Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 13

message: Martin, aka Walkerma, set up a page similar to the 0.5 nominations to start nominations for the next release version. Sorry, but I suspended that. 
I think we ought to evaluate, see what we've learned and discuss things first.
A few things I've seen:
#Some people get upset when their nomination is not approved.
#The current set of 0.5 articles is not very balanced. 
#The standards are somewhat vague, which has good and bad points.
Here is my idea of a general plan for the next version:
#At least generally require only one approval, similar to 0.5.
#Keep a page for disputes.
#The release would have two sections, a "cyclopedia" and a "showcase."
##FAs would be included in the showcase unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, that including the article would embarrass us. In other words, I think it's unlikely that we'd exclude any. 
##Use importance as the main criteria for the cyclopedia. Work fromWikipedia:Core topics - 1,000, Wikipedia:Vital articles or something similar, which would form the list of automatic nominations. Of course, those lists can be improved anytime. 
###The list could be handled somewhat like the FA Review page has been handled for 0.5. But the articles whose quality is not up to par need not be removed from the list, but just noted, hopefully to encourage people to work on them. Maurreen 18:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was wrote the post below, and posted it before seeing this.  It sounds like we are pretty much in agreement on everything!  Great!  I hope we can improve the balance at 0.5 during this month, though it won't be fixed by Sept 30. Walkerma 15:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Next release version

message: OK, it seems like Martin and I agree in general principle on the procedures for the next edition. 
As to when to start that -- I think we should hold off until at least we have few nominations left to check. Otherwise it would diffuse energy, take away time from 0.5. For example, there are more than 100 nominations at the main 0.5 nomination page that have not been reviewed. 
As to 1.0, I'd prefer that we figure that out at least after we are done with 0.5. For one thing, that would give us more opportunity to learn from the experience of 0.5. Maurreen 17:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Future versions, editions, continued

message: We will be holding another IRC meeting on Sunday September 10th at 4pm EST, 20:00 UTC, on #wikipedia-static.  Please sign up here if you plan to attend, and suggest any agenda items you would like to cover.
;Attendees:
# Walkerma 21:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: #Maybe next time. I unfortunately can't be there. NCurse  work 18:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next IRC meeting on Sunday 

message: How does a "featured list" get recorded, e.g., Timeline of discovery of solar system planets and their natural satellites? Rfrisbietalk 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen those tagged as FA-Class before, but I don't know if that's general practice throughout. Kirill Lokshin 20:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I tag an FL as FA-class, and anything else as NA, just because it's hard for a generalist to assess quality & completeness of a list like List of rivers by length.  However, lists and the like are often extremely valuable as navigation tools and IMHO we need to make sure all relevant ones are included in offline releases.  For all set nominations I have always nominated the appropriate list, too.  For that purpose the quality (FL or not FL) is less important in an offline release than relevance - for example, the list of rivers is extremely relevant to help find the rivers we have listed (if these are approved). Walkerma 20:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You can tag portals and images as FA, as pages don't get picked up by the bot anyways if they're not in the main namespace. (We use that in WP:WPTC.) Titoxd(?!?) 03:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-article featured content 

message: Why do we need it on a CD/DVD if we already have it on the internet? And would if someone accidentally puts an srticle with false information on the disc, and some kid uses it for a school project? My guess is that you guys would get sued. Sorry, I'm just not that sure it will sell good. XD375 12:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The German DVD proved to be popular, and we have every reason to believe that other languages will turn out the same.  Not everyone in the world has a high-speed internet connection on their laps 24 hours a day. Much of the world doesn't even have electricity!  As for false info: (a) We expect it to have much less of this than the online version, as every article has been at least looked at and (b) We will of course have necessary disclaimers, and I don't foresee litigation over high school projects (or Britannica would be bankrupt by now!).  As long as the kid cites his/her source, they should be OK, and so should we.  There have been zero lawsuits since the first DVD came out in Germany in 2004. Walkerma 15:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  To which I will add: a CD/DVD is much harder to vandalize. Many people who do not want their kids going anywhere near most of the Internet, Wikipedia included, would have no problem with giving them access to certain large bodies of our content on a CD/DVD. - Jmabel | Talk 00:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just wondering 

message: There will be another IRC meeting on Saturday September 30th at 3pm PDT (UTC-7) on #wikipedia-static. Please sign up here if you plan to attend, and suggest any agenda items you would like to cover.
;Attendees:
:Eyu100 04:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Walkerma 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Next meeting 

message: For history versioning, something that can be really useful is this tool. It gives a statistical overview of an article's history, which may be useful, instead of providing the full editing history of an included article. Titoxd(?!?) 02:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks excellent! Better than the list you get from "cite this article" and much more convenient! Thanks, Walkerma 03:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting link 

message: Hi, I am not a member, just dropped by to ask a question.  I see from the Wikipedia:Signpost that your group has examined 100,000 Wikipedia articles.  Were they randomly chosen?  If so (or even if not), do you happen to have kept any count by subject area?  E.g. how many are on science topics, history topics, bands, schools, localities, businesses?  Even better would be a table correlating ratings with topics.---CH 02:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main index (in particular, the "statistics" pages linked there) give a breakdown by each participating WikiProject, which should be suitable for rough estimates by corresponding subject area.  Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 02:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Signpost piece is slightly misleading - the team itself didn't assess 100k articles (or we'd be very tired by this point!), we merely coordinated the assessment by WikiProjects.  I wouldn't know how to assess the quality of an article on some aspect of The KLF but a member of the project will. The topics assessed so far depend on which projects have signed up - for example Chemistry has signed up, but the Dance WikiProject has not - but we hope in time to see nearly all projects participating, with articles from all corners of Wikipedia represented. Oh, and we're now up to 130k articles! Walkerma 15:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: So what is Wikipedia all about, anyway?

message: The categories on the 0.5 page were someone's experiment, we will be using the 10 categories mentioned above (currently 10 + misc, though I hope misc can be disposed of for the release), the noms page is closer to what we will end up with.  Almost every article in V0.5 carries one of the ten categories in its tag, that was done deliberately so we don't need to hand sort.  For WPCD2 I notice they have started adding some categories like this, though many articles still have the basic tag. Walkerma 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your categories now - 
{ category
Miscellaneous |
Arts |
Langlit |
Philrelig |
Everydaylife |
Socsci |
Geography |
History | 
Engtech |
Math |
Natsci }
And the (very important) Uncategorized category. Still a lot of work to be done there. FYI - my current 4000+ list of articles have these categories on the Main article page (not Talk:) - sorted by frequency:-
 144| :Category:Living people
 105| :Category:Chemical elements
  60| :Category:Wildlife of Africa
  58| :Category:Demographics by country
  54| :Category:Coastal cities
  52| :Category:African Union member states
  50| :Category:Island nations
  41| :Category:Landlocked countries
  40| :Category:Capitals in Africa
  39| :Category:Presidents of the United States
  38| :Category:English-speaking countries
  35| :Category:Transition metals
  35| :Category:Monarchies
  31| :Category:Metropolis
  30| :Category:Atlantic hurricanes
  29| :Category:Fellows of the Royal Society
  26| :Category:Freemasons
  25| :Category:Cretaceous dinosaurs
  24| :Category:Spanish-speaking countries
  22| :Category:Herbs
  22| :Category:Republics
  22| :Category:Members of the Commonwealth of Nations
  22| :Category:Autodidacts
Well, I am glad Africa is listed so prominently :-) (Not sure why some of these are red-linked ?) Wizzy…☎ 11:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Monarchies should be :Category:Monarchy but I don't know for :Category:Metropolis though. Lincher 02:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Further investigation leads me to believe these are recently deleted categories. My dump is from 18 May 2006. Wizzy…☎ 08:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: Pictures - yes, it definitely needs these. Some quick math - User:BozMo/wpcd2 has about 4000 articles. They occupy 140Meg uncompressed. That leaves about 500Meg on the CD. That means each article has about 120 bytes (yes, bytes) of pictures :-( My experimentation finds that even a thumbnail needs about 20K. Seems some major selection needs to be done, or ... ??
:I think 500,000 kB / 4000 articles means 120 kB per article, so it's not as bad as you say, it's about 6 picture thumbnails per article.  But many of the articles on the CD are well-developed articles (B-Class or above) so they will tend to have a lot of pictures, and you may still have to chop things down a bit.  User:Polimerek from Polish Wikipedia told me that for their DVD release (also coming out this fall) they plan to (a) remove articles with dubious copyright, (b) strip out all galleries and (c) just keep the first three pictures from each article.  For WPCD2 you would be doing (a) first anyway, then (b) if you need to, and only go further as the need arises.  Bear in mind the Poles have 250,000 articles to process so everything has to be automated - but in (for example) Bangalore you would remove the modern map of the city, which I would want to keep in.  I suspect that just removing fair use images and compressing the rest to thumbnails may be sufficient for WPCD, and is almost certainly enough for Version 0.5. Walkerma 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Working from an old picture archive I have from last year, I have 3034 pictures out of the 18529 total needed. I have put a request for the others here. That is about 1/6th of the ones necessary. I work through the HTML, where the  enclosure indicates the required picture size. I use the unix convert command to resize the pictures, and edit the HTML to reference that picture (all automated). Pictures so far occupy 87Meg, at default compression, indicating that when I have all the other pictures it will be under 500Meg. It is looking great! Wizzy…☎ 16:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: Does anyone have any insight what is going on around "Obotrites" and "Rukai people" in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Ethnic_groups_articles_by_quality&oldid=82766804 this bot-generated page]? We're just starting on this stuff in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups. - Jmabel | Talk 07:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot stuff 

message: Can anyone advise on how the non-article class parameters are supposed to work for the purposes of these combined WikiProject/assesment banners being placed on non-article talk pages? I have seen these banners placed on talk pages for relevant categories and template  using class=NA, class=template, class=category, and so on. But the approach doesn't seem completely consistent.
An example is :Category:Template-Class_film_articles where the Film WikiProject has grouped templates that have been "rated" template-class. This imprecise wording is avoided if the "NA wording" is used to say that the template is a template and doesn't need rating. Some template have been set up to do this, but I can't find any examples at the moment. Can anyone remind me where they are, or how to tweak the wording?
Going back to the film non-article parameters. The blurb on :Category:Film_articles_by_quality shows that the system has been extended to include other classes such as List, Category and Disambig (I haven't found anyone yet using a "redirect" class to organise redirects, though see :Category:Middle-earth redirects). I assume, that like the NA classification, these "non-article" classifications don't appear in the film quality statistics page and other stats pages, which I believe are maintained by a bot. I can understand why it doesn't include them directly, but what is the best way to generate statistics based on these non-article parameters such as NA, category, and template?
An alternative approach is seen at WikiProject Middle-earth, where Template:ME-project is used on article talk pages, Template:ME-category is used on category talk pages, and Template:ME-template is used on template pages.
Is there any reason to prefer putting all the parameters inside one template (as in the Film WikiProject), or to use separate banners (the Middle-earth WikiProject)? I prefer the latter approach, but was wondering if the assessment statistcs approach could be adapted to include stats on the number of templates, categories and other non-article pages? Carcharoth 11:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another approach is the one I have started at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth/Assessment#Page_types, where I am proposing a separate set of "page type" parameters and a separate line in the banner on which to display this parameter. Would this be helpful? Part of the reason for this is that it would be helpful to be able to assess some lists (currently, people tend to mix a "list" parameter into the rating scale), and in some cases to assess some of the larger templates (though this is not essential). Carcharoth 15:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't really answer this, but I've copied it in its entirety over to Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Non-article_class_parameters.  We tend to discuss template/bot technical issues on that page, and it gets a lot of knowledgable people passing through. Walkerma 05:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Carcharoth 10:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-article class parameters 

message: Should we open up Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations?  This page was designed to be a "rolling" page that would be perhaps Version 0.7 at first, then become perhaps Version 0.8, and so on.  I think we should open it up because:
* Version 0.5 closed its nominations almost two months ago, and reviewing is getting close to complete.
* I think we are gearing up to start work on the next release anyway.
* These general nomination pages don't get that many nominations, so I don't see us getting too many coming in while we finish off Version 0.5.  If we're not working on countries or FAs, we can clear any backlog in a couple of days, I think.
* Two or three people have already tried to nominate.
Do others agree with us opening this up now? Walkerma 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be wary of opening it until we actually are close to finishing v0.5. For example, there may be issues with the nomination process that we haven't observed, and that we may notice when a publisher points them out to us; also, opening the page after an actual release would bring in extra reviewers. By the way, how is work going on the publishing aspect of the release? I haven't beem as active on Wikipedia as I would like to be, so there may be things I missed and don't know about... Titoxd(?!?) 06:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been kept pretty busy with work, I have a pile of 60 lab reports next to me right now!  That means all of my wiki-time has been spent on finishing off the reviewing, no time to chase publishers.  We are getting close to finishing, but there are still >100 articles to review.  We all do what we can!  Cheers, Walkerma 05:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening up nominations for the next version? 

message: This section should be updated every once in a while. Don't post new bullets; just modify these and sign your name.
Progress:
*General nominations have been reviewed (100% done) Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 02:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progress 

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.   B2T2 14:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project directory