Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Archive 4

message: You know, after playing with knowledge structures a bit, it seems: 
Developing and deciding on which knowledge structure(s) to use is a needed 1.0 project.  This is a quasi-separate project from the possible development evolution of the 150/200 articles list or of the 1000 list, but knowledge structures probably would be refined as the list is refined. 
Heck, any publication needs a table of contents (which embodies a knowledge structure). Wikipedia has a top level knowledge structure that varies slightly in terms of the similar portal, list, and category main subject structures. It seems these top level English wikipedia outlines will be restructured soon, as an issue that came up for follow up to the front page redesign project.
So, put another way: what subject categories should be used in organizing 1.0, the project, and eventually, the publication? How is knowledge organized under those categories. One version of this is on the Core Topics Tree, created by Martin, where he used a main topic scheme I borrowed from the French Wikipedia front page and then this was further edited by me (and it is not quite finished--a bit of rewording needed).
Perhaps various ideas about knowledge outlines need to be sorted and condensed into several knowledge structures that can then be decided upon or tried for awhile (and refined). 
This harkens back to the idea mentioned a few days ago about coming to consensus on what subject categories to use. Vir 19:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  knowledge structures: a complementary project 

message: The last of the seven A-class articles submitted recently to the Good Article list were reviewed yesterday. 
These articles were given GA status: Drawing, Gender, Judaism, and Soccer.   
These were not approved: Demographics, Natural disaster and Sculpture. Comments about needed improvements were placed on the article talk pages by GA reviewers. 
Sometime, it would be good to note these GA statuses in the Core topics table.
The GA project seems very helpful. The GA list will need support to pass from proposal to project status. 
These GA rejections may give us pause to think about the need to review A-class articles and how A-class criteria are assigned to Core topics articles.  Perhaps this might work the other way too--with Core topic evaluations as a double check on GA evaluations (which can be approved by only one person) -- and, no doubt, other Wikipedia evaluation groups and article improvement drive processes too will help refine articles and evaluation processes.
It seems to make sense to submit the best of the B-class articles to the GA list, since some of our B-class articles are approved there.
OK, time for me to get to work and take a break... Vir 19:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent good article review finished 

message: Thanks mainly to Gflores, Antarctica is now FA. Do we want to do anything special to try to ensure it doesn't deteriorate, and similarly for future articles we improve and approve? Some options: 
*Wikipedia:Stable versions (I don't know whether this is ready.)
*Just keep an eye on it.
*Copy to user subpage.
*Copy to project subpage. Maurreen 05:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You may have noticed that I created an archive partly for this purpose - from there you're only two clicks away from the original FA.  In fact I added a geology section to it after it became FA, to meet a strong objection that was posted near the end of the FAC process.  There have been other useful edits (I'm assuming my work was useful!) since then - so I hope these aren't lost in WP 1.0.  I think the best thing would just be to keep an eye on it.  If it looks bad at publication time we can always go back to an earlier version, but Jimbo Wales seems keen to avoid that.  I don't think stable versions is up & running yet, is it?  I think the article will stay good - there have been about a dozen reverts done in the last 5 days by 7 people and a bot, so plenty of folks are watching it anyway. But archives may be more important for less prominent non-FAs. Walkerma 04:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks, the archive is a good idea. Maurreen 08:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Done" articles

message: Here are some Core topics articles that are on Good articles list (including some mentioned recently) that are not noted in table yet:
Advertising -
Agriculture  - 
Archaeology - 
Biology - 
Crime - 
English language - 
Gender - 
Islam - 
Judaism - 
Mathematics - 
Physics - 
Sociology - 
Sound - 
Statistics - 
Television 
Will get on updating table in the text field. Vir
:Updated the table for GA status. Five of the GA articles are still classified as B-class. We need to review those. Vir 05:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core Topics on Good articles list 

message: Just looked through featured and good articles for general articles or key specific articles. Here are some possible freebies that could be considered for inclusion in the basic topics:
Proposed core topic additions (general articles and key specific topics): 
*Big Bang - FA
*Black hole - FA
*Climate change - GA
*Global warming - GA
*Earth - GA
*Evolution - FA
*Free will - FA
*Gender role - FA 
*Globalization - GA
*History of Earth - GA
*History of the world - GA
*Literacy - GA
*Moon - GA
*Planetary nebula - FA 
*Quantum mechanics - FA 
*Quark - GA
*Race - FA 
*Sun - FA
Possible additions, major specific articles:
*Algorithm - FA
*Comet - FA 
*Dark Ages - GA
*Diplomacy - GA
*Electrical engineering - FA
*Film - GA
*Game theory
*Glacier - GA
*God - GA
*History of science - GA
*The Holocaust - GA
*Mercury (planet) - GA  
*Nutrition - GA
*Plate tectonics 
*Silk Road - GA
*Sociocultural evolution - FA
*Special relativity - GA
*Thermodynamics - GA
*Volcano - GA
*Water - GA
The astonomical and geological elements above might complement the idea of a test Atlas -- that could extend beyond the earth. The Wikipedia astronomical community has been productive. 
What do you think about adding the proposed list above? Any of the possible list? Including those GA articles in the note above and adding some of these possible articles could make more than 50 core articles (or core and potential top 1000 articles, if not accepted as core) with FA or GA status. There are only 6 or so core topics with FA status now. Oh, we need a format to mark GA status (once that is an approved project). Vir 05:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks a ton for going through these, I know it's a lot of work.  Got to get to bed soon, so I won't review each one, but many of these could be added IMHO.  Also on "astronomical" I thought you might appreciate this lively discussion.  I suspect you should get some sleep too, Vir!  Walkerma 05:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, been pretty active. In fact, after reassessing a bit, I have decided I have too much to do this year to volunteer here. So, I need to back out for awhile. Perhaps I can help in a year or two. Best wishes, Vir 22:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured and Good Articles 

message: 1) These also popped out of reviewing Good articles:
There are some possible Core Topics additions mixed in here. These are somewhat major specific articles; perhaps some would fit in a top 1000 list:
*Bird - Dog - Spider - All GA
*Cat - Frog - Orca - All FA
*Bacteria - Brain - Cell (biology) - DNA - Protein - Virus - All GA
*AIDS · Black Death · Cancer · Measles · Rabies · Smallpox - all GA
*Hydrogen - Steel - both GA
*Diamond - Glass - Nuclear weapon - Radar - Typewriter - All FA.
*Black pepper · Butter · Cheese · Tea -- All FA
*Apple · Banana · Beer · Bread · Chocolate · Cocoa · Coffee · Milk · Sugar  -- All GA
*Academy - Cooperative - Creationism - History of the Internet - All GA
*American Revolutionary War - History of nuclear weapons - Napoleonic Wars - United States Declaration of Independence - World War II - All GA
* Mail - Map projection - both GA
And, a few other possible additions: 
2) I propose we add these to the core topics list because they are top level categories in the English Wikipedia portal, list or category pages: 
*Abstractions - Biography - Natural sciences - People 
3) I propose we add these to the core topics because of fundamental generality: 
*Universe - Nature - Life - Knowledge 
Note1: Most of these last eight suggestions are all around "start" in status. Merit of adding is in covering this ground somewhat sooner than later.
Note2: Some of the topics on the core topics now are specific and not so general articles. I think it is ok to expand the list of core topics, if articles are of general or major importance (and/or of good quality).  Vir 05:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible core topics or top 1000 articles; a few other possible additions 

message: How about putting any additions on a separate list or page? Maurreen 03:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think that would be good.  Hopefully we can integrate everything afterwards with trees.  I think we should make sure that this time the table includes date of assessment - I think we can omit the portal column to maek room for it. Maybe we should upload Vir's last list (so sad he's had to leave!) as a starting point, and debate from there? Walkerma 04:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Core topic additions

message: I came here after seeing this talk page show up on Special:Whatlinkshere/History_of_Earth. I think this is an excellent idea. I've felt that broad, fundamental articles are one of Wikipedia's weaknesses in general—it's easy to write about a detailed subtopic but much harder to pull broad themes together to write a summary article. I'll see if I can't spruce up any medicine-related articles if I have time. I see that History of Earth has been proposed for inclusion. Obviously, as the article's primary author, I'd like that, but I do think it represents the sort of fundamental overview and summary of other topics that might make it a good candidate for inclusion, from what I've seen of this project. If it does end up being included, hopefully it will be a featured article by that point! (I'm an optimist, and have high ambitions for this one.) Please let me know if there is anything I can do to assist with this. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad to hear your enthusiasm. I also think that these core topics can be improved upon. Basically, we're just gradually improving these basic pages. We've started a collaboration of the fortnight which has been fairly active. You may also be interested in the Wikipedia 1.0 project in general as well as Wikipedia:Worklist, which are core topics for specific areas assessed mainly by Wikiproject members. You can add your name to the members list, if you're interested. If you have any questions, ideas, or comments, feel free. :) Cheers. Gflores Talk 07:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, there's an effort underway to form a categorization of the core topics. See discussion by Vir. Gflores Talk 07:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hi Knowledge seeker, I think History of Earth could be a splendid core topic, as could be other very general history pages. It seems a revised core topic list may happen at some point. Regarding the categorization work that Gflores mentions above, here is one overview: core topic trees. Also, I have started working on some ways to think about organizing multi-dimensional (and multiple) knowledge structures, some of which are outlined here: knowledge structures. Vir 16:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting! I've always found classification of information fascinating, although I'm not sure I can add anything to the ideas you all have already come up with. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great idea! 

message: The project is exciting.  The list of core topics a great start.  One thing struck my eye, though.  Mythology is listed under the category "History."  Should that not be "Culture?" Sunray 06:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think you're right, but currently we're having a major discussion (see "core topic trees" above) about WHICH categories to use, and so most of those categories are probably about to change.  Welcome to our project, we hope you enjoy working on core topics.  Be sure to take a look at the fortnightly collaboration on article improvement, too.  Walkerma 07:01, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Category for [[Mythology]]