Wikipedia talk:Release Version

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Layout

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)

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)

[edit] Article count

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)

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)
Thanks for the fast check. Lincher 21:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
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)
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 {{releaseversion}} ... 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)
I've now set up all the articles tagged with {{releaseversion}} to be picked up by the bot. It should start collecting data in about 30 hours time. Walkerma 05:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "One off" problem

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Red History Version 0.7 Category

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Everything listed?

Does this page cover everything selected for the released version? For example I've found that special relativity and general relativity were not here, even though they are selected. This confused me for nominations.

þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 15:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand your comment but if I get the basic concept of what you are trying to explain, I will give you a brief overview of the way the articles get chosen to be on the Wikipedia:Release Version page.
Uno, all articles from the Version 0.5 release are automatically included in the release version page. Which means that the template {{V0.5}} now serves for the release version and the V0.5 release making the articles tagged part of both release.
Dos, all the articles that have the {{releaseversion}} tag are only part of the release version and thus necessitate to be added unto the Wikipedia:Release Version page (done manually as of now).
Hope this explains it well. Thanks for asking, Lincher 16:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think whoever passed those articles just forgot to add them into the list here like they are supposed to! Walkerma 17:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
No, they are already present on the page, FYI. Thanks, Lincher 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually I added them! I think there are still missing articles, like geometry. Should I add it as well, or is there a systematic way to take care of this list (like Mathbot?) þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 04:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
The additions are man-made, the bot only works with the categories (I meant Mathbot). Though when we will have the bot's listing we can cross-check which ones aren't included. Lincher 13:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categorization Question

How are the categories determined? It seems that most of the items in the "Miscellaneous" category would fit well into other, pre-existing categories, for instance, Artificial Intelligence could reasonably be moved under [Science and Technology] -> [Computing].

Also, is there a place for discussion of article dependencies? It seems that some articles are included possibly because of FA status, without a crucial article upon which the article depends to make sense. One example is "History of merit badges (Boy Scouts of America)" (which, to the point above, is categorized questionably under Social phenomena, movements and subcultures") which doesn't make sense without the inclusion of an article on "Boy Scouts of America." A less clear example might be, in the same category, "poverty in pakistan" which, although it makes sense, seems odd if the article on "poverty" is not included.

wgh 16:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC) -dialectric

For you question dialectric, I can only say that the misc section may serve as a temporary place and that if you feel that these items pertain to a particular section and that it should be moved there ... feel free to make the change or to explain the change and I will make it. "Done for AI". Lincher 00:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
You're partly right - those articles were only included because they are FAs. Some things like that Scouting one are hard to place anywhere specific. However, there are Scouting (and United States) and Pakistan which can provide context. For version 0.5 I'm writing a set of navigation pages precisely to deal with such things, and these will allow articles to be listed in multiple places (e.g., Leonardo da Vinci under Arts and EngTech). See this for an early try. Walkerma 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The navigation system is good for now but I hate having to go to subpages to add articles, this can only make the process more tedious and complicated. And add to the degree of comprehension of the project. Lincher 03:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] any category head-scratcher

I am puzzled by the message box left on the Bronze Age talk page. Why is Bronze Age categorized as History? Am I missing something here? What about all the archaeologists who are working hard on bronze age-related topics? Shouldn't Bronze Age be categorized as Archaeology or 'Prehistory' ?!? Mumun 22:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The choice of category is limited to these
category=Miscellaneous
category=Arts
category=Langlit
category=Philrelig
category=Everydaylife
category=Socsci
category=Geography
category=History
category=Engtech
category=Math
category=Natsci

So if you feel free to change the category, be aware that you have to choose one of these. As for the actual WP:WPRV page, then you may create new subsections or request other subsections to suit your need. Yours, Lincher 00:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominations for removing from the project?

Is there a process yet in place to nominate/discuss removing articles from the project, at least for the next release version? The Frederick Hamilton-Temple-Blackwood... article under nobility and heraldry is a well written, FA-class article, but the man is not of high historical importance, at least on the scale of others being included. I also would like to discuss whether well written articles about video games belong, especially when, as per my above post about article dependencies, the articles on the systems for which they are made are not included.

wgh 17:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) -dialectric

We try to both show the cream of the cream of WP and have articles that are of top importance. The fact is that both don't match for some top-important articles are still in awful conditions and so we have to come up with articles like this one where it is well written though it might not represent the most important subject. This is my opinion, I hope some other will voice theirs also. Lincher 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I am torn by arguments like this. On the one hand, I think it's silly that in Version 0.5 we have (for example) Hamilton-Temple.... but we don't have Saddam Hussein. On the other hand, we want to show off our "best of" material, and a good case can be made using the basic argument "Why not?" You should also realise the historical background - originally we planned to exclude such FAs, but several people got very upset when we said that the subject of their favourite FA was "not important." So we include them and I like to think of these as similar to a "bonus track" on a CD - an extra, not important but nice to have.
I think the solution to this may lie in importance tags, as Eyu100 has suggested. If we tag the important articles with "Top" or "High" (after agreeing on some fairly objective ways of doing that) we can develop a core of 2000-5000 important topics from which we build all future general release versions. One of my hopes for the 1.0 project is that within a year or so we can develop such a foundation of key topics (maybe we'll have a rough one sooner, by the end of Version 0.7). Once we have that we may even choose to release a CD of these key topics, which should be easy to do. One of the best way someone like yourself (Dialectric) can help is to nominate lots of important topics, preferably in large groups suitable for [[Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations|set nominations. I'm trying to put together such lists myself, as you can see in [[User:Walkerma/Sandbox2|my sandbox) (on Dec 7) (in this case, post-colonial leaders). Thanks for your input, Walkerma 04:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
For one, sorry for having commented in such a way for that is how I felt we were orienting the release toward. As for the important topics, there is a big problem when we get into articles that have NPOV, OR, etc. on them and which we cannot determine from an objective perspective what quality this article is. For that matter, I have set up and will use the Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Held nominations to place articles that have not been added as of yet in the RV and that may need a second pair of eyes to figure out if they should be included. The Held nominations page will also have a second utility as it will serve for articles that are less important for the release version but might get included later on. Lincher 05:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Please don't apologise! The above are merely my opinions. We need to reach a consensus that all the active people can support. My comments do reflect some earlier thoughts, where Maurreen (now on wikibreak) and myself felt that future releases should try to stress importance. Maurreen was at that time planning to coordinate the main 1.0 release right after 0.5. Walkerma 06:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/l/Wikipedia_talk%7ERelease_Version_5ebb.html"