a problem IMHO - we have a good core of important topics covered, and we should now start focussing on producing the final product.  After our IRC discussion earlier tonight, we have a possible publisher willing to release Version 0.5, although we need to sort out details of an agreement before we can be sure.  I think we need to start working on getting the articles and pictures organised and formatted properly, and running scripts for obvious vandalism, gratuitous bad language, cleanup tags etc. It would be nice to get the CD produced in time for (fairly late?) Christmas shoppers, say by the end of November, even if it is just a test! Does this seem reasonable?  Walkerma 04:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for not being able to go to the meeting earlier today, but I was away from my computer at the time. I think that is very reasonable, and hopefully the publisher (whoever that is!) will tell us what is needed. Titoxd(?!?) 04:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, this is great. It seems like there has been very little progress on V0.5 for the past month. I wasn't there for the later part of the meeting; what is the publisher? Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 05:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, we've had much more progress in the last month than we had in September! Partly thanks to you, Eyu!  Still, we are almost there.  I've emailed you the log and info on the publisher - we'll make the publisher info public once we have formalized the agreement. Cheers, Walkerma 07:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  End of reviewing 

message: Having noticed that Cryptography has been chosen for v 0.5 (for which I thank those involved on behalf of we in the WP crypto corner), I have finally realized it's been misclassified under the wrong heading. Cryptograpy is a branch of engineering (see cryptosystem and cryptographic engineering) not a branch of mathematics. It's methods are indeed mathematical in many respects, and its uses mathematical results (eg, in re randomness) heavily. But it is a practical enterprise, and with G H Hardy's view ringing in my head, I must suggest that it be moved to a more appropriate heading. ww 09:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've moved it into the Engineering category.  Thanks for the clarification! Walkerma 05:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: a missclassification

message: Thanks, folks, for all this work. The biglist I got from Eyu weighs in at 1494 articles - but I think a build script should pull directly from the category. Perhaps User:Titoxd could come up with a one-liner for us ? Regarding a reader - what would this be ? A Windows executable ? What about Mac or Linux ? I still think a javascript search is the way to go. Wizzy…☎ 07:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we still are trying to double-check it... you can see that discussion here. Titoxd(?!?) 16:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That sounds like an out-of-date list, the total should be around 1960 articles.  User:Kelson (French Wikipedia) is evaluating an offline reader for us, it includes a search capability.  He should be able to let us know tomorrow how it went.  See the ToDo list, please add/update that page as you make progress.  Must get to lab. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The thing is, the elements are not included in this listing, nor the countries... I've added the countries, but I'm running out of time to do the elements. :( Titoxd(?!?) 17:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'll add them tonight.  Walkerma 21:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CD assembly, reader 

message: I am sure that you can find an astronomy icon with a better copyright than the one used with a "fair use" on this flagship page. Snowman 14:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting that!  We are checking for this problem in articles with a script in the next few days, but might have missed that icon.  I've changed it to a very basic PD icon.  Thanks, Walkerma 16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The new basic astronomy icon looks fine, to me.  The icons for "Archaeology" and "Military and war" are the only two photographic icons remaining and look out of place, to me.  Would it look better if all the icons were of a basic type to keep consistency throughout the page?  Incidentally, I would be interested to know what PD stands for. Snowman 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry - PD is "Public Domain".  I think the photos you mention are at least "icon-like" - the nuclear mushroom cloud may be photographic but it is also iconic of war, likewise the pyramids.  At the same time, I agree that simple is best for such things.  If you can locate better examples, please feel free to change them over - thanks! Walkerma 19:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, the 2 remaining photographic images seem so small it is not possible to see what they are without clicking on them. Might as well just click on a smudge. They are square and do not resemble the others and so I feel that they look out of place. I am giving small details some attention, because it is a key page that will be viewed many times. Unfortunately, at this point in time I am not sure how to seek out alternative simple public domain images on the wiki. Snowman 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll try to hunt something down when I get time.  My main priority now is getting the sub-pages written (the ones that come off this) - these will be less seen, but at present 4-5 of them haven't been written, and the publishers need them in the next few days!  Cheers, Walkerma 00:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed them to the best icons I could find. Snowman 18:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot!  They look fine to me. Walkerma 19:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Astonomy icon 

message: I've stolen the design. Hope you don't mind :) JACOPLANE • 2007-01-5 05:06
:Not at all - I stole the design from here!  Good luck with that page. Walkerma 06:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design 

message: With some html4 it would be possible to make it possible to click on the icons to go to the pages.  As far as I know this is not possible in wiki mark up. Snowman 11:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can be done with , but since this means you can't get to the image description page (and for other technical reasons) it is only done on a few pages (the main page, for example.) --Cherry blossom tree 13:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the wiki could provide a few dozen (or up to one hundred) navigation icons and show an approved list of icons on a Wiki navigation icon page.  These icons would be carefully selected for being universally recognizable and not too bulky for the wiki servers or the WPCD.  This might establish a broader role of "click" with these approved navigation icons to improve the presentation of key main pages and many other pages.  All the image descriptions and histories of these icons would be accessible from the Wiki Navigation icon page if anyone wanted to read about the history of clipart or simple icon. Can anyone advise if the wiki will have to overcome any technical issues to do this?  Perhaps it is something for the next mediawiki upgrade.  Although, not on the wiki as the present time, navigation icons appears to be a standard feature of many web pages now. Snowman 14:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea!  Let's see if Tito will comment on this issue.  I don't think they like people using click, though, because I think it's a sort of "cheat" on the software that may cause technical problems if widely used.  I'm not very knowledgable on this stuff, though. Thanks, Walkerma 15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Click on the template here --> and you'll see the technical issues people seem to have. JoeSmack Talk 17:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wiki page says that navigation icons give problems with Safari, in text-only browsers, and in screen readers for the disabled, and possibly other situations.  This could be overcome by a page code (java script or html4) that tests the type of browser prior to rendering a page that contains a navigation icon, so that a text alternative is automatically presented in certain situations.  I guess that all pages with icons on them would need this special code.  After some pilot tests I think that all this could be done automatically for a list of approved wiki navigation icons. Snowman 18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Um, which pages? On the CD, or here in Wikipedia? Titoxd(?!?) 01:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clickable icons

message: Perhaps browser identification and automatic rendering would not satisfy all the rules and it is a bit complex.  However, would it be easier to have some wiki approved icons that also have the text on them, or ones where the editor can write some text on them and choose an icon.  The clickable area would be combined text and clipart.  Perhaps a bit like a user box (various sizes to choose from), but where the entire box is clickable. Would that be acceptable?  Snowman 19:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made a suggestion about this on the Wiki Village Pump. Snowman 14:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I didn't reply before, I wanted to ponder it before replying, then got distracted.  But in general I think it's a great idea. Walkerma 14:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A new sort of icon

message: Link 5 "Society and social sciences" in contents box does not work. Snowman 19:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has fixed it. Snowman 09:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Society and social sciences 

message: *It is not clear what the timetable is for test release from this page?
*When is it going to be downloadable. Snowman 09:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to help get and seed the release 0.5, how can I be among the first (or second) group of seeders?  --x1987x(talk) 20:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been meaning to post something on the main 1.0 team page, but I was waiting for some firm news.  The serious scripts have been written, but some work still needs to be done.  The most serious delay, though, is waiting for lawyers to go through contracts, etc.  I'd guess some time in February, but I can't be sure - it might be next week, or it may be March.  It won't be available for download until the at least after the CD is ready.  The good news is that the offline reader software is basically ready - they are just cleaning up the presentation at this point - and the navigation pages were done over a week ago.  Also, we have made plans for the start of seeding for BitTorrent downloads, please sign up with the Torrent project to help, they need all the seeders they can get.  When I know some firm information I'll be sure to post something very soon afterwards. Walkerma 04:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is getting towards the end of March now, a news update would be useful on the realease. Snowman 10:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information 

message: All "beliefs" do not belong under "religion and beliefs"; only religious (including spiritual, mystical, supernatural, etc.) beliefs belong there. Philosophical, political, scientific, etc. beliefs do not belong in such a section. Therefore "Religion and beliefs" should clearly be simplified to "Religion". This same change was instituted in WP:FA some time ago, but somehow this page hasn't kept up with the times. -Silence 04:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've changed it.  I still think things like Spring Heeled Jack are beliefs but not part of a religion, but I trust your judgement (and the judgement at WP:FA) on these things!  Cheers, Walkerma 07:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think they're not a part of religion, then instead of "Religion and beliefs", replace "Beliefs" with something more specific and descriptive, like "Mythology" or "Folklore". The problem isn't so much with the "Religion and X" format (though ideally, the shorter the title the better) as it is with the vagueness and inaccuracy of just using "Belief" here. -Silence 15:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's OK - as you say, shorter is better, and people know that not every article will be a perfect match. Thanks, Walkerma 17:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unacceptable section title: "Religion and beliefs" 

message: Why isn't there anything on rock and roll on there? Richardkselby 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have Elvis, but he's about the only representative of traditional rock and roll.  If you use a wider definition, we have Springsteen, Queen, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc.  Sure, we could use some more - could you suggest some suitable articles at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations and we'll take a look at them once Version 0.5 has come out (in a week or two?). Thanks, Walkerma 04:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rock and roll

message: Ver. 0.5 is done with.  An article I work on a lot bears a WPCD and V0.5 banner.  What happens from here? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All articles in Version 0.5 are automatically included in Version 0.7, and (we expect) in later releases too.  Tito's new template will make that clear, and should remove any ambiguity such as you have found. Walkerma 04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I remain confusticated.  Should I fiddle with the templates to say that the article is in 0.7, then?  And is that the same as "Release Version"?  I suppose I'm highlighting a general sense that the entire issue and process is confusing from a non-insider POV, and I'm a pretty "serious Wikipedian", so if I'm confused, I imagine newer users are totally lost with regard to this topic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 05:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The new template should do that for you. (Part of the reason behind the new template is to get rid of the massive proliferation of WP1.0-related templates that was occurring recently.) As for the Release Version category, to be honest, I've no clue, and I've been actually working of the inside of this project... go figure. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 05:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: So now what?

message: So.... A Kakapo is a mammal now is it? Sabine's Sunbird  talk 23:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On this release, unfortunately it is - the CDs were made last week!  We've fixed the problem for the next version, at least.  Thanks! Walkerma 03:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kakapo 

message: Question: Does the Version 0.5 identify which version of each article was taken?  And does each wikipedia article identify the past version that was put into Version 0.5? Remember 16:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as yet.  Most of the dump was made in early January.  It's an excellent idea, though, I'll see if the people who wrote the dump scripts can do this.  I wonder if we could have a bot add some metadata into the WP1.0 template (that's being rewritten) to record this for posterity.  This is the type of reason we made this a test release- we can get such things done in time for the full release.  Thanks a lot! Walkerma 03:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identifying the right version 

message: Not sure where to announce this, but the link to wikimedia foundation is broke as someone typed in .oorg. Thanks — Jack · talk · 13:22, Sunday, 15 April 2007
:Thanks, I'll try and get that fixed.  The whole website was down yesterday, and that was our main concern!  It's now back up. Walkerma 14:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typo at http://wikipediaondvd.com/ 

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

message: While I personally may not agree with Creationism, placing it under "Myths" is bound to stir controversy.  A not-insignificant percentage of the U.S. population (as well as a decent percentage of world population,) believe that Creationism is true historical fact.  Listing it as "Myth" is laced with difficulties.  If we have a "Religious beliefs" section, that would be more appropriate.  (List all beliefs there that the scientific/skeptical community may regard as "myth", but a given religion may regard as fact.)  71.59.215.197 17:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a Christian myself, I certainly understand your point.  I think the reasoning is that we are using the more traditional meaning of the word myth (see Myth) as "a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form."  The idea of the myth as false is a modern, additional meaning, and I agree that it could stir up feelings.  Version 0.5 is already released, but probably the best thing for the future will be to break this topic away into a separate subsection, away from Roman mythology etc. And we have to be careful not to stir up animosity from atheists, too!   Thanks, Walkerma 17:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that's why I suggested "religious beliefs" or some such.  For example, I Don't believe in "creationism" at all, but I still don't think it belongs under "myths" because of the more common usage of the word as 'false story'.  Ehurtley 19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creationism under "Myths"? 

message: Is there a way to see, for a article that was included in the V0.5 cd, what version was used? Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 10:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is not possible. The articles were mirrored during january 2007. IMHO, in the future, we will be able to work with article specific versions. Best regards Kelson 12:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which version was used? 

message: With the distribution of the files on torrent and various sites, questions are starting to come up about how the files are used. Searching through everything here, the best answer I can come up with it to download KiwiX and use it. It took jumping through four or five pages here, two or three google searches and multiple sites to get that much information. A simple section on how the files are installed and used as well as what other software is either needed or suggested would be very helpful. The CD may have all the needed set-up, but apparently the torrent/website copies don't (or are just not foolproof in explaining they do - I didn't download it to check, I'm just asked the questions). Creol (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Installation and use 

message: Caesar cipher has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article review of Caesar cipher

message: Iowa class battleship has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iowa class battleship FAR 

message: It seems to me that the  project page needs to be updated to make it much clearer as to how to purchase or download the CD. It seems to have been written for experenced users only who would have not trouble following the embedded links. Even when you get to the main page http://wikipediaondvd.com/ the link is very misleading: "English -The Free Encyclopedia - 1988 + articles" A very strange way to link to a purchase site for the CD. The next page http://wikipediaondvd.com/site.php could also use some work.  The download link should be clearly marked as "free download" The layout is a bit strange as well with the top menu bar missing the download tab and the left side links missing the purchase link. Dbiel (Talk) 06:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry. That page is now very simple: "The web server software is running but no content has been added, yet." Why is that domain name and this article still wasting space, when version 0.5 no longer exists? David Spector (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to obtain the CD 

message: Just wondering, because I already have. Sorry; the list was very inaccurate at parts. You know, under "musical instruments", the only article listed was "Guqin"? Tezkag72 01:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The selection was made during 2006, and the list shows what was published on the CD in April 2007.  I've added an archive template to clarify that.  I'm aware that the musical instruments area was one of the glaring omissions from the selection, but the CD was mainly a "proof of concept".  The release we are currently preparing for publication, version 0.7, had the final selection made in October 2008, and that contains (for example) at minimum these 74 articles on instruments, and these on fish; I hope these are OK by you!  If you want to help with the review process for Version 0.8, please take a look at WP:1.0 and let me know.  Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I add articles myself? 

message: Hi, there is a VO.5 template on Talk:Montevideo assessing it as class=C. The article had a major uphaul recently and I think it is a B class by now trying to go further up. Can you please reassess? Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 16:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montevideo reassessment 

message: A GA review of Three Laws of Robotics is taking place and has been put on hold for an initial seven days to allow work to take place to address concerns mainly around referencing and original research. SilkTork *YES! 23:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Talk:Three Laws of Robotics/GA1]]

message: This is to inform the members of this Wikiproject, within the scope of which this article falls, that this article has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNU/Linux naming controversy. - Ahunt (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Notification of nomination for deletion of [[GNU/Linux naming controversy]]

message: Please comment on a requested move to change numerous article titles which contain Dr. King's name. Randy Kryn 11:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move proposal, Martin Luther King, Jr.

message: and its subcategories have been listed for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 12#Category:Wikipedia Version 0.5. Any comments are welcome. ℯxplicit 00:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Version 0.5 categories nominated for deletion 

message: Hi, Is there a wiki 0.6? Stalin Sunny Talk2Me 18:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  iS this Project Dead?

message: this RfC may be of interet to the members of this project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC of interest

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 

message: You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:J. K. Rowling § Splitting off list of awards.  Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion at [[:Talk:J. K. Rowling#Splitting off list of awards|Talk:J. K. Rowling §&nbsp;Splitting off list of awards]]

message: PRONO VIDIO  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.89.155 (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  PRONO VIDIO