Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5/Archive 1

message: Both schools are internationally known, both schools have some of the largest enrollments in the world, both are featured articles, both have encyclopedia like writing yet the University of Michigan article is selected for .5 and MSU is not? Want to explain that?? AStudent 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  University of Michigan but not Michigan State University? 

message: Dear fellow editors: I note that almost all of the articles cover very broad areas, and that WP's ability to produce high-quality articles on specific subjects is not highlighted in the selection. Tony 02:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, although a few articles may be included, depending on their quality, and others may be pushed back to other versions. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it depends a lot on how big V0.5 gets, which is hard to tell at the moment.  If it's 1000 articles, then many will be broad in order to be comprehensive.  If it's 5000 articles, we will have room for a lot of specific articles, and I hope we manage to do that.  But the specific articles will make it into both later versions and any more specialised selections that we may produce, like the proposed gazetteer. Walkerma 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK; but is the aim to be comprehensive? I'd have thought that the selection might purposefully include a fairly equal number of broad- and narrow-scope articles, if the aim is to promote WP as a high-class source of information. After all, many of the most hit-on sites are on relatively specific topics. Just a thought. Tony 05:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that is indeed the purpose for Version 1.0. This is just a test release, to see how things would work out, and that's why it is a bit narrow in scope. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Candidate articles very broad in scope 

message: Is there any way to make a button to show all? Chuck(척뉴넘) 03:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We haven't figured out a way it can be done without breaking everything... it's a MediaWiki issue. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 03:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Is there any way to view all accepted 0.5 articles in a list without click 50 'show's? Couldn't we make a subpage for that, if there isn't already? Chuck(척뉴넘) 04:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's :Category:Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Titoxd(?!? - help us) 04:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show all 

message: When we were setting this project up, I was thinking that we would have one template for each of the ten "top level" categories of WP:V0.5, instead of one () like we have now.  The thinking was that if we got 2000 articles, it would be a huge category, but if we put templates up like  or , we could have ten categories of 100-300 each, much more manageable.  It would be easy to know which template to put on, as one has to place the article in that same category on the page anyway.  This system would also give us the chance to look at statistics by broad subject area - so we could see differences in quality, for example. What do others think? Walkerma 06:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or just add a parameter to the existing template (e.g. ) to accomplish the same thing. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like an even better option!  Can you make the requisite change, Tito? Thanks! Walkerma 15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Done. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Instructions now available at Template:V0.5. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 00:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Tito, that's fantastic!  Walkerma 00:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category templates within V0.5 

message: I was very pleased to see that we now have a logo for the project!  Thanks to Essjay for getting that done!  I like the artistic element - the single jigsaw piece symbolising the idea of V0.5 being just a small piece of Wikipedia, and the start of something bigger.  Or maybe I got it wrong, art was never my forte!  Once concern I have, though, is that now we have a template that is three times the size it was before.  Do you think we could get an icon that is smaller, yet still has a readable 0.5?  I'm not good at such things myself.  Thanks, Walkerma 07:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we do need all three. The last one is the category within 0.5, the second one is the assessment category, and the first one is the fail-safe backup category, in case someone makes a typo and the other two are not initialized properly. It also serves as a real-time list of articles with the template. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  V0.5 template & icon 

message: Relatively minor point here, but I definitely think that Education (and sub-articles) need to be under the "Social sciences and society" category, rather than "Everyday life". I suppose the everyday life category could be subsumed within the social sciences and society one but, regardless, education needs to be put on the same hierarchy (for want of a better word) as politics, law, economics etc. Cormaggio @ 11:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I nominated Education and placed it in everyday life, and I don't mind this change at all.  We've discussed this before, and felt that education was difficult to place, but I think perhaps you're right - I'll move it. This point is not so minor - once we have 100 education articles we want them in the right place! Thanks Walkerma 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Education 

message: Just in case I go quiet for the rest of the week, I wanted to let people know that I will be heading out of town from Tuesday till Friday night, for a conference.  In fact it will include a meetup with another WP1.0 person, User:Sj.  I expect to check in here each day, but my contact may be sporadic. Walkerma 04:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Away 

message: Boris at WP:Chem has been experimenting with a template called Template:Maintenance, which is designed to deal with articles like glutamic acid that overlap several projects (in this case  WP:Chemicals, WP:Molecular and Cellular Biology and possibly WP:Drugs).  Although it will presumably have to be moved onto the talk page, I thought this idea was interesting and may be useful to people here, especially if we want to ask wikiprojects to use these templates. Walkerma 07:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite honestly, I can't see what the point is.  Why have a separate template for the categories if the regular project banners will still need to be on the talk page?  They could include the category code themselves quite easily (and could potentially allow for different rating by different projects, although it's not clear how we would deal with that).  Kirill Lokshin 10:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why have project banners at all? What's their real purpose? I had Template:Maintenance to mention the projects that work on the article. I was told that this was a form of self-reference, so i had to remove it. One simple template could  add the article to the appropriate class categories of the projects and mention those (at the very bottom) projects as well, with not too much screen space taken.Every rule has an exeption and the "self-reference" one should have its own - categorization of an article is clasified as "self-reference" but almost every article uses it, several times. And just because some people don't want to break it they have to add the talk pages to the categories, now how does that make sence? I, as an editor, preffer the "article" way - i have faster access to the categories and articles becasue i don't have to go through the talk pages each time, the readers wouldn't mind it either becasue its out of their way. -- Boris 17:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem comes when our mirrors reuse our content. Someone reading Hurricane Katrina on answers.com doesn't particularily care about the rating of the article or any other intra-Wikipedia information. By putting meta-data on the talk page, we do a favor to our mirrors. Titoxd(?!?) 18:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention the purely practical reasons.  Screen real estate on the talk pages is much cheaper, so  the tags (and associated categories) can be made as complex as needed without major complaint.  This definitely wouldn't be the case if they were on the article itself. Kirill Lokshin 18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Screen real estate"? Please explain what you are talking about. -- Boris 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The space the template takes up on the screen, in other words.  I suspect that if you made  any larger than it currently is (and it would need to be larger if we wanted to use it to replace WikiProject banners), you'd hear loud howls of protest as soon as you put it on any article that was at all prominent. Kirill Lokshin 20:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh-huh, which is exactly my point - we (all the projects) need a small simple template, whether is  or another one doesn't matter, that adds categorization and editorial functionality (or whatever you wanna call them), and doesn't take much screen space so it doesn't bother the readers. -- Boris 01:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which completely misses the point ;-)  It's only very recently that any categorization and editorial functionality has begun to be added to the project banners; their original (and still their primary) purpose is to advertise the WikiProjects in question!  Kirill Lokshin 01:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The mirrors don't display that info anyway, at least "answers.com" doesn't - SKF 2082958 on answers.com and SKF 2082958 on WP at the time when the info form the article was taken for the "mirror". As you can see the "chemistry stub" info is not displayed on the "mirror" at all, now if the mirror does not display that template then it will probobly not display  either, would it? So what's all this "wiki" noise about? Or am i missing something? -- Boris 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generic template 

message: I think it is better to make a good quality of Wikipedia in general. Wikipedia is always online, so why is this version needed? I have discussed about it with a friend of mine User: Radiant!. I think that Wikipedia need to be better organized. Maybe it is possible to create organizations within Wikipedia with a hierarchy, appointed tasks and deadlines, so editing will be teamwork instead of a chaotic free walhalla for editors.--Daanschr 07:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the people on Earth doesn't use internet. Wikipedia (in my opinion) is not just an online encyclopedia, but an encyclopedia. We have to reach people, we need a version that everybody can read, and they will see, we are much better than other encyclopedias. That's why we work on it now. NCurse work 09:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There are no on-line costs using a CD disk in the cd drive.  The wiki cd is potientally useful and free for many people who have a computer but who do not have an internet connection or who have got a slow pay-as-you-go internet connection.  The wiki licience permits the cd disk to be copied and shared.  Snowman 11:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this version? 

message: Hi fellow editors
I'm new to this project, so please forgive my ignorance. Is there a timeline for the stages of the project? Will there be an opportunity for final perusal and judgement of the candidate articles for the trial CD?
Tony 09:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First we create a Version 0.5, where we will see our fault, the complicated parts of the projects. Then we switch to Version 1.0. In these two stages, an article will be reviewed at least 3 times. And then, we can end up with the CD. Briefly, we work like that. :) Welcome in the team, and good work. We need contributors, so ask any time. :) NCurse work 09:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  timeline? 

message: There are over 1.2 million articles on Wikipedia, so it shouldn't be too tough to find a few to pick out and turn into good/featured articles...yet I can't quite find "just the right one." Any suggestions? I'm especially looking for things with lots of published resources that have a short/nonexistent WP article. Please leave some suggestions on my talk page...thanks! Paul 17:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a mention that it is UTC, also often seen in signatures on Wikipedia.  Thanks, Walkerma 02:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestions

message: This article is listed on the project page under the History section.  The images in the article have incorrect copyright tags, some claim the autor died over 100 years age, some use obsolete PD tags and other claim fair use with out rationale.  I have left a message on the article talk page advising that this issue exists, it needs to be addressed or lose GA status. Gnangarra 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[The Holocaust]] copyright problems 

message: I passed Publishing, but I'm not sure I did the template right. Maurreen 15:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now fixed. The class=B was right, but for the category you must use one of the ten "tree top" categories we voted on, see  for a list of them and their abbreviations. Thanks for helping with reviews, Walkerma 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Publishing]]