Wikipedia talk:Release Version Nominations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Wikipedia 1.0
Projects (talk)(FAQ)
Main bot list
(talk) — (stats)
Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Release Version (t)
(Nominations) (t)
[You can help]
Version 0.5 (t) (ending)
V0.5 to do — V0.5 bot list
CORE TOPICS
CORE SUPPLEMENT

Core topics - 1,000
(Talk) (COTF) (bot)
TORRENT (Talk)
"Selection" project (Talk)
WORK VIA WIKI
PROJECTS (talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

Contents

[edit] don't nominate until discussion is finished...?

That puts the burden on me to check this page every day until you have finished, doesn't it? I have nominated Taiwanese aborigines.--Ling.Nut 18:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, we'll consider that nominated! I hope we can re-open this page in a week or two. Thanks, Walkerma 02:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I just noticed the bit about self-nomination. Please note this as a self-nomination. Thanks. --Ling.Nut 00:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about wikipedia offline project(s)

I addressed this to user BozMo initially, thinking he was in charge of this project? or something related?

I would like a simple description of the project somewhere, as I have read through a number of pages (various talk pages, 1.0 pages, 0.5 pages), and cannot easily distinguish between Wikipedia 0.5 and 1.0, or reach a clear understanding of where each project is at, and how and wether users can contribute. It would be ideal if this outline had a more descriptive name such as 'wikipedia offline (project)' or 'static wikipedia (version).

-thanks, dialectric User:Dialectric

Yes, I agree with you! The problem is that for our first "official" release (i.e., not BozMo's charity release), called version 0.5, we have been very busy, and pages have been created as needed. Once version 0.5 is released I plan to step back and create some kind of site map. The template (on the right) is the closest thing to it, and it's very helpful, but even that is quite out of date and it doesn't include explanations. The real problem is that there are only a handful of active editors trying to do a lot of work. As for the rename, we've discussed that very issue, and that's why this page is called "release version" nominations - but on the other languages the pages are all called version 1.0 for some reason, even the German project that has released several CD and DVD versions already. If you are interested in helping us, and you let us know where your interests lie, we can suggest some suitable tasks, and that would free someone up to work on this! Thanks, Walkerma 15:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-nomination

Battle of Tours Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 04:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

W. S. Gilbert Adam Cuerden talk 16:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul McCartney & Milton Friedman. Lincher 04:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabet/writing system nominations

Looking at the long list of these on the main nominations page, I wonder if these might better be handled as one big group, i.e., as our first [[Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations set nomination]]? I notice that the talk pages haven't been tagged yet, so there's no wasted effort there. Set nominations worked well on Version 0.5 for a large group of closely related articles like this - the nominator tags all the talk pages and gives a brief assessment (such as "poor B, rather listy" or "Good B, just a few more refs to be A"). You can make a case for importance and completeness to the linguistically ignorant like myself: "Ulvonian is the parent alphabet for all the peoples of East Africa" or "There are only 17 basic families of alphabet commonly in use, and all of these have been included, hence the need to include Toctic which is only Start-class". Once several reviewers reach consensus - this may take a while - all get added in one go. What do others -esp. Lincher - think of this? Walkerma 05:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This would normally go with the WVWP for this list was created off of the B+ articles that came from the Writing system index page from Mathbot's assessment stuff. I concur with you and will thus create a seperate Set Nomination page. Lincher 12:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of Mathbot

Briefly, we need to count how many articles we have. It wouldn't be very hard to do it, so can somebody ask Oleg? I don't know how Mathbot works, so I probably can't ask. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 06:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want, I'll set up the Version 0.7 project as one of the Mathbot projects, just like 0.5 is. That way we can get nightly updates of the statistics, the log and the listing. Just let me know here. Walkerma 06:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I want this version to be updated by Mathbot. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 18:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance

I added an importance parameter to Template:Releaseversion. I am going to add instructions to the nominations page. Lots of articles will not have importance ratings, however. Does anybody have an objection? Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 23:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think one can evaluate the importance of a given article especially if it isn't his/her discipline. Also, this would be subjective (it is already enough for the WVWP) that maybe we should stay out of there. Also, some subject maybe needed and rated as important though they don't meet the simple criteria for being only stubs or they are plagued by NPOV issues or such. After having helped the people at WPBiography, IMHO, it is a pain to give an importance factor. Lincher 02:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting idea. I'm a big fan of importance data - in fact I proposed it - but I can see Lincher's point here. Unlike most WikiProjects, we are expected to review everything from computer games to Roman generals to quantum theory, and we can't easily do this - but maybe that's what eyu100 meant by "Lots of articles will not have importance ratings." How about if we simply use Top and High to tag things like Core topics, countries of the world, global cities, top 200 biographies, maybe Vital articles, that sort of thing? I think that could be very useful, because once we have that collection complete, we could use that as a "must have" core for ALL releases. Walkerma 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe just tagging top stuff would be good after all to create a progression of quality of articles (100-top importance → 1000-vital articles →10,000-needed articles → and so on). Anyhow, the way this would be managed shouldn't be decided solely by 1.0 members for some articles, for example on Sri Lanka, are top importance there but were never published outside the country. Lincher 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the team can probably just about agree on the top 1000, but I agree that beyond that we need the specialists involved. Walkerma 15:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a major pronblem you'd hit is that the "Core" articles, e.g. Science, Language, Recreation, etc, are are overview articles that are expected to cover a wide range, and often do it surprisingly well, but in themselves they're probably not so important - or, at least, useful, as a level or two lower. Perhaps the sensible thing would be to add, say, an FA+ class, for some of the best short articles on a subject out there, to allow for more detailed ranking, and then rank by class. Adam Cuerden talk 17:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

How would we get specialists involved? The Wikiprojects' importance ratings are for their own project, not for this one. (i.e. WikiProject Former Countries would not find Music to be important at all). Although our importance ratings wouldn't be perfect, they would still be better that the Wikiprojects' ratings. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 17:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
In reply to Adam's point - yes, you're right - an article on chemical substance is typically less useful than hydrochloric acid, but unfortunately we need the former type to give context for the latter type. This explains why we want to get past the top-level broad articles into the second level of important but more nitty-gritty subjects. I think we'll get there in Version 0.7.
As for specialists judging importance on specialised topics, I think it's essential. Could a non-chemist judge the relative importance of copper(I) chloride vs. copper(II) chloride? Of course the chemistry project would rate these as more important than would the WP:1.0 team, but the key word here is relative importance. A chemical rated as "Top" importance by WP:Chem should almost certainly be in Version 0.7, one that is "High" would be useful in Version 0.7, but one that is "Mid" importance could probably be missed out unless it's a very nice article, or it's needed for a set (like the chemical elements). If the importance rating is produced by an {imaginary) Wikipedia:WikiProject Copper you would probably only include the "Top" importance articles, because clearly the project's scope is much narrower. This should all become clearer once I've written all of the algorithms for dealing with this for the MartinbotII work at WP:WVWP. Walkerma 20:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathbot

Walkerma, could you set up the release version for Mathbot? I don't know how to do that. I already posted once, but apparently you didn't notice. Eyu100(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team) 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The bot is now down and, for that matter, the adjustments made by Walkerma in order for the bot to pick up our project is now on hold till the bot works again. Lincher 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate pages?

What is the difference between Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Vital articles and Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Core topics review? Should the former be redirected to the latter? If not, could someone update the intros to clarify? -- Beland 04:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

One was created by the 1.0 team and the second one was copied from that and they changed in parallel. We are now working on the Core Topic one as to add relevant articles to the release version page. As for the Vital articles, they will be easily cross-checked later if it is an actual copy of the former list. If you are willing to help, please do so and feel free to ask questions if you aren't sure how to do it. Lincher 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] World music nominations

Please let me know if this discussion should go somewhere else, but the Music of Oregon article is a mess and needs to be cleaned up extensively before it is included. Katr67 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added your comment here; if you're knowledgable in this area, then please feel free to review and add further comments. Thanks! Walkerma 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I'd suspect that very few (if any) of the "Start" class will be included - the criteria suggest that Starts are only used to complete a set that is otherwise nearly all B or better. Walkerma 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] important subjects, poor articles

trying to fill some cracks in the nom list, i've been adding things like Eggs (food), Census, Bed, Roof, etc. in a quality sense, these articles need improvement. in an importance sense, these articles should be nominated. do these meet the release citeria of Start-Class articles, only if they are part of a set or are essential or Articles needed for completeness? i thought they did, but i'd like to make sure before i feel like i could be spamming the nom list. JoeSmack Talk 16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

here is a list of others as further examples. some suck, but all are pretty commonplace things. i tended to leave alone ones with a wikiproject assessment of quality/importance (they get to you i think), and i saw about 25-50% were selected for the 2006 CD release:

(oh, sig) JoeSmack Talk 17:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Joe - good selection! As you say, they are all fairly important topics, and everyday things like this may not get covered in projects. Some of them certainly look to be usable. I have poor & sporadic internet at the moment (away for Christmas) but I'll take a look properly when I return. Thanks, Walkerma 03:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
(Hope you're back) Should they be added? Should I start making lists of noms like these? This one was about 15 min of hunting around. JoeSmack Talk 05:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update?

This page appears to badly need to be updated. It has all sorts of strikethroughs on it, and doesn't address WP:V0.7. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the person who was originally going to take charge here has gone on wikibreak, and I have been too busy with Version 0.5 up until now to take over. If nothing happens in the next day or so, I will get things going myself (V0.5 now has finished beta testing). I plan to get a lot of people actively reviewing, if I can. Would you be able to help us out? Thanks, Walkerma 18:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I've made a start by writing a new FAQ page to guide our new reviewers. I will sharpen up the selection criteria, clean up this page, then we should be able to be in business! Walkerma 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Thats a good little FAQ; you might want to post it up on the Notices section of the community portal. JoeSmack Talk 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This page still has strikethroughs. What does that mean? Also, it says that all Featured Articles are automatically nominated. What does that mean exactly (I.e. do they automatically get included? Who makes sure none are missed? etc.) Johntex\talk 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, I've been too busy to clean up the page - to clean it up means actually writing several new pages. I also didn't get around to posting about the new FAQ, sorry Joe! All FAs are nominated (i.e., they don't need to be explicitly added to this page) because they automatically pass on quality. One of the review team will then review it for importance - if it looks to be too specialised for a general release it gets debated, and if two other reviewers agree it gets held over. Most FAs will pass, though. We make a list of current FAs, and remove or strike through all that have been reviewed. Then, as we review, we strike through the article name on our review list. Maybe I'll add this question to the FAQ once I get the FA Review page going! Thanks, Walkerma 21:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • OK thanks. That is helpful. An article I started (Baby Gender Mentor) just made it through the FA process. I will be interested in watching whehter it gets selected. It is certainly not as important as DNA but it does touch on some important social issues. Johntex\talk 22:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/l/Wikipedia_talk%7ERelease_Version_Nominations_32d5.html"