Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Archive 1

message: The table looks good, but it's a little complicated for me. Here are quick evaluations for B-I. Maurreen (talk) 08:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have held off inserting many of these assessments because the criteria used for assessment seem to be different from the criteria I used.  If the system I was using needs to be amended, we should discuss that here.  Alternatively, it may just mean re-adjusting.  Upon reflection I suspect we have similar assessments, just called different things; your A = my FA, your B = my A and your C = my B (this seems to be reinforced by the fact that 3 articles you assessed as B-class are featured articles). Is this a fair assessment of your assessments?  Cheers, Walkerma 15:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have put in some assessments into the table.  I have taken what I think is the "spirit" of Maurreen's assessments from above (see comments on grading above), and also looked over the articles myself.  I have done up to the end of D, and will continue as time allows, unless anyone objects. Walkerma 06:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: B-I

message: Not sure if this is the place to address this, but I have worked considerably on the topic of theatre. I've noticed drama is on this list, but generally this is regarded as the literary portion of theatre. At it stands now, :Category:Drama is a subcat of :Category:Theatre. My point being that drama should be replaced with theatre which includes the literature as well as the performance aspect. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 00:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional note, WikiProject Theatre covers drama. *Exeunt* Ganymead Dialogue? 00:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Ganymead! I support the switch.  Of course we would really like to have good articles on both drama and theatre!  We'll see what Maurreen thinks when she gets back. WVWPwatcher (Martin Walker) 17:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Drama and Theatre

message: Because the Food article is longer than the Cuisine article, I would replace cuisine with food.
Maurreen (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Food"

message: ;Stub class
*Publication
;Start class
*Personal life 
*Pet 
*Polular culture
*Proof theory
;B class
*Philosophy
*Physics 
*Plant 
*Poetry
*Politics
*Psychology
:Happy new year, all!
:Maurreen (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evaluating P's

message: *Radio - B Class
*Rail - dab page
*Recreation - Start Class
*Reference - Start Class
*Religion - Start Class
Maurreen (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "R" evaluations

message: I think the following need to get done over the next few months, if we are going to get to Wikipedia 0.5 before the end of the year:
# Finish off the assessments of the main core topics list (only a couple of hours work, I'd say).  
# Have a second person review the assessments to check them, and to amend them for changes made.
# IMHO, we will have to take on the task of widening our search to the next level of the hierarchy, which means looking at the lists of 1000.  These are linked from the core topics page as "articles XXX encyclopedia should have." The middle link, which takes you to Wikipedia:List of featured articles English Wikipedia should have, looks the most suitable to me, and has the advantage that the FAs have already been highlighted, so some of our work there is done! Feel free to choose an alternative, or maybe we could use all topics from all three lists?
# For core topic articles that are unusable in their current form, we need to (a) possibly find an article on a closely related topic that is the main source of info on Wikipedia for that topic, or (b) contact people who can work on specific articles to bring them up to scratch.  For example we might ask if Arithmetic could be a Wikipedia:Mathematics Collaboration of the Week.
# Coordinate activities with the other sub-projects, find out where the good quality non-core articles fit in with these core topics.
Can we all pick something to work on, and list it below, so we can coordinate things? I will offer to take on numbers 4 & 5, unless others feel strongly, though I will keep helping out with basic assessments as time allows also. Walkerma 04:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to work on No. 4. Maurreen (talk) 03:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm cool for 2. TastemyHouse Breathe, Breathe in the air  02:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jobs to be done 

message: Work links to a dab page. Is it referring to Manual labor? Gflores Talk 15:59, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think so, though in the 21st century career might be an alternative core topic. However both of these are painfully short.  I would try to improve them, but I can't be bothered (feeble joke). We'll have to review all of these stubs/starts soon, see #4 above. Thanks, Walkerma 16:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My original intention listing Work was to be roughly synonymous with employment for pay (such as career or occupation. But everything will work out one way or another. Maurreen (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Would employment work as an alternative?  That is at least a decent-length article. Walkerma 06:28, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Maurreen (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  work? 

message: Space is a dab page. By space are we referring to Outer space? --Ahmed 01:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I would say so. Walkerma 04:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  space? 

message: Any objection to changing Publication, a stub, to Publishing, at least start class?
And thanks and congratulations all on getting through the list on round one. Maurreen (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: publication?

message: Now we have some sense of what's out there, I think we need to reflect on which core topic stub/start articles need work, and which ones should be abandoned in favour of decent articles that cover the same ground, perhaps from a different perspective or at a slightly different level.  
For example, science can be broken apart into either applied science or pure science; however both of these articles are stubs, and indeed applied science has recently been made a redirect to research (why, I can't fathom - I posted an objection).  However an alternative way to cut up science is into physical science and biological science (the latter redirects to biology, appropriately). These articles are both quite long, so should we cut the pie that way and abandon applied science?  Also, technology covers some of the same ground. Walkerma 06:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Maurreen (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: OK. Maurreen (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good. Maurreen (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's not use spacetime; too narrow for this stage. I'm OK either way with outer space. Maurreen (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stub/start articles- start of the discussion on scope 

message: Do we still want to change Cuisine to Food? Maurreen (talk) 04:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Gflores Talk 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Aren't they two different things?  "Food" is nourishment, for all living beings, plant and animal.  "Cuisine" is a human cultural construct, consisting of the food choices of a particular group or culture.  Bruxism 03:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right about the difference, but the distinction is not important to us at this stage of this project. We're only focusing on about 150 articles right now; I expect later we might have both Cuisines and Food. Maurreen 03:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cuisine

message: Toy is a stub. Any comments either way? Maurreen (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep. I've expanded a bit, but there's a lot to be written. Gflores Talk 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Toy

message: On second thought, I'm thinking we could leave bus and truck until a later round. Thoughts? Maurreen (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transporation redux