Wikipedia talk:Release Version

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia 1.0
Projects (talk)(FAQ)
WP 1.0 bot list
(talk) — (stats)
Selection bot
(talk) — test data
Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Version 0.7 (t)
(Nominations) (t)
[You can help]
"Selection" project (Talk)
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.
Release version articles by importance
Rated importance Rated quality
Featured article FA A Good article GA B Start NA None Total
Top 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 4
High 4 3 1 7 3 0 0 18
Mid 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 9
Unassessed 704 141 198 1374 282 29 4 2732
Total 712 147 200 1385 285 29 5 2763
Release version article ratings by category
Featured article FA A Good article GA B Start NA None Total
Arts 78 16 19 102 13 0 1 229
Engineering, applied sciences, and technology 39 9 15 89 8 0 0 160
Everyday life 53 8 15 102 21 0 2 201
Geography 89 31 33 438 154 7 0 752
History 126 12 18 136 13 22 0 327
Language and literature 67 11 14 105 9 0 0 206
Mathematics 6 5 6 29 2 0 0 48
Natural sciences 136 22 39 142 32 0 2 373
Philosophy and religion 22 13 11 96 10 0 0 152
Social sciences and society 61 17 23 108 16 0 0 225
Last updated: Sat Jun 14 01:01:44 UTC 2008 (source)


Contents

[edit] Leet

I have just noticed that the page "leet" is in both the "language and litriture" section and the "Engineering, applied sciences, and technology" section. Is this allowed or should a redirect page be put in for one of these places instead?

Chrizlax 90.242.27.16 19:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[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)
NOTE: This switch was done during January 2007. Walkerma 03:47, 4 February 2007 (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)

[edit] Clarify

I don't exactly understand this. Is it like a new versio of WP and having evrything else deleted or is it like some kind of sub-wiki or wikiproject? Could someone please clarify (preferably on my talk page also)? Thanks. —¡Randfan! 03:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Clarify,

I've commented on this confusion as well, like you, as a non-project-member, I was confused about the naming and nature of the project. This is a project working towards a stable, if incomplete, offline version of wikipedia, which will be called, confusingly, Wikipedia 1.0 (Though it seems to be increasingly refered to as Release Version). The current step in this process is a 'beta' of sorts, a wikipedia 0.7 which is an attempt to include as much as possible information which will be put in this offline Wikipedia version. Users can nominate pages to be included on a Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations page. Once work on 0.7 is complete, the project will begin work on a new version building off of the beta.

A similar project with different members is the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, which has a more specific target audience, children in english-speaking schools, and thus a more limited breadth of articles. If someone on this project could comment on whether there is any overlap/sharing between the projects, I would find that helpful. It might also clarify things if the top of the Articles for release version 0.7 gave a detailed explanation of what's going on. Finally, is this the "Official" release version? such that this might be described as Wikipedia Official Offline 0.7, beta version?

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

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

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 19:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More clarification

What's the purpose of the release version?

What benefits will it provide that the online Wikipedia doesn't?

What benefits will it forego?

What needs will it fulfill?

What will its distribution method be?

Is there money involved?

What licenses is it being created under?

Who will its users likely be?

How many users are expected?

Very curious,

The Transhumanist   20:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Most of these questions are answered at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/FAQs. We will know more accurately later this month when WP:V0.5 goes on sale at http://www.wikipediaondvd.com. For this test version (5000 CDs only), it will only have limited distribution, but all future versions should be available in WH Smiths, WalMart, Asda, Best Buy, etc. It will be open source (GPL), with all future versions planned to be the same. It will be available for free download - including the offline browser/search software. Our main users will be the 99+% of the world who don't have broadband internet access! To really see, you'll have to buy/download the CD....! Cheers, Walkerma 20:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Who'll be distributing it through WalMart, etc.? The Transhumanist   01:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Probably the people making the V0.5 CD for us, Cinram. Walkerma 02:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Now we need one targeted at children! +sj + 17:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
the Wikipedia:2006 Wikipedia CD Selection is intended for children, though not written in simpler language Dialectric 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please!

How do you change which of the sections an article goes in? Because you've got Kakapo in the mammal section of biological sciences and the wretched thing is a bird. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to make the edit yourself if you spot an error like this. I decided it was about time we had a new section for Birds (should reduce future errors like this), and now the Kakapo is chirping away happily in its new home. Thanks for pointing this out, Walkerma 03:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] different icons

I suggest changing some of the icons, particularly the physics and astronomy icon, since the crescent moon is more closely associated with astrology/religion. Perhaps the general science icon (atoms?) could be moved to physics and astronomy, and something else chosen for general science?

Less important, the economics icon doesn't read very well in its current size, and several of the icons currently have white backgrounds rather than transparent.

On an unrelated note, maybe the Geology/Geophysics category should be under science rather than geography?

Dialectric 15:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Please go ahead and make any changes you think are worthwhile; please compare with WP:V0.5, there may be better icons there. I agree that geology & geophysics are borderline - obviously they are sciences, but many of the topics covered also come close to geography, for example mountain or glacier. If we had an active geology project I'd ask there to get a consensus. Note that putting it with geography does not mean it's not a science, merely that it has been grouped with the science of physical geography rather then the science of chemistry/physics. Walkerma 18:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Screenwriters

Could you include the screenwriters Aaron Sorkin and William Monahan in the next version? They are both FAs.-BillDeanCarter 22:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Nominated. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 10:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy and Religion

Philosophy should be with the social sciences, not conjoined with religion. It is true that philosophy often is interested in the same sorts of issues as religion (the arguments for the existence of God, the justifiability of belief), however this does not make philosophy like religion anymore than the fact that physics is interested in the creation of the universe makes physics like religion. Philosophy probably can only comfortably be given its own entire section, but at the very least it needs to be moved to 'Society and social sciences' rather than being placed with religion. Religion draws on philosophy often for the topics its interested in, but it also draws on science. We shouldn't mistake cross-discipline events as showing two very different disciplines as being the same. I place philosophy with the social sciences because like the other "soft sciences" which aim to accurately describe the world, it is difficult for philosophy to rely on empirical evidence to justify its hypotheses (e.g. what experiement could show the nature of universals). Of course psychology, political science, etc. all rely on empirical evidence to some degree, but what makes these sciences "soft sciences" is exactly their inability to rely on empirical evidence to the degree of physics or biology. This is not a problem with the soft sciences, but simply a result of the nature of their subject matter. - Atfyfe 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually our categories were originally designed by a philosopher! We spent several months discussing various options in detail, and this was the consensus we came to. There are lots of choices, of course, but I'd be reluctant to change things at this point unless there are a large number of people who feel strongly on the issue. I personally like philosophy where it is. Thanks for your thoughts. Are there a lot of others who feel strongly on this issue? Walkerma 02:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IRC meeting to discuss Version 0.7

On Sunday May 27th. Please sign up on the 1.0 page if you can attend. Walkerma 17:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scope of V0.7 project

We've been debating how to define the importance criterion more precisely for Version 0.7. Please see this discussion, and then vote! Thanks, Walkerma 05:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] chemistry articles

i've noticed some of the chemistry articles that made it in are pretty lack-luster. for example: Einsteinium made it in, despite being start class and mid importance by the assesser, and wikiproject physics putting it at start class and low importance. is this covered by the 'need' scale because it is an element in the periodic table? i found all this while trying to assess the Tin(II) chloride nom and looking for an equivalent - i also find it lack-luster despite it being core/A class/mid importance and a GA (really?!). to me it is a pretty poor article. it has info boxes and formulas but no history of use/discovery, it has a how-to section and its prose are gobblety gook. maybe i need to have more of a background in chemistry? JoeSmack Talk 17:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Joe, you can find einsteinium etc because we voted to have the complete set of all chemical elements included in Version 0.5. Even with the Start-Class ones, they are that way NOT because they are badly written, poorly sourced or biased etc, but simply because they are short. The content that is there is generally of a high standard. Regarding tin(II) chloride, you should fail it if it doesn't come across well. I suspect it has degraded somewhat since last year (there was no how-to originally) and something like history of use is not usually covered in a chemistry article. There is often a limit to what you can usefully say about a specific compound, without it getting really specialised. Yes, it is specialised enough that you need to know some chemistry - but if you don't like the content, it's not so important that we need to include it. Thanks for dealing with our oldest outstanding nomination! Walkerma 17:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Yep, no prob; trying to clean up the oldest noms first! :) Gotcha, I can understand Einsteinium being included as part of a set (though I wish it was better). Poking around for an appealing example article through Tin(II) chloride's categories I found Zinc_chloride. It's easier on the eyes and less bullet-point-style facts. I walked over to the talk page and saw it was a failed GA, and read some of the dialog around that and see some of my feelings mirrored, as well as some of yours. I do understand that some articles are really hard to approach if you don't have specialized knowledge, yet that information shouldn't be left out or dumbed down inappropriately or repeated for every chemical article (a compound is...). Maybe its Tin(II) chloride's choppy word style that irks me the most. I do only have layknowledge of chemistry (I went into psychology in college and didn't look back), but I think there should be some middle ground with accessibility. Am I echoing complaints others have had with assessing chemical articles? Is there some long discussion out there with an end consensus I can read through?
I sort of though i'd be able to start assessing nominations for the release version anywhere in topics and see some clear shining stars and some clear duds, but I'm being to think not... JoeSmack Talk 19:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I think you will see this problem of accessibility with many more specialised articles. (I've waded through some multi-dimensional math articles myself for V0.7!). You would probably be able to understand Kohlberg's stages of moral development (a well-written GA) much better than me: Culpability is frequently turned from being defined by society to having society itself be culpable. This stage is often mistaken for the moral relativism of stage two as the individual views the interests of society which conflict with their own choices as relatively and morally wrong. Pretty heavy too, but you can't get away from that! The accessibility issue is one we are trying to deal with at WP:Chem, we have had a lot of flak over this lately.
One key thing in reviewing - importance is the main deciding factor, as long as the article is of usable quality (usually B). In other words, the first question you should ask is, "Is this topic important enough that we want it in this release?" If the answer is yes, that's when you check that we won't be embarrassed by the quality. Cheers, Walkerma 20:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I can see I probably should have left this nom alone because of my limited contact with chemistry - this may be highlighting a cause for concern for the review team. For one others may have run into my same problem and kind of 'bluffed through it' with their noms without throwing concerns on talk pages. For another, the very reason this nom may be the oldest still unassessed is because so few hold advanced chem knowledge (you, Walker, are an exception, and you nom'ed it besides).
Regardless, I tend to like to finish what I start, and doing this one together will be a learning experience :). WP:Chem has a nice little assessment subpage. It meets the Class-A quality requirements there, and hit mid importance too ('Subject fills in more minor details'). If we're running with importance being the first question, I'd say no both by WP:Chem's assessment and mine. Therefor I'd fail this nomination. Does this make reasonable sense, and is this the right hat to be wearing when I review other noms? JoeSmack Talk 07:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
P.S. The WP:Chem's quality/importance assess template also says Core - this is a core article in the WikiProject Chemicals worklist. At first I thought this meant it was part of the core topics list that was automatically swept into 0.5 and after, but really it's just an item for the project's participants to work on. This is kind of a confusing thing to put on the assessment template for that reason. JoeSmack Talk 07:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes it seems fair. At 1.0 we often have to make inexpert judgements, we just do the best we can, and get second opinions as needed. It is best to work first on the topics you know best, but if an article is not getting reviewed someone has to take it on. As for the assessment at WP:Chem, maybe "core" is a little confusing but please be patient - this is in fact where the whole assessment scheme started. That worklist is actually older than the Core Topics project, too! Cheers, Walkerma 07:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book of Kells

I notice this classified as "langlit" which is wrong - the text is a standard Latin Vulgate Gospel Book. It should be under arts; it is the illuminated miniatures it is famous for. I changed it on the article page, hoping that would move it here, but it hasn't. Johnbod 01:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've met Johnbod while working on Biblical manuscript articles. I come from the LangLit side of things and I agree with him. Kells is more important to art historians for its art, than it is to textual critics of the New Testament for its text. (There are a few manuscripts that might be equally important for art history and text criticism, but most fall clearly one way or the other. Kells is art.) Alastair Haines 16:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automated lists from other projects

We may make a list of notable projects and collect their list of articles with "Top" importance. What do you think? Can somebody write a bot for it? -- þħɥʂıɕıʄʈʝɘɖı 05:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks like there is already work on that: Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/SelectionBot —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicistjedi (talk • contribs) 05:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That's right. A quick update - the developers have been getting lists together, there is a lot of progress on this behind the scenes right now! I hope that soon we will have another superb bot to use just like Oleg's WP1.0 bot. Physicistjedi - can you help us evaluate the bot's output? Walkerma (talk) 07:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Halo

I was wondering if the article about the video game Halo: Combat Evolved should be included. It has been the main page article, and is currently at FA status. RedZionX 21:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed your comment. OK, I'll post this on the nominations page and tag it as nominated. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prostitution in Georgia (country) included in 0.5!?

I'm not sure which is less likely, that this very short article was rated as an A-Class, or that it was included in 0.5. Both are rather unlikely, though, despite the tag on the article's talk page saying it is in 0.5. Someone might want to verify this, maybe? John Carter (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] removal

I added several things to the release list (Topeka, KS. Sum 41. Metallica. Toby Keith. Liverpool.) they were all removed. Please do not remove them again because i've passed them and they are all historically significant enough to be on here. - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 04:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)