Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 14

message: Walkerma asked me on my talk page whether we should have another IRC meeting or not. We haven't had one in a while, so here are the preliminary details:
;Time: 3:00 PM PST (Pacific Standard Time), 11-04-06 (23:00 UTC)
Channel: #wikipedia-1.0
;Topics: A deadline, what to do next, list more here:
#A CVS or SVN repository for files related to the CD
#: I would like the ability to select articles by category, with a top-up list of articles. Requirements should be the article dump, the category dump, and a script to pull the thumbnailed pictures (for articles) from the main server or the (huge) picture dump. Wizzy…☎ 09:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, which day is it going to be? Titoxd(?!?) 01:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was fast! Oops! It is going to be this Saturday. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It makes 22PM CET if I'm right, I will be there. I'm, in France, in contact with a software company. They plan to realease an demonstration ISO of a an offline-reader for the 14/11/06. It will be a XUL standalone application for windows, working with the last "SOS children village" HTML dump and integrating a self-made search engine. The engine will be able to deal with differents languages specs. They want to manage the publishing stuff themself. Kelson 08:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we just confirm that the time for this meeting is 6pm EST and 23:00 UTC?  If so, Emmanuel will have to join us at midnight, not at 22:00 CET, I think.  I'd like to contact a couple of other Europeans, so I want to make sure we have it right. Walkerma 16:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC meeting 

message: I have added more information to Walkerma's page at m:Static version tools to describe my process. All other input gratefully received. Wizzy…☎ 09:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a lot!  I see Emmanuel has posted something on the talk page there.  Once the Polish group has got their DVD into production they may have time to share their scripts with us too.  We need to make sure that every language doesn't have to write their own version of the same software!  Walkerma 06:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Followup from IRC

message: This has been raised as being an important issue to resolve.  If we end up NOT using an offline reader (I'm still contacting people to try and find out about that!), how can we do this?  Can someone who knows Javascripts (or whatever) please explain the various options in terms even a simpleton like me can understand? Thanks! Walkerma 15:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding redirects into Version 0.5 and beyond 

message: Things to do, things that have been done (don't start a new thread, just continue the list) :
*  -> to do (and needs to be added to all the appropriate Release version pages)
* Template:0.7 set nom -> done (needs logo) (for the set nominations)
* Template:0.7 nom -> done (needs logo)
* Template:V0.7 -> done (needs a readthrough, logo, categories created)
* Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations -> done
* WP:V0.7N -> done
* Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations -> almost ready (needs a V0.5 guy to look if nothing is missing)
* Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Cities Review -> done (for cities ... needs a readthrough)
* Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/To do -> ready
* Wikipedia:Release Version -> done
* Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Review Team -> updated (needs readthrough)
* talk pages have been redirected.
:Also, some one has created  and  which is a copy of  and  and . I do not know which one is the best to use, the only thing I know is if we go from using 0.5 to release version that will mess people up. Although if we stick with V0.5 to V0.7, people will know we have just switched version and we are now doing a new batch of reviewing. Also, since everything will fall under V0.7 later, when we archive, changing the templates will be tedious and so just having the 0.7 template will make the release versions' archival roll faster. Lincher 19:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Poke someone at meta, probably Delphine, if you want to have a foundation-based logo, or Essjay, who designed the 0.5 logo we currently use. Titoxd(?!?) 05:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: We can use the release version pages and then move all the articles to a V0.7 pages when we are done to avoid template changing once we get to the next version. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 14:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok then, so  will be used for nominating articles and  for reviewed articles for now. Later we will change the templates to  as the WP:WPRV will end. Lincher 15:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I was asked to put together a logo matching the one I did for .5, but with .7 as the text; I have done so, as shown above. Essjay (Talk) 02:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  V0.7 launch 

message: First, do we need to know the subject to review it? Do we need to fact check the statements (or everything)??? After readint through and finding errors, if minor we correct them? If major, we reject the nomination? Those questions are to be in sync with you guys' reviewing. Lincher 04:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point, reviewers can't be expected to know everything about everything - though by all means focus on areas you know better.  There are some things that are relatively easy - how well referenced the article is, the quality of the English, the thing is plastered with POV tags (though with articles like Islam that's kinda inevitable!), layout (headings, pictures).  If you know the field at all you can probably judge if the article is reasonably complete or not. With some standard types of articles like cities (or biographies) there are some standard headings (for cities such as Dallas, Texas there are history, culture/tourism, demographics, politics/administration, geography, transport, possibly education), this makes it easy when you are reviewing hundreds of similar articles!  I'd say that if it falls outside the "must-have-if-at-all-possible" area (Core/Vital articles etc) then usually a decent B-Class is the minimum standard we accept, unless it's an important article in a set nomination.  I'll write up an FAQ on this once my job and Version 0.5 let me have the time. Walkerma 06:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant to say - if it's an area I'm familiar with I take about 5 minutes per article (obviously I don't read the whole thing in that case, just selections).  If it's an area I don't know well it'll be longer.  Whether I fix things (or leave comments on the talk page) depends on whether or not I have the time, though I have probably done this on several hundred that I've looked at.  Some might say a more thorough review should be done, but if we'd all done that, our release would consist mostly of 500 FAs on mainly obscure topics! Walkerma 06:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the succinct and very informative answer. Lincher 13:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review question 

message: Those interested in how the releases are to be named, please see Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Torrent_Project#More_informative_file_names (and the section above that) and comment.  Paleorthid has some excellent suggestions, IMHO. Walkerma 07:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of releases, filenames 

message: We now need to decide on a date when we end the nomination process and also decide when we start planning for the actual release of the V0.7 (release version). Lincher 15:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Up above I suggested "Close the nominations on (say) March 31, 2007 and aim to close all reviews by May 31, 2007."  No one has objected to that - does that mean everyone has agreed to that? I think it's a little up in the air because we don't know how the bot assessment scheme will go, but perhaps we can use it as a goal? Walkerma 21:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time span of reviewing 

message: UPDATE: I have checked all of the articles that have been downgraded, as listed at Wikipedia:Version 0.5/degraded article log, and I think we can use recent versions of all of them.  I basically fixed the major problems, but generally the "decline" was due to re-evaluation rather than anything else. 
So now we can move forward- we need to pull out a decent version of each article.  If I'm correct the Germans and Poles did this by getting a "whitelist" of approved editors, then looking for the most recent version by a whitelisted editor.  We don't have such a whitelist, and I wasn't planning on writing one, though we may end up with one if Stable Version materialise.  Could someone write a script that could find the most recent version by an editor who (a) has a username and (b) has set up a user page for themselves?  I would think that would screen out 99% of the vandalised versions.  Any thoughts, or offers to help? Walkerma 07:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagging decent versions of articles 

message: I will only suggest a minor addition to that version since I don't know when it'll get out or such. It would be ideal to have the class tags added to the articles and the Assessment page in order to let people know that what they are looking at is of "that" quality according to standard requirements. Also, if it is possible, have a link to tell the CD users that the actual/non-stable version of such or such article is available at "that place" and that we would appreciate any help in getting this article better for the next release version. Lincher 15:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  V0.5 just a comment 

message: HI, new to this conversation, but was wondering if anyone had a reasonable idea of how big (storage wise) wikipedia is and what kind of media would be suitable to contain it on, peace
Basejumper123 21:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: that depends on what you want. LossIsNotMore 23:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hi there 

message: I've been busy on the phone and email recently, but also busy at work so this will be brief (for once!).
# Linterweb in France does now have a working (if buggy) test version of their reader software - this should be fine for our release.  It should be ready in a month or so.  This means we will miss our goal of publishing the CD before Christmas, but it's better to get it working properly - and we will have lots of checking to do anyway.  It will sell fpr 10 Euros (1.5 to WMF).
# I spoke with User:Anthere and Brad Patrick (lawyer) from the Wikimedia Foundation, there are no road blocks there so we can go ahead.  The only involvement of the WMF is to allow use of the Globe logo on the CDs.
# BozMo is running scripts on the collection, and helping out. Walkerma 18:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is a torrent of the CD a no-no if it is being sold as well? JoeSmack Talk 18:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It will of course be available for FREE download, including via Torrent, and the reader software should even be included in that.  That's the reality for anyone working with us, and they realise that.  The only version that won't be available is paper, we're holding off on that until we get more expertise. Walkerma 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quick update on Version 0.5 

message: The number of articles marked seems to be dropping rapidly. Does anybody know what is going on? I saw on a talk page a while ago that the bot was mass blanking articles. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 22:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the discussion was about the hypothetical nightmare scenario where the bot might do that (extremely unlikely!) - Oleg is starting nightly backups just in case, and writing an "antidote" script.  The only blanking was of one log, probably because the system limits were exceeded. The actual problem is only with one listing - the WP:Biography list, which is absolutely huge (145,000 articles). The bot is not counting all of the B-Class or Start-Class articles for some reason, and no one can work out why.  Till we know why, or Oleg can fix it, the nightly bot runs are not taking place.  See this discussion for updates. Walkerma 05:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, on reflection even the nightmare scenario is much less scary than that, it's just blanking of the bot's output.  Anyway, Oleg has pinned things down to a problem with the Biography project, and he's just restarted the bot. Hooray! We should see our first update of WP:WPRV listings by tomorrow. Walkerma 05:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:WVWP]] 

message: For people who don't have internet access? It seems if you have a computer that can play a CD, you probably have access to the internet in some way. Just H 05:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a computer in Mexico since 1996. I didn't get an Internet connection until 2001. I don't believe that your statement is necessarily true in most countries. Titoxd(?!?) 06:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Prisons in the U.S. often have computer facilities, but almost none allow Internet access. I assume that the U.S. is not the only place in the English-speaking world where this is true, but there are about 2 million people in U.S. jails and prisons, larger than the number of people who use any of several languages in which we have Wikipedias. - Jmabel | Talk 06:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

text: For some countries which are out of the submarine cable network (e.g. Bangladesh), internet connectivity is too slow to browse through an online encyclopedia with ease. A low cost CD version of encyclopedia will be a very welcome product there. - Arman Aziz 08:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the Point of a CD?

message: Hello, I was wondering if PersonData would be used in any form in an upcoming release. Thanks and keep up the good work. :-) 70.104.16.182 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed seeing this earlier.  I think it would be very good to include this - if the Biography WikiProject is starting to use it on the English Wikipedia, that's good news.  We do hope to be able to include some metadata along with articles. Walkerma 02:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Persondata

message: I've noticed on projects such as WikiProject Biography, the 1.0 team has created a dynamically generated class chart (FA, A, GA...) along with listing article assessment changes.  Is this hard to set up? Can it be done for other WikiProjects?  I'd like to do something like that with the Taxation WikiProject.  We just started it this week, so it is not that big yet, but efforts like this, I expect, would help participation.  Morphh (talk) 14:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, absolutely! There are 239 project currently using the bot, and the bot now crawls through 450,000 articles every 24 hours!  First you should take a look at the instructions, as well as the other projects work, then have a go at setting things up.  Basically you need to (a) write a template that generates categories, (b) create some categories and the right parent categories, then (c) tag some articles with the template.  The simplest thing then is just to wait a day or two for the bot to pick things up, and see what happens.  I always check the new projects being added (about one per day is usual), so I'll keep an eye out.  If you have any problems, just post your question here and I'll get back to you (though I'll be on the road on Saturday). Cheers, Walkerma 16:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can get the bot to do it for you as well. See Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Generate categories. Titoxd(?!?) 21:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - I've got it working and looks great.  Possible suggestion on the Worklist and the comments section - could this be limited to a certain number of words and then add a "... more" link.  I could see this as getting very long and messy.  Question about Categories... Many articles have stub tags at the bottom of the main article that goes to Category:Tax stubs, however, the Talk page assessment tag places stubs in Category:Stub-Class taxation articles (which the bot picks up).  I tried to put the Tax stubs as a subcat of Stub-Class but it didn't seem to pick it up.  I would change the tax stub tag to place it in Stub-Class but this would add both article main and talk pages.  What is the best way to address the Cat placement for stub tags and Cat placement for stub assessment in the banner tag? Morphh (talk) 14:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The two are basically unrelated.  Every article should be tagged with the appropriate class in the project banner; trying to do something through the stub tags is a bad idea, as they're liable to be removed without another assessment being made, thus purging articles from your assessment system entirely. Kirill Lokshin 14:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

text: When I run the bot manually, it works fine.  However, the automated 3:00 AM (UTC) run is not updating the information.  Morphh (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.. it just updated.  I'm not sure if someone was testing or if it just takes 15 hours to complete the Bot process.  How long does the bot take to run?  Morphh (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It varies a lot, but it can take 16 hours I think.  If you just missed a run, you may have to wait up to 40 hours for it to get picked up, but after that it should happen daily. Walkerma 02:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WikiProject Assessment

message: The project now has nearly a third of all articles on Wikipedia. Martinbot (II) could create several more test lists with about ten Wikiprojects (together) and we could check that the importance ratings are OK. If they aren't, we might have to start rating projects based on importance. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 15:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's do it, I'm curious so see how the importance ratings pans out. JoeSmack Talk 16:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I plan to get that going in about 10 days time - once the Version 0.5 scripts are finished and the navigation pages done - but I will be writing the algorithms over the next few days.  We also have several hundred articles (including sets) to review for Version 0.7, and we have to finish getting Version 0.7 set up (navigation templates, review pages, contacting the reviewers personally, clarify the pass/fail criteria etc) - all that should keep up us extremely busy!  I'll be away from home with limited access for the next few days. My personal feeling is that we need to set up MartinbotII properly, so it works well from the start - as you can see with Mathbot it's very hard to change things later on (even changing the size of the stats table was a headache!).  Before we set up Mathbot, we spent 2-3 weeks and many kB of discussion planning out exactly what we wanted and how best to do it, and I think that's why it has worked so well.  Let's get Titoxd on board too, he can provide a lot of good input. Have a good holiday, guys, Walkerma 18:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've got something written up here.  Please take a look and give feedback. Walkerma 09:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussion from a trial run I did is now on Wikipedia talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/MartinBotII. Martinp23 16:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding articles fron WVWP 

message: from the latest version of Wikizine...any one know German? , . could be helpful for en.wikipedia's version. JoeSmack Talk 05:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  other developments 

message: Hi, recently a user objected to project templates being added by bots on ANI. The bot was immediately blocked as a result of that. Thereafter a discussion ensued which sort of drifted offtopic.
As a result, there was no final resolution to the debate. I am also using a bot for the very same purpose and holding off my bot till there is some resolution. I posted a subsection but that has also started moving in the wrong direction. I request people here to give their inputs on the discussion so that we can bring it to some closure. Thanks — Lost(talk) 13:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using bots for tagging 

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 19:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: The new developer has started work at Linterweb, and release of the CD is planned for January.  I have spent my holiday going through everything listed on the main WP:V0.5 page - it is now completely up to date and in harmony with the Big List.  I have added a bunch of navigation pages (click on the headers), a few still have to be done.  Meanwhile Kelson has written some scripts for cleanup, the Linterweb offline reader is getting there and things are looking pretty good.  I think we need to discuss all the loose ends - how about
;Time: 20:00 UTC (12:00 PM PST, 3:00 PM American EST), Saturday January 6, 2007.
;Channel: #wikipedia-1.0
Anyone interested?  Please sign up below, and add any agenda items.
;Topics
* Running MartinBotII on the WVWP articles
;Signup
* Walkerma 07:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IRC discussion on upcoming Version 0.5 release 

message: The IRC meeting on 6th Jan was very fruitful, and we hope to have everything ready for publication of WP:V0.5 by Saturday 13th January.  Topics discussed: Searching, spam, CD vs DVD, scaling/size of images, image copyrights/attribution, navigation pages, future subject-specific releases, bad words, metadata - and we seemed to resolve all of the urgent issues, thankfully!  To make sure we haven't forgotten anything, we plan to meet on IRC again on Saturday 13th.  Please join us if you're interested.  Add any agenda items - but please limit this to Version 0.5 since we are hoping to burn the CDs very soon! Please sign up below.
;Time: 20:00 UTC (21:00h CET, 12:00 PM PST, 3:00 PM American EST), Saturday January 13, 2007.
;Channel: #wikipedia-1.0
;Topics
*Anything still needed?
*Making/burning the CDs
*Cover art?
*Distribution/publicity
;Signup
* Walkerma 08:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sorry to reply so late, I've been AWOL (catching up on sleep, mainly!).  If you can join us as soon as you get back that would be great.  Unfortunately, 2pm PST = 5pm US-EST = 11pm in France, which is too late for our large European group to start a meeting (in fact some wanted to finish it by 10pm/France).  5pm is also a bad time for me.  Walkerma 18:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another Version 0.5 IRC 

message: As far as I can tell, all of the navigation page checking & writing for Wikipedia:Version 0.5 is now complete.  I have gone over the main list many times and I think it's properly organised and correct.  There is now a complete set of navigation pages, too.  I would like to ask people to check the main 0.5 page and the new  for any errors.  We need a second/third pair of eyes to check for silly mistakes; these pages will be incorporated into the final dump in the next day or two, so it needs to be done soon.  Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Walkerma (talk • contribs) 09:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Only just found this. Am I right in thinking that versions of the articles are going to be burnt to a CD? If I want to see the version that will appear on the CD of a particular article that was selected for the CD, how would I view the version? Carcharoth 15:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, is the straight answer!  We had expected that the final dump would be done last week, but the lawyers are delaying things a bit so we may do another dump.  We have a script that looks for the most recent non-anonymous version, and we use that. Then we run cleanup scripts to find bad language, and remove "fair use" images/superfluous stuff.  I think we will have to set up a version online, as was done with the SOS Children's CD.  If there is a specific version of a particular article that is considered a "stable version", we can aim to use that particular version, but at present that would have to be done manually. Until the CD comes out, you can't know which particular version of an article is to be used. Walkerma 16:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. I assumed it would be the version that was reviewed at the time it was selected. Wikipedia being what it is, the articles might have changed a lot since then. How many articles are there again? 1964 is the figure on the front page. Are they all going to be read before the CD is burnt, or is the idea to trust that they are in the Right Version? I've scanned the list, and there are a few in there that are, well, not stable. I have my eye on two articles J. R. R. Tolkien and The Lord of the Rings, but while reading another one on the list, alliterative verse, I was shocked to see that it only had a sentence on Tolkien's many uses of alliterative verse. See here for more. Of course, Wikipedia never stands still, so you have to take your snapshot somewhere, but just an example of what I mean. Carcharoth 23:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for final checks 

message: There is now a project proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Assessment of unassesed articles for a project which would have, at least as it's short term goal, assessing unassessed articles and possibly adding the banners of the appropriate interested existing WikiProjects. Any editors interested in seeing this go forward are more than welcome to indicate their support there.  Badbilltucker 14:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed related project 

message: I was thinking it might be a bit easier to ensure important articles get nominated for the article improvement drive if it were possible to see at a glance what the current "status" of those articles is. Is there anywhere where this can already be seen, possibly on something like the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/CD selection articles by quality statistics page, which could be used for these purposes? Thank you in advance for your responses. Badbilltucker 14:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed seeing this earlier Bill - but in fact we do have complete bot lists, logs and statistics for [[V0.5, the Release Version and for Core topics.  The 0.5 log has been invaluable for keeping track of vandalism, name changes, demoted FAs, etc., I checked every entry in the log personally to make sure that the main list gave the current name rather than the name when it was originally added. Walkerma 05:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Separate Assessment Statistics for Release Selections 

message: I may be reading Wikipedia in its entirety in the future; by this I mean that I go from page to page (in ABC order) reading or skimming, like you'd read a book. But in order to do this, I have to have to keep going back to the pages that list all the pages on Wikipeida in ABC order, so I can click on the next page I want to see. 
So I thought 'it'd be cool if Wikipedia had a forward and backward button at the top of each page, so you could go to the pages before and after the one you're reading (ABC order).' But of course, this would only benefit the rare geek like me who wants to look at all the Wikipedia pages in ABC order.
But maybe Wikipedia could come out w/ a CD that contains all of the pages in wikipedia (at the time the CD was made) in a readable format, with the forward and backward buttons I mentioned. It would allow the reader to view pages in ABC order, or in order of how many people have looked at the page, or in order of how long an article is, etc. etc. You could come out with this CD program at the end of this year; then, each year after that (2008, 2009, so on), you could come out w/ another CD of the same type but that contains only the pages made on Wikipedia that given year.
That'd be cool, and you might make some money off of it. I mean, companies put out new encyclopedias each year, so why not put out a new CD each year like I suggested?Andrewdt85
:This button is an interesting idea, though I'm not sure how many people browse a CD in this way!  I'll mention it to the developer who is writing the code for the offline reader, and see if it's easy/convenient.  The main problem I foresee is that we don't want to clutter up the console with lots of buttons - I'm a great believer that "simple is best" - but maybe it could be added into the article (at the bottom).  I think we will have a basic alphabetical list for 0.5, but that would require clicking around.  I wrote the navigation pages for 0.5, and they allow you to browse by category or by country (e.g., you can find Freud listed under either psychology or under Austria), but you can't (say) just click to see the next psychology article.  
:As for releasing CDs, we do plan to make releases more often than once a year - I hope Version 0.7 will come out before the end of 2007 (though it's going very slowly right now).  Even 0.7 will probably be too big for a CD, it'll need DVD, as will all future comprehensive releases.  We do plan some more specialised releases once we get going - I'd like to see a CD of chemical reagents, for example, also available in print - I think if we can crank these out easily there will be significant demand for them.  If you want to help us do all this, please sign up!  Thanks, Walkerma 05:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia should come out with an annual readable version of itself

message: People interested in how the talk page templates are displayed should take a look at this proposal.  Walkerma 07:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template combination discussion 

message: Are WikiProject statistics (those dealing with rating/importance) updated manually or automatically?  And how often are they updated?? -- Pastordavid 20:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They update as the 1.0 bot does the main listings, which is to say (roughly) every night. Nifboy 21:09, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  -- Pastordavid 21:13, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Statistics 

message: An LGBT Wikiproject just set up over on eswiki, and they'd like to set up an assessments system. I realise now, however, that our wikibanners are entirely dependant on infrastructure put in place by WP:1.0, so wanted to ask if a similar assessment system could be set up over there? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you're in luck (I think)!  Take a look at this recent discussion and then talk to User:Richy and maybe the Military History project over on es.  Please let us know what happens, because I want to note foreign assessment schemes on our 1.0 pages.  Good luck, Walkerma 20:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyou! I can't speak Spanish, but I have contacted Richy and will alert the esfounder. I'll let you all know how it goes! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, Walkerma, in case you did not know, the people at the Hungarian Wikipedia already use the assessment, see hu:Wikipédia:Cikkértékelés műhely/Index. (Richy will have a much easier time adapting the bot code to Spanish though, since I made it less English language dependent since it was ported to Hungarian wikipedia). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I know something was happening there, I wasn't sure what.  Do you know anything about this French work?  It was new to Kirill when I mentioned it.     I posted a comment here in my best schoolboy French.  Walkerma 23:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Someone has already replied! Walkerma 23:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wish we had as active foreign projects in LGBT as MILHIST does... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh, they are doing the counting by hand. Un, deux, trois... (per google/translate :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  foreign assessments system? 

message: Your thoughts would be most welcome on the issues I've raised at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is failing.  Worldtraveller 23:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion of quality problems

message: I've created an importance template that seem to be cover all the wikiprojects. In my opinion, there are too many different importance templates, and i think it'll make  the scale easier if we could make this the official one. If its not good enough, I'm happy to listen to any suggestions made. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 05:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a great idea, one of those little jobs I've been meaning to do for a while.  One problem with it, though - it needs to be different for every project.  If you are the WikiProject on English football, then Manchester United needs to be ranked as "Top".  I think, though, if you pick examples that all fall within the same subject area - one that a typical lay person would know (such as pop music, popular TV shows or computers) - it could work.  Take a look at some examples from active projects that have used the bot for a while.  This template could help projects starting out.  I still think, though, we should encourage projects to tailor the scheme for their own subject area - I've really liked what I've seen projects do in that regard.  This means in practice they would subst the template in then customise it.  Thanks! Walkerma 05:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Manchester Utd will be ranked as top class, but the template said Manchester City, which isn't as well-known or popular as United. I agree that this should be used only WikiProjects starting out, but I think that the general style of the template should be used throughout Wikipedia. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 07:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Hmm.  I'm not too keen on this as a replacement for all WikiProject assessment tables of this sort.  The Assessment Dept. I'm building for a particular WikiProject uses a slightly different scale (different in that the relative weights aren't so generic; the Top/High/Mid/Low sections all exist, and there aren't any additional ones.)  This is even more so when it comes to the Class scale; we feel that what the Biography or Sports wikiprojects consider a Start vs. a Stub, or a B-class vs. a Start, does not reflect what our topical project would actually consider a proper Start or B-class within our articlespace; our requirements will be more stringent.  Anyway, our Priority (not Importance; we borrowed Priority from WP:BIO because it sounds less judgemental) scale also uses examples (and more than one) from our own field of topics, since examples like "0.999..." and "Australia" are not very informative at all in our context (and in fact to me look more like the difference between Stub, Start, etc., at least with the examples given.)  I think that Importance Scheme would be very valuable as a model or guide, but even to achieve that, the examples all need to be of about equal length and quality, so that "Low" is not confused with "Stub".  Shouldn't be hard.  There are LOADs of somewhat- down to just-barely-notable, but in-depth articles that have even achieved F.A. status (e.g. the Pokemon minor character that looks like a torotise-thing that was a front page F.A. last year). Great example of Low but F.A., even in a narrow sub-field like children's anime.  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Importance Temp.

message: How does a WikiProject obtain things like these: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Football articles by quality statistics ?  How are they created?  Who maintains them?  How?  I'm part way thru setting up an Assessment Dept. for a WikiProject, and have just commented out the sections in which these types of tables appear.  I have the Class and Priority (Importance) tables done already. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're automatically generated by the bot that does the actual assessment tracking. Kirill Lokshin 22:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot to learn how to do this - it's pretty straightforward.  If you need any help, just ask here.  Walkerma 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  NB: This question could probably be forestalled from others if either in a <noinclude> or an HTML comment note was made about where to find the docs, in all those auto-generated tables. :-)  — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 00:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ed. Team stats boxes for WikiProjects

message: Can someone inspect the link below? The page, although done by a bot, is messed up for some reason; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Album_articles_by_quality/37&oldid=110517893 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Something in Talk:Vicious Delicious/Comments is messing it up, but I can't figure out what... Titoxd(?!?) 22:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assistance needed

message: Apparently, many empty categories are being deleted. Normally, I would be fine with this but many are placeholders for various WikiProjects. You can see the list at User:Betacommand/Datadump/To be Deleted. As you can see there are many unassessed categories, A class, FA class categoriy, etc in there. Is it a problem for these to remain? Was there a discussion about this deletion that I missed? Thanks in advance.↔NMajdan•talk 20:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh my!  That was definitely a very bad idea on the part of whoever deleted those. Kirill Lokshin 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so it wasn't discussed. We probably should take action so they are not deleted again.↔NMajdan•talk 17:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I see you already have. Thank you!↔NMajdan•talk 17:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can somebody point me towards the discussion.... 

message: Hey.  I just started up Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Assessment.  Can you please set up whatever else is needed.  Thanks  :)  Joe  I 00:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you've got everything you need, now just wait for the bot to automatically add the project to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. It should happen within the next two days. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks.  Joe  I 01:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New assesment

message: Since the addition of GA, the A-grade seems to be a rather un-needed level. Most articles goes straight from GA to FA, without landing on A in between. I suggest firstmost to remove the A-level from the assessment scale. But by doing that, the B-level seems to be rather strange, as then it's the only level that is defined by a letter only, so I also suggest to rename that level into something else. Suggested renaming could be "Ok", "Mid", "Standard" or "Well" 
The resulting scale would then be: Stub → Start → Okay → Good → Featured. →AzaToth 01:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been discussed many, many times now; the upshot is that (a) there's a strong consensus against removing A-Class, as the projects can't actually use GA-Class as an assessment level, and (b) there's a practical effort being undertaken to remove GA-Class from the scale entirely now. Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On that last point (b), I should clarify that we didn't get unanimous support for removing GA from the scale, but I think we plan to discourage use of the GA level where possible.  We also plan to flag GAs automatically in the tables, so you can see that this A-Class article in the list is a GA, but this other one is not.   On that note, I have been working on a template, so as to get the GA project using the bot.  Note that the template does NOT have the class parameter (is this unique?), but it does include the category parameter like , since GA uses these same categories.  The main thing it should do is to place things into the oxymoronic :Category:GA-Class good articles (to keep WP1.0 Bot happy), as well as the main GA category; at present these cats have a colon in front, until I take the template out of my sandbox.  Could someone knowledgable at templates (Kirill, Titoxd?) take a look over my crude cut & paste job for the GA project here? Thanks, Walkerma 03:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NB: That's a redundancy, not an oxymoron; "GA-class stubs" or "Stub-class Good Articles" would be oxymora. :-)  Anyway, I don't see any problem at all with removing GA from the assessment scale, since the two are not really related, other than it will take a lot of cleanup work - every article GA-rated by a WikiProject banner will need to instead be not-actually-downgraded to B-Class (or genuinely-upgraded to A-Class, if one is willing to do a close assessment and the article warrants the A rating), and then tagged with a GA header if not already so-tagged (either directly or in that new article history template that is making the rounds).  An alternative that I don't think anyone has proposed before would be to fork GA into a "general" Wikipedia-wide GA assessment process at :WP:GA and a new aspect that also empowers WikiProjects to do equivalent GA assessments, possibly obviating the need for A-Class to exist any longer, and with :WP:GA able to countermand any WikiProject-assigned GA rating if the GA criteria were not actually met.  I'm not proposing that, I'm just saying it is a possibility worth looking at and either discussing in depth for possible implementation, or consensus-rejecting (for) now "on the record", since it would almost certainly come up later anyway.  I don't think this is :WP:BEANS, as the "authority" of WikiProjects is growing all the time, and they are focusing more and more on assessments and ratings (cf. the rather new branch of the V1.0 Ed Team specifically about how WikiProjects tie in and assess importance/priority level, not to mention the near-Policy level of SfD, to which even CfD defers when it comes to stub categories, which was generated by WikiProject Stub sorting); if it's not discussed now it will still have to be at some point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: :Category:GA-Class good articles is a redlink.  Did it get moved, or did you mean something else? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for correcting my English - correctly right!  Yes, the proposed cat is a red link, because I won't create it until the template goes "live" (ie., after people have checked it).   Thanks for your thoughtful comments.  Walkerma 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I used the bot to create :Category:GA-Class Good articles et al. The template looks ok, for the most part, although I'll tweak a thing or two. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just found a typo, and that was pretty much it. It should work ok now. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the assessment scale 

message: How do we rate stub articles which have absolutely no scope of expansion? For example Guz is an obvious stub, without much chance of expansion, but for the topic it covers it can be rated as a class B too. (relatively speaking) =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, stubs with no potential for expansion are good merge candidates, which solves the problem rather neatly. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stubs 

message: Hey, would someone mind looking over  for me.  Right now it doesn't include the dab, list, template, portal, image or cat classes.  I have used those with the template on pages, but then it asks for an importance rating, which all but the list don't need.  I tried updating it the way I know how(I'm very non-template knowledgeable) but I think the comment section was screwing me up. Anyways, would appreciate the help, thanks.  Joe  I 04:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template help

message: I am trying to set up assessment for my project but am having trouble undrstanding what i am doing. Are there any instructions on how to do this? Simply south 19:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot is a good place to start. Do you have your WikiProject template set up to accept ratings? I can create the categories for you using the bot, if you'd like. MahangaTalk to me 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assessment help