Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5 Nominations/Archive 1

message: Earlier discussion about this was at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team,  and . Maurreen 02:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical note

message: You might also want to include BozMo's list of 2,000 articles he used. But I don't have the link handy at the moment. Maurreen 02:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: or User:BozMo/version 1 list although I am intending to rebuild using a tag of  which perhaps cuts across and needs incorporating into this. Are you planning to have a list of section excludes like User:BozMo/tidy#Remove_Sections_.28updated_list.29and User:BozMo/tidy#Delete_sections:for the 0.5 version? I strongly recommend it as otherwise things get fragmented and the articles look messy. --BozMo talk 13:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for raising that.  I had looked at those pages before, but hadn't yet thought about including that in V0.5, but we should.  I see V0.5 as an adult version, but I think we will still want to clean up or omit some sections of some articles for a variety of reasons.  I think we should also make it "clean" enough for a teen audience, as high schoolers will be a major audience. Probably less critical when it is a test version full of disclaimers, but we should probably also test out our abilities at vetting articles.  Good idea. Thanks, Walkerma 15:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Eligible for nominations

message: Hi, a few thoughts, some minor:
#Some of these seem more or less developed than I would expect, or in comparison with other. For example, the music subcategories seem more detailed than those for art.
#I would think train-related items would only need one subcategory, instead of three.
#"Water transport" might be broader than "Maritime transport".
#The "Media" section, now under "Society", might be better split between "Arts" and "Language, Literature and Communication."
#I would take "tribunals" out of "Military camps, tribunals and facilities." If you want a section designated for tribunals, I would put them under "Legal issues and treaties."
#It might be worthwhile to broaden "Sports and games" to include recreation. 
#I would switch around "Engineering, applied sciences, and technology" so that "technology" is at the front. That is the word people are most likely to look for.
#"Cryptography" is broader than "Computing."
Maurreen 03:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The categories are a direct copy of the GA categories, so feel free to add any relevant ones. However, some of the points you bring up should be done at WP:GA so they can adjust accordingly too. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Listings categories

message: Couldn't this be done in collaboration with WP:GA since it has almost the same goal in mind. Lincher 19:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a bit of overlap with GA, but since the end result is not the same, GA is not entirely adequate for our purposes. GAs are seen as benchmarks of articles that need "a bit more", while in a static version, one does not have the priviledge of doing that. The articles that qualify for GA may not be adequate for the release, and since the same issue is true for FAs, it has to be a separate process. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We will be collaborating with GA somewhat, also with FA, but our goal is very different - it is to produce a CD of the most important articles on Wikipedia.  GA is not interested in making a CD, and is also not concerned about the importance of the topic, so many GAs will not be included in this release.  Do we need to clarify this more? Thanks, Walkerma 22:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it helps me understand this process. Since I'm working on bringing EB1911 incorporated articles to a better standard and would for sure be included in the CD, should I then nominate here instead of WP:GA? Lincher 15:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please nominate here, we should be accepting noms in a week or so (I think!).  Getting approved as GA simply gives it a tag that says "This is a GA," and nothing more happens (though I still think that is useful).  Getting it approved for V0.5 means (a) it will be included on a CD and/or paper release in the fall, and (b) it will be automatically nominated for future versions of the CD such as for Version 1.0 (c) it will in effect become part of the "canon" of "important articles on Wikipedia" (IMHO). Walkerma 15:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Same thing as [[WP:GA]]

message: The buttons are nifty. Good work. Maurreen 04:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buttons

message: My view is that we have covered all of the bases, and I think we're about ready to open this page up on Thursday (May 25).  Any objections to this?  Any problems?  We still have a few jobs to do like getting the "held nominations" page up, and there's a lot of work needed over at Core Topics so we can bring articles in from there, but none of these should (IMHO) prevent us from getting things started over here. Any comments?  Volunteers for article reviewing? Walkerma 03:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I modified the link of reviewers to point to WP:1.0's member list, but I'd like to know if it is a good idea to allow everyone in there to review articles. What do you think? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As things are written right now, the only requirement for reviewers is that they sign up as team members.  I'm wondering if maybe we need to get a separate reviewers page going, where people would specifically sign up to review for V0.5.  This is not because I think the team members couldn't do it, but simply:
* Many folks sign up for WP1.0 just because they're interested in some aspect of it, which may or may not include reviewing for WP0.5.  Conversely we may get people interested in reviewing  who may not want to sign up for the main team.
* I'd like to put in writing somewhere something along the lines of "If you only sign up to review one or two articles as a one-off favour for your friend who nominated them, we may treat your review as suspect.  We want people who are committed to the project as a whole."  However I need a more diplomatic way of saying that, because we need all the help we can get and I don't want people to get put off helping.  I think the vast majority of people signing up will do so for the right reason, even if they end up only reviewing one or two. 
* We may want a forum for people to discuss reviewing issues separate from the noms page, somewhere where people can say things like, "I found this problem in this article I'm reviewing, should this prevent it being accepted? Have other reviewers seen this kind of thing before?" Any thoughts? Walkerma 03:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the key thing is to emphasize the positive - which would be the main thrust anyway (thanks a lot for helping us!), and let folks fill in the blanks for themselves.  As for a location, how about Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Reviewers or Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Review Team? Walkerma 04:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening up to accept nominations 

message: Do you think these would be better in alphabetical order? Maurreen 04:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I kinda like it as is. Math, Technology, and Science are together, Arts, Language, and Philosophy are together, and Society, Geography, and History are together. Nifboy 06:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomination categories

message: "...and a little more action, please". I've submitted the first review for inclusion into a static version, so this process has now started. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the above, I went ahead and nominated all the VAs that were also FAs. Nifboy 06:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added Canada, also VA/FA. -- Samir   धर्म 03:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Agreed. That said, some of them are currently on FARC; I'd like someone to pass an article before we start failing others. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: And, of course, I screw up and forget to mark the talk pages appropriately. Oops. Nifboy 22:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Out of curiosity, is it intended that  link to a nomination subpage?  The instructions for that were removed from the process. Kirill Lokshin 12:28, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting that!  Yes, we abandoned that for V0.5, though I think we are planning on having  separate nomination pages for V1.0.  I simply deleted it - but if there is a useful link we can put in its place, then that should be added in.  I think it'll work OK as it is, though. Walkerma 12:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[A Little Less Conversation]]... 

message: It says, "We are looking to include the following in this test release:", and then lists Core Topics, Continents and etc.., and Vital Articles. Do these articles have automatic inclusion. If so, do we really need them here at the noms page. It just seems like based on the criteria, Vital Articles get in right away. And as a side-note (as mentioned before), a forum to ask other reviewers questions would be a good idea. Chuck(척뉴넘) 03:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because there are two criteria: importance and quality. A core topic that's just simply bad won't be included, so we want to make sure we do review everything. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, that's what I thought. Another quick question. If something's already VA and FA, doesn't it already pass the imprortance and quality? So are those good (all the ones that Nifboy added). Thanks for the help, I want to get started on reviewing the articles. Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not really. Some FAs may be in the process of FARCing, and should be failed on quality if they are indeed bad, after an editor's review. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, cool...thanks. Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say that you should point that out on the talk page first, and if no one objects, ask back here. Lack of inline citations is not a FARCing reason, so it may be still considered high quality. Inline citations are a fairly new development... I don't know, what does everyone else think? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tito here - inline refs are to be preferred, but shouldn't be a requirement.  I notice that our WP1.0 sister project (FA's First) did one of their extensive FA reviews in November and concluded that it was a good FA, I would go with that (assuming the article hasn't declined since then).  As for notability, I'm not very knowledgable about art, but I have heard of this artist as one of the top Spanish artists.  I don't consider him to be in the top ten, but he is probably in the top fifty - is that high enough?  I'd probably support inclusion, because I'm pretty optimistic that we'll get 0.5 big enough to include a lot more than ten artists. What do others think? Walkerma 06:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviewing 

message: This project seems very similar to Wikipedia:Vital articles in several ways, just more new and less polished in its inclusion scope. Perhaps those pages could be useful for this endeavor, considering that it deals with establishing "core topics" similar to the core topic list, but has a much more expansive and consistent listing, and is also accompanied by FA/GA denotations so you can easily identify topics that are both high-quality and extremely noteworthy. -Silence 23:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we are drawing heavily on the lists from WP:VA (as well as WP:CORE and the supplement), take a look at the nomination comments!  However, we want to review every article ourselves, and I expect the scope to be broader than WP:VA.  We really appreciate the work you guys have done over there at WP:VA, it is a great help! Walkerma 02:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:VA]]