Wikipedia talk:Release Version

message: I have just noticed that the page "leet" is in both the "language and litriture" section and the "Engineering, applied sciences, and technology" section. Is this allowed or should a redirect page be put in for one of these places instead?
Chrizlax 90.242.27.16 19:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Leet

message: Does anyone mind if I change the layout of the articles here?  The layout we got stuck with at Version 0.5 was an experiment by one person (not a reviewer), and I hated it but never got around to fixing it (it would've been a lot of work moving several hundred articles around!).  I'd prefer to have a format like we started with at Version 0.5 (after a few bugs were fixed), see this version for an example.  The original layout matches with the categories we use with the template, making it much easier to place an article after reviewing it.  Also, these categories are the ones we agreed upon as our top-level categories for all 1.0 related projects (including WP:WVWP, etc.). Walkerma 06:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that if we can see the top-level layer/categories faster then go for it but IMO both are good. Hope you don't burn yourself by trying overwhelming tasks such as this one. Lincher 13:43, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NOTE: This switch was done during January 2007. Walkerma 03:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Layout

message: Is it me or am I seeing 1959 as the article count for now which is lower than the actual count of the 0.5 release. This is not normal as the articles were "transcluded" from one version to the other plus we already made addition????? Lincher 18:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably haven't moved everything over. I think, from as I read it, that there's a quick re-evaluation process. Adam Cuerden talk 19:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the fast check. Lincher 21:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bear in mind these numbers (a) have a short delay till Mathbot picks them up and (b) with such a large number vandalism (usually blanking) often causes us to temporarily lose one or two, even article renaming can do this.  Look at the bot's log daily to see what's going on - I do this with Version 0.5, it's very useful. Walkerma 01:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point it isn't a matter of Mathbot picking them up or not, its a matter of the templates not being setup the right way for Mathbot to pick them up. See  ... which I just recently modified, I still don't know what to add for it to be picked up by the bot. Lincher 12:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now set up all the articles tagged with  to be picked up by the bot.  It should start collecting data in about 30 hours time. Walkerma 05:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article count 

message: The sections are off by one, so you have to click on the section after the section you want to edit. Does anybody know how to fix this? Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 01:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, can't reproduce the problem mate. I've tried with IE and Opera and logged in and out but still can't find what is the problem you are having. Meaning that when I press edit beside the section I wanna edit, it gives me that section (for all the sections in the page). Lincher 03:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The conflicting sections were on the page Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations, I have fixed them and are now matching the appropriate sections they should link to. Thanks, Lincher 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "One off" problem 

message: Please fix this bug.  It is creating a red Category at the bottom of the :Talk:Thomas Jefferson page, for example.  When you click on it, it takes you to a preview!  When you save the preview, you still get the create page header at the top, and the category isn't created!  Are the hidden people with their hands on the levers trying to do something overly sophisticated where perhaps something a little simpler would actually work?  Please fix this bug. Hu 03:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 1) it wasn't a bug. 2) you tried to save an empty page which won't actually create the page 3) we are trying to fix all the glitches/things related to the template on a daily basis 4) a red category isn't too dramatic and can be fixed when asked for. Thanks for requesting the change and if anything else pops up, just come around and we'll be there for your help. Yours, Lincher 04:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you.  Maybe "it" wasn't the bug, but the behavior was quite unexpected and impossible for one experienced user to fathom.  That means there was a bug somewhere.  However, the proximate trigger has been removed, so it is fine for now. Hu 09:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red History Version 0.7 Category 

message: I don't exactly understand this.  Is it like a new versio of WP and having evrything else deleted or is it like some kind of sub-wiki or wikiproject?  Could someone please clarify (preferably on my talk page also)?  Thanks.  —¡Randfan! 03:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarify 

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention.  Badbilltucker 19:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: What's the purpose of the release version?
What benefits will it provide that the online Wikipedia doesn't?
What benefits will it forego?
What needs will it fulfill?
What will its distribution method be?
Is there money involved?
What licenses is it being created under?
Who will its users likely be?
How many users are expected?
Very curious,
The Transhumanist   20:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of these questions are answered at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/FAQs.   We will know more accurately later this month when WP:V0.5 goes on sale at http://www.wikipediaondvd.com.  For this test version (5000 CDs only), it will only have limited distribution, but all future versions should be available in WH Smiths, WalMart, Asda, Best Buy, etc.  It will be open source (GPL), with all future versions planned to be the same.  It will be available for free download - including the offline browser/search software.  Our main users will be the 99+% of the world who don't have broadband internet access!  To really see, you'll have to buy/download the CD....! Cheers, Walkerma 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Who'll be distributing it through WalMart, etc.?  The Transhumanist   01:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the people making the V0.5 CD for us, Cinram. Walkerma 02:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Now we need one targeted at children!  +sj + 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  the Wikipedia:2006 Wikipedia CD Selection is intended for children, though not written in simpler language Dialectric 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More clarification 

message: How do you change which of the sections an article goes in? Because you've got Kakapo in the mammal section of biological sciences and the wretched thing is a bird. Sabine's Sunbird  talk 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome to make the edit yourself if you spot an error like this.  I decided it was about time we had a new section for Birds (should reduce future errors like this), and now the Kakapo is chirping away happily in its new home.  Thanks for pointing this out, Walkerma 03:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please! 

message: I suggest changing some of the icons, particularly the physics and astronomy icon, since the crescent moon is more closely associated with astrology/religion. Perhaps the general science icon (atoms?) could be moved to physics and astronomy, and something else chosen for general science? 
Less important, the economics icon doesn't read very well in its current size, and several of the icons currently have white backgrounds rather than transparent. 
On an unrelated note, maybe the Geology/Geophysics category should be under science rather than geography?
Dialectric 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  different icons 

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)
replies: text: Nominated. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 10:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Screenwriters

message: Philosophy should be with the social sciences, not conjoined with religion. It is true that philosophy often is interested in the same sorts of issues as religion (the arguments for the existence of God, the justifiability of belief), however this does not make philosophy like religion anymore than the fact that physics is interested in the creation of the universe makes physics like religion. Philosophy probably can only comfortably be given its own entire section, but at the very least it needs to be moved to 'Society and social sciences' rather than being placed with religion. Religion draws on philosophy often for the topics its interested in, but it also draws on science. We shouldn't mistake cross-discipline events as showing two very different disciplines as being the same. I place philosophy with the social sciences because like the other "soft sciences" which aim to accurately describe the world, it is difficult for philosophy to rely on empirical evidence to justify its hypotheses (e.g. what experiement could show the nature of universals). Of course psychology, political science, etc. all rely on empirical evidence to some degree, but what makes these sciences "soft sciences" is exactly their inability to rely on empirical evidence to the degree of physics or biology. This is not a problem with the soft sciences, but simply a result of the nature of their subject matter. - Atfyfe 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually our categories were originally designed by a philosopher!  We spent several months discussing various options in detail, and this was the consensus we came to.  There are lots of choices, of course, but I'd be reluctant to change things at this point unless there are a large number of people who feel strongly on the issue. I personally like philosophy where it is.  Thanks for your thoughts.  Are there a lot of others who feel strongly on this issue? Walkerma 02:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy and Religion 

message: On Sunday May 27th.  Please sign up on the 1.0 page if you can attend. Walkerma 17:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC meeting to discuss Version 0.7 

message: We've been debating how to define the importance criterion more precisely for Version 0.7.  Please see this discussion, and then vote! Thanks, Walkerma 05:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scope of V0.7 project 

message: I notice this classified as "langlit" which is wrong - the text is a standard Latin Vulgate Gospel Book. It should be under arts; it is the illuminated miniatures it is famous for. I changed it on the article page, hoping that would move it here, but it hasn't. Johnbod 01:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've met Johnbod while working on Biblical manuscript articles. I come from the LangLit side of things and I agree with him. Kells is more important to art historians for its art, than it is to textual critics of the New Testament for its text. (There are a few manuscripts that might be equally important for art history and text criticism, but most fall clearly one way or the other. Kells is art.) Alastair Haines 16:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book of Kells 

message: We may make a list of notable projects and collect their list of articles with "Top" importance. What do you think? Can somebody write a bot for it? -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 05:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like there is already work on that: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SelectionBot  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicistjedi (talk • contribs) 05:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's right.  A quick update - the developers have been getting lists together, there is a lot of progress on this behind the scenes right now!  I hope that soon we will have another superb bot to use just like Oleg's WP1.0 bot. Physicistjedi - can you help us evaluate the bot's output?  Walkerma (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automated lists from other projects 

message: I was wondering if the article about the video game Halo: Combat Evolved should be included. It has been the main page article, and is currently at FA status. RedZionX 21:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed your comment.  OK, I'll post this on the nominations page and tag it as nominated.  Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Halo 

message: I'm not sure which is less likely, that this very short article was rated as an A-Class, or that it was included in 0.5. Both are rather unlikely, though, despite the tag on the article's talk page saying it is in 0.5. Someone might want to verify this, maybe?  John Carter (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Prostitution in Georgia (country)]] included in 0.5!? 

message: I added several things to the release list (Topeka, KS. Sum 41. Metallica. Toby Keith. Liverpool.) they were all removed. Please do not remove them again because i've passed them and they are all historically significant enough to be on here. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 04:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that happens sometimes, probably just a mistake.  As long as the talk page tags remain intact, the articles will get included; we do a cross-check between the list here and the bot list. Walkerma (talk) 07:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  removal 

message: Not sure where to put this but choosing which historical version of an article to go for will be tough. The Germans used the most recent save by a trusted editor but with the Schools Wikipedia we have found too many "recent changes patrol" style reverts of a single bit of graffiti by serious editors which have missed vandalism one or two steps earlier. The community isn't disciplined enough or undo/rollback is used too readily. In the end first cut we have gone for taking two recent versions by trusted editors at least 6 edits apart and maually checking the diffs for vandalism. Updates we do based on manual check of diffs to our last good version. TDS but with good database tools it is doable. --BozMo talk 09:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the tip!  I'll bring up the issue with Emmanuel.  That sounds like an excellent system for checking.  Maybe we could write a script that could generate a list of diffs, to save a lot of manual clicking? FYI, we plan to work a lot on the Selection Bot starting in a week or so.  Regards, Walkerma (talk) 07:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment on choosing historical versions 

message: I am hopeful that the Selection Bot is almost ready to use, after we do the final fixes and testing during July.  I think we should be able to generate a good selection list of around 20,000-30,000 articles by August, and provide this to our publisher (Linterweb).  If there are no delays in publication, we should have Version 0.7 ready for sale by autumn.  We will need people to help out with the logistics, checking etc.  Please let me know if you want to be involved.  Walkerma (talk) 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plans for Version 0.7: Autumn release? 

message: Sum 41 should not be included in the release version. It should not be included because (1) the article is not of good quality as it currently stands, and (2)the band is not of high historical (or commercial) importance. The article as is multiple citation needed tags, less than 20 citations, several of which are to npov commercial websites and 'MTV News' and is quite short relative to those on other musicians of high historical importance. The band is not notable relative to many others. If the release version includes only the 100 most popular (largest selling, or highest polling) popular music groups and artists, it seems unlikely that this group would be on the list. The article states that they've sold 10 million albums total. Some more notable artists sell 10 million records with each new release.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.83.137 (talk) 18:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I Disagree. They helped form the genre known as Pop-Punk. that makes them notable very notable. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 10:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The modern incarnation of Pop-Punk has been around since the late 1990's... - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 17:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text: For the next release, we will mainly be using the SelectionBot to judge borderline cases, because that gives a pretty objective assessment of importance.  Looking at these test results it looks pretty likely that the article will be in the next release (which will be a much larger release, about 30,000 articles).  They're only test data, but it's likely that any score over 1300 (that's for quality + importance) would make it into Version 0.7.  Even if the article were re-assessed to C-Class, there is a good chance it would make it: 405 articles link to that one, there are 31 foreign language Wikipedias with articles on Sum 41, and the article gets a lot of hits per month, so based on all our parameters the topic ranks pretty high in importance (though lower than Celine or Nelly!).  If the article is not of good quality, the folks from the Rock Music project should perhaps re-assess the article, and those who look after the article should perhaps aim to add more refs (to address the cleanup tags). Walkerma (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

text: But thanks for raising the issue!  It's good to ask these questions! Walkerma (talk) 18:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sum 41 should be delisted 

message: It'd be real nice if the intro to your page told people what the project was all about instead of making us guess! // FrankB 03:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point.  Someone wrote it who's no longer involved, and I haven't updated it.  I'm away now, but it's on my ToDo list for when I get back - unless someone beats me to it.  The reason for the single Release Version page - we don't want to have to keep amending lots of links every time we do a new release - and the time between releases will get much shorter soon when SelectionBot gets fully working (end of August).  You'll begin to see LOTS of activity over here during September. Walkerma (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahem... the intro 

message: We will hold an IRC meeting at #wikipedia-1.0 on Monday, August 11th at 1900h UTC.  Complete details are on the main 1.0 talk page, please sign up there. Walkerma (talk) 16:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC discussion on Version 0.7 

message: Sorry if this has already being worked on or unrelated, but I looked at the provisional selection list and WikiProject Schools wasn't on the list. Education, Education in Australia, Education in Canada, and Universities all have selections, but our project doesn't seem to appear at all. Is it because none of our articles scored high enough? The manual nomination list at Wikipedia:Release_Version only includes two schools from the 0.5 release: B-class Hopkins and FA-class Stuyvesant, and I think articles like Stonyhurst College and Baltimore City College are possibly worthy of inclusion --Jh12 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is most odd, because the project shows up here, and the bot picked it up as a project needing a principal article, but for some reason it's not displaying anything.  Even if zero articles were selected, it should show up.  What we're finding, though, is that many individual schools like Baltimore City College are getting very low scores - only about 2000 hits per month, and zero interwikis, and my old school is similar.  A few like Eton College get higher scores (26,000 hits/month, 22 interwikis) and will probably make it into the selection.  Thanks for letting us know, we don't want to miss out a major project like this!  Walkerma (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I do think this project may be one that might consider putting together its own Schools selection, as well.  We at 1.0 could help if needed.  You have a good number of articles, and if you have one geographical area that is well covered, you could do a release like "Schools of Ontario" or whatever.  This could work extremely well if it was given as part of a collection to the schools in that area (such as Ontario), perhaps in conjunction with Wikipedia:Wikimedia School Team (though this has been inactive over the summer).  Just a thought! Walkerma (talk) 05:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the response and all the fantastic work! I'm tempted to say that for now, it's easier to simply go along with any possible bot results and then for our project to supplement with a minimum list of a few Top-importance and higher quality articles. I will, however, mention your proposal at our project page tomorrow. In terms of geography, our project is really expanding on a daily basis. US, Canada, UK, Australia, Hong Kong, and Singapore are perhaps covered best in terms of quality and number. How many of these areas warrant a special release I am not sure of, primarily because we have a lower percentage of high-quality articles. Still, it makes a lot of sense to include articles about schools in a collection for schools! Could even inspire them to improve the articles... --Jh12 (talk) 07:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that to create a specific collection, you'd want to be comprehensive (no pun intended if you're British!) - you'd want to include every school in Ontario, say.  I'm glad to hear that things are going so well!  Meanwhile, I've mentioned the bug to the bot operator. Walkerma (talk) 07:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently the SelectionBot was very fussy about how the categories were named (probably a stray capital letter or something) - CBM has fixed this and Schools should show up in the final selection (coming tonight). Walkerma (talk) 01:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pleased to see that some more school articles have now been selected for inclusion in the next release. The selection bot has been very helpful as it has brought to our attention some important articles which had been previously overlooked or incorrectly assessed as low importance. You should however note that the number of inter-Wiki links is not always an accurate measure of an article's importance, and I wonder if the weighting ought to be reduced to reflect this. The bot has given Auckland Grammar School in New Zealand a very high ranking mainly because of the large number of inter-Wiki links. However I have been advised that the school itself requested all the translations, and people very kindly obliged (see the article's talk page). While the school is a top importance school in New Zealand it is much less internationally important than some of the other schools below it on the list which haven't been selected, all of which also have much higher page view stats. It's also possible that commercial organisations such as fee-paying schools might try to boost the number of foreign-language articles to inflate their importance if too much weighting is given to this measure. Dahliarose (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The scale is a log scale, meaning that 100 interwikis only makes twice the impact of 10 interwikis, and that's on just one of four parameters.  So you have to do a huge amount of translation work to boost your score by a significant amount - though it looks like this was done in this case (I've never seen another example like the Auckland school, though!).  I remember the long waits to get just one article translated into English - so it must have involve a huge effort to get that one school translated into Gaelic, etc.  The score can be much more easily manipulated by improving its quality, which I hope would be the normal pattern!  The nice thing about the interwiki score is that it tends to indicate worldwide importance, and counter what would otherwise tend to be a strong US/UK bias in the selection.  It is only one of four parameters, so a strong interwiki score along would not win it a place in the collection.  But I accept, no system is perfect. Walkerma (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation. Expansion of the foreign-language Wikis is something which we should perhaps be encouraging anyway, and perhaps the system will encourage some healthy rivalry and promote improvements to important articles which don't yet meet the requirements. Dahliarose (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Schools and Version 0.7 

message: We had a discussion in WP:MILHIST wondering how many DVD would be released. Depending on the number we would scale our efforts  contributing to this project. Currently, we can't imagine many people with a DVD drive and no internet access and question the whole sense of the effort. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are three uses for the collection - DVD sales, downloads, and other releases.  As a test release, this will not be major on DVD - perhaps 10-20,000 DVDs, I'd guess; but the Germans and the SOS kids release have shown that there is a much bigger potential than that for schoolrooms, traveling laptop owners, etc.  People like User:Wizzy will get the collection put onto hard drives in African schoolrooms, and we're working with One Laptop per Child, too.  See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/FAQs for all the reasons.  But if MILHIST is interested in cleaning up its highest profile articles, then I think it should work on this list anyway. Walkerma (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many copies will be released? 

message: I apologize if this isn't the correct place to ask, but is anyone aware of duplicates on SelectionBot's lists? For example, there are several The Legend of Zelda articles that can be found at both User:SelectionBot/0.7/V-3 and User:SelectionBot/0.7/T-2. Do we need to remove one set of these? Pagrashtak 16:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just my guess.  Articles were listed by wikiproject because we want to make it easier for the wikiprojects to give versions of all their articles, but that means there could be conflicting versions if different wikiprojects select different "best" versions.  Since Legend of Zelda articles seem most closely associated to me with the Legend of Zelda wikiproject, I'd suggest you leave a note on the 0.7/V-3 copies of those articles directing them to 0.7/T-2. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That was my concern. I've got four FAs in that area and am planning to put oldids on them, but was wondering what would happen in the event of a conflict. There has been talk of converting the Zelda project into a VG task force due to the limited scope and relative inactivity, so it may be better to point the other direction eventually, but I'll make sure one points to the other before long. Thanks for your input. Pagrashtak 18:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is certainly an issue - on average, each article is selected about 2.3 times!  In the event of a conflict, then (barring other comments) we will just take the latest listed VersionID.  If you want to cross-post your VersionID to other projects (with a quick comment to that effect), I think that's fine - most projects will simply appreciate that the work has been done. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 0.7 duplicate selections 

message: When will this Release version be released and till when will articles be able to be put in? Was signed, 
Jouke Bersma (wikipedia ever since 2005 and highly interested in especially Frisians)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 (talk) 08:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We are aiming to close things on October 20th, and review all articles by then.  The DVD will come out shortly afterwards, perhaps early December.  Walkerma (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release? 

message: Quick question... I assume that template tags (refs, POV etc) will be stripped from the text of the release version prior to publication? --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They weren't for 0.5.  I'm not aware of plans to strip them for 0.7.  To the best of my knowledge, we will be trying to be honest about the fact that 0.7 is a snapshot of Wikipedia and that people should expect from the DVD roughly what they expect from Wikipedia.  I know that we want to try to do better with 0.8.  I'd guess that there would be an enormous howl on Wikipedia if an NPOV tag were stripped off a page without anyone determining whether there were actual NPOV issues. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 12:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Many will be, but it's possible that some could be left on.  Citation needed and "calls to edit" will almost certainly be gone (they were removed in V0.5, I'm fairly sure), because they can't be fixed once offline; but for things like NPOV there is a strong case for leaving those in.  It will be an agenda item at an IRC meeting when we get closer to publication.  Do you want to make a particular case for/against here? If so, we will take your thoughts into account when the topic comes up.  Walkerma (talk) 19:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: Why is 4X marked as selected here, but not listed at User:SelectionBot/0.7/V-3? Pagrashtak 05:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We're unsure what caused this, but we're working on it. Thanks for pointing it out. Walkerma (talk) 05:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selection discrepancy 

message: I've had a go at improving Chordate, Arthropod and Mollusc and have posted requests for review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals. Hoever apart from my requests there's been no activity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals since 26 Aug. Is there any way to expedite reviews in time for the issue of v 0.7? -- Philcha (talk)
Although there is a conflict of interest in assessing your own articles, generally most wikiprojects don't mind if you (honestly) assess your own articles up to B class.  If you think you have met the GA standard, you could submit them to the Good Article queue, but that won't meet the v0.7 deadline.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'm tempted, I can't honestly assess the article as I have no means of checking the recent (post-Cambrian!) taxonomy -- Philcha (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks, Hroðulf! - Philcha (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Animal articles rated Top- / High importance but Start-class

message: How are redirects selected for inclusion?  Does a bot select them all automatically, or do they need to be individually tagged by WikiProjects?  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand all of the technicalities, but our French WP collaborator has written a script that does this.  All redirects are automatically included, even in things like the Hit Counts which are needed for importance calculations.  So projects can focus on improving articles and finding good versions of those articles. Walkerma (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirects? 

message: This appears to have been included only because it was mistagged as top-importance in Ohio. Please fix. --NE2 23:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello? --NE2 21:41, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, we'll be removing it from the list. Walkerma (talk) 00:50, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, thanks. --NE2 02:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway]] 

message: As I'm writing, the Road transport (not roads) section of the list features the following articles: Automobile, Automatic number plate recognition, Bicycle, Hours of service, Maserati_MC12, Plug-in hybrid, Mini, Trucking industry in the United States. I doubt that the MC12 is more important than iconic cars such as the VW Beetle, the VW Golf, the Ford T or the Fiat 600. --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because you're only looking at the manually nominated & selected ones.  The final selection is mainly based on the SelectionBot list, which you can find here, as mentioned in this post to the Automobiles project. All the ones you mention are already selected, along with about 150 others, except for the Fiat 600 which was mainly excluded because it was only Start-Class. Walkerma (talk) 06:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Automobiles 

message: Can I suggest two things:
1) WikiProjects are notified much earlier of the proposed articles to be included from their specialist areas. Last time, there was an undignified scramble and you chaps were too busy to respond to the questions we posed.
2) The project page is much clearer about what has and has not been included. Can you simply post one list, whether selected by bot or approved manually? And please work on some plain English text to explain the process.
Many thanks --Dweller (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, all these are good points.  I think you've succinctly summarised many of the issues we should focus on for Version 0.8 - thanks! Walkerma (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next release suggestions 

message: Hi!  I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate.  This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group.  If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coordinators' working group 

message: Please check these links.  I found the first link in each pair by searching the Prefix Index of the Wikipedia namespace.
*Wikipedia:0.7/0.7geo/CÃ´te d'Ivoire -- CÃ´te d'Ivoire
*Wikipedia:0.7/0.7geo/Côte d'Ivoire -- Côte d'Ivoire
*Wikipedia:0.7/0.7geo/Lebabon -- Lebabon
*Wikipedia:0.7/0.7geo/Lebanon -- Lebanon
*Wikipedia:0.7/0.7geo/LÃ©opold -- LÃ©opold
*Wikipedia:0.7/0.7geo/Léopold -- Léopold
*Wikipedia:0.7/0.7geo/Paleste -- Paleste
*Wikipedia:0.7/0.7geo/Palestine -- Palestine
-- Wavelength (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks - this is very strange!  We'll have to see how these were generated.  Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. The Léopold and Côte d'Ivoire pages with the funny characters were from a software bug that I fixed (that's why the correct names also appear). The other two erroneous pages must be from typos in the assignment of categories to countries. I double-checked that the links are all in the correct pages and then deleted the erroneous ones. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant, CBM, thanks!  Thanks also, Wavelength, for helping us fix these bugs. Walkerma (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: They were created again, I re-deleted them. Cenarium (talk) 15:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable links 

message: This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP 1.0 bot announcement 

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