Release version articles by importance | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rated importance | Rated quality | |||||||
FA | A | GA | B | Start | NA | None | Total | |
Top | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
High | 4 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 16 |
Mid | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
Unassessed | 693 | 128 | 195 | 1385 | 272 | 29 | 44 | 2746 |
Total | 701 | 134 | 196 | 1396 | 273 | 29 | 45 | 2774 |
Release version article ratings by category | ||||||||
FA | A | GA | B | Start | NA | None | Total | |
Arts | 78 | 15 | 19 | 103 | 12 | 0 | 2 | 229 |
Engineering, applied sciences, and technology | 39 | 8 | 14 | 90 | 7 | 0 | 3 | 161 |
Everyday life | 51 | 6 | 16 | 101 | 21 | 0 | 6 | 201 |
Geography | 87 | 28 | 32 | 443 | 147 | 7 | 10 | 754 |
History | 125 | 11 | 15 | 139 | 12 | 22 | 5 | 329 |
Language and literature | 65 | 11 | 14 | 104 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 206 |
Mathematics | 5 | 5 | 6 | 29 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 48 |
Natural sciences | 136 | 19 | 41 | 146 | 30 | 0 | 11 | 383 |
Philosophy and religion | 23 | 12 | 11 | 96 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 152 |
Social sciences and society | 58 | 16 | 21 | 109 | 15 | 0 | 4 | 223 |
Last updated: Mon Aug 25 01:01:38 UTC 2008 ( source) |
Wikipedia 1.0 — (
talk) FAQ — To do |
---|
Release version tools Guide — (talk) — (stats) |
Article selection process (talk) Version 0.8 bot selection Version 0.8 feedback |
IRC channel ( IRC) |
|
Release criteria |
Review team ( FAQ) |
Version 0.8 release (manual selection) (t) |
"Selection" project (
Talk) |
|
CORE TOPICS CORE SUPPLEMENT Core topics - 1,000 ( Talk) ( COTF) (bot) |
TORRENT ( Talk) |
"Selection" project for kids ( (t)) |
WORK VIA WIKI PROJECTS ( talk) |
Pushing to 1.0 ( talk) |
|
Static content subcom. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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
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. — ¡ Rand fan ! 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On Sunday May 27th. Please sign up on the 1.0 page if you can attend. Walkerma 17:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Red ZionX 21:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Not sure where to put this but choosing which historical version of an article to go for will be tough. The Germans used the most recent save by a trusted editor but with the Schools Wikipedia we have found too many "recent changes patrol" style reverts of a single bit of graffiti by serious editors which have missed vandalism one or two steps earlier. The community isn't disciplined enough or undo/rollback is used too readily. In the end first cut we have gone for taking two recent versions by trusted editors at least 6 edits apart and maually checking the diffs for vandalism. Updates we do based on manual check of diffs to our last good version. TDS but with good database tools it is doable. -- BozMo talk 09:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I am hopeful that the Selection Bot is almost ready to use, after we do the final fixes and testing during July. I think we should be able to generate a good selection list of around 20,000-30,000 articles by August, and provide this to our publisher (Linterweb). If there are no delays in publication, we should have Version 0.7 ready for sale by autumn. We will need people to help out with the logistics, checking etc. Please let me know if you want to be involved. Walkerma ( talk) 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Sum 41 should not be included in the release version. It should not be included because (1) the article is not of good quality as it currently stands, and (2)the band is not of high historical (or commercial) importance. The article as is multiple citation needed tags, less than 20 citations, several of which are to npov commercial websites and 'MTV News' and is quite short relative to those on other musicians of high historical importance. The band is not notable relative to many others. If the release version includes only the 100 most popular (largest selling, or highest polling) popular music groups and artists, it seems unlikely that this group would be on the list. The article states that they've sold 10 million albums total. Some more notable artists sell 10 million records with each new release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.83.137 ( talk) 18:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
as the pop punk article shows, that assertion is difficult to justify; pop punk has been around since the early 1980s, or before. 69.203.83.137 ( talk) 17:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It'd be real nice if the intro to your page told people what the project was all about instead of making us guess! // Fra nkB 03:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It seems that this page should really be titled "Release 0.7" and there should be a whole different page at "Release Version" explaining what a release version is. Thelem ( talk) 22:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
We will hold an IRC meeting at #wikipedia-1.0 on Monday, August 11th at 1900h UTC. Complete details are on the main 1.0 talk page, please sign up there. Walkerma ( talk) 16:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if this has already being worked on or unrelated, but I looked at the provisional selection list and WikiProject Schools wasn't on the list. Education, Education in Australia, Education in Canada, and Universities all have selections, but our project doesn't seem to appear at all. Is it because none of our articles scored high enough? The manual nomination list at Wikipedia:Release_Version only includes two schools from the 0.5 release: B-class Hopkins and FA-class Stuyvesant, and I think articles like Stonyhurst College and Baltimore City College are possibly worthy of inclusion -- Jh12 ( talk) 03:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
We had a discussion in WP:MILHIST wondering how many DVD would be released. Depending on the number we would scale our efforts contributing to this project. Currently, we can't imagine many people with a DVD drive and no internet access and question the whole sense of the effort. Wandalstouring ( talk) 11:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if this isn't the correct place to ask, but is anyone aware of duplicates on SelectionBot's lists? For example, there are several The Legend of Zelda articles that can be found at both User:SelectionBot/0.7/V-3 and User:SelectionBot/0.7/T-2. Do we need to remove one set of these? Pagra shtak 16:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
When will this Release version be released and till when will articles be able to be put in? Was signed,
Jouke Bersma (wikipedia ever since 2005 and highly interested in especially Frisians) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 ( talk) 08:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Will Greate Pier be on that DVD in October? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 ( talk) 10:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Quick question... I assume that template tags (refs, POV etc) will be stripped from the text of the release version prior to publication? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 11:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is 4X marked as selected here, but not listed at User:SelectionBot/0.7/V-3? Pagra shtak 05:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go at improving Chordate, Arthropod and Mollusc and have posted requests for review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals. Hoever apart from my requests there's been no activity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals since 26 Aug. Is there any way to expedite reviews in time for the issue of v 0.7? -- Philcha ( talk)
Although there is a conflict of interest in assessing your own articles, generally most wikiprojects don't mind if you (honestly) assess your own articles up to B class. If you think you have met the GA standard, you could submit them to the Good Article queue, but that won't meet the v0.7 deadline. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 13:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I re-assessed Arthropod and Chordate, so all 3 are B class now. Regardless of the recent taxonomy (which I did not check), there is no way they are either C or Start class. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 14:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
How are redirects selected for inclusion? Does a bot select them all automatically, or do they need to be individually tagged by WikiProjects? -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 13:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This appears to have been included only because it was mistagged as top-importance in Ohio. Please fix. -- NE2 23:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
As I'm writing, the Road transport (not roads) section of the list features the following articles: Automobile, Automatic number plate recognition, Bicycle, Hours of service, Maserati_MC12, Plug-in hybrid, Mini, Trucking industry in the United States. I doubt that the MC12 is more important than iconic cars such as the VW Beetle, the VW Golf, the Ford T or the Fiat 600. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 23:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
auto mobils = car —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 ( talk) 13:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Can I suggest two things:
1) WikiProjects are notified much earlier of the proposed articles to be included from their specialist areas. Last time, there was an undignified scramble and you chaps were too busy to respond to the questions we posed. 2) The project page is much clearer about what has and has not been included. Can you simply post one list, whether selected by bot or approved manually? And please work on some plain English text to explain the process.
Many thanks -- Dweller ( talk) 16:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
One more thing I think (after I tried v0.5, pocket Wikipedia and school version) is that the off line version is hardly editable(you could but much trouble). This lost the most useful function of Wikipedia--editing--I really hope the v0.7 or v1.0 could have this important function for offline user(people could edit the articles (on their computer hard-disk, DVD may be installed to the hard drive, etc,.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.208.219 ( talk) 10:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Please check these links. I found the first link in each pair by searching the Prefix Index of the Wikipedia namespace.
-- Wavelength ( talk) 23:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Release version articles by importance | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Rated importance | Rated quality | |||||||
FA | A | GA | B | Start | NA | None | Total | |
Top | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
High | 4 | 3 | 1 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 16 |
Mid | 3 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 8 |
Unassessed | 693 | 128 | 195 | 1385 | 272 | 29 | 44 | 2746 |
Total | 701 | 134 | 196 | 1396 | 273 | 29 | 45 | 2774 |
Release version article ratings by category | ||||||||
FA | A | GA | B | Start | NA | None | Total | |
Arts | 78 | 15 | 19 | 103 | 12 | 0 | 2 | 229 |
Engineering, applied sciences, and technology | 39 | 8 | 14 | 90 | 7 | 0 | 3 | 161 |
Everyday life | 51 | 6 | 16 | 101 | 21 | 0 | 6 | 201 |
Geography | 87 | 28 | 32 | 443 | 147 | 7 | 10 | 754 |
History | 125 | 11 | 15 | 139 | 12 | 22 | 5 | 329 |
Language and literature | 65 | 11 | 14 | 104 | 10 | 0 | 2 | 206 |
Mathematics | 5 | 5 | 6 | 29 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 48 |
Natural sciences | 136 | 19 | 41 | 146 | 30 | 0 | 11 | 383 |
Philosophy and religion | 23 | 12 | 11 | 96 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 152 |
Social sciences and society | 58 | 16 | 21 | 109 | 15 | 0 | 4 | 223 |
Last updated: Mon Aug 25 01:01:38 UTC 2008 ( source) |
Wikipedia 1.0 — (
talk) FAQ — To do |
---|
Release version tools Guide — (talk) — (stats) |
Article selection process (talk) Version 0.8 bot selection Version 0.8 feedback |
IRC channel ( IRC) |
|
Release criteria |
Review team ( FAQ) |
Version 0.8 release (manual selection) (t) |
"Selection" project (
Talk) |
|
CORE TOPICS CORE SUPPLEMENT Core topics - 1,000 ( Talk) ( COTF) (bot) |
TORRENT ( Talk) |
"Selection" project for kids ( (t)) |
WORK VIA WIKI PROJECTS ( talk) |
Pushing to 1.0 ( talk) |
|
Static content subcom. |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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
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. — ¡ Rand fan ! 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
On Sunday May 27th. Please sign up on the 1.0 page if you can attend. Walkerma 17:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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. Red ZionX 21:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Not sure where to put this but choosing which historical version of an article to go for will be tough. The Germans used the most recent save by a trusted editor but with the Schools Wikipedia we have found too many "recent changes patrol" style reverts of a single bit of graffiti by serious editors which have missed vandalism one or two steps earlier. The community isn't disciplined enough or undo/rollback is used too readily. In the end first cut we have gone for taking two recent versions by trusted editors at least 6 edits apart and maually checking the diffs for vandalism. Updates we do based on manual check of diffs to our last good version. TDS but with good database tools it is doable. -- BozMo talk 09:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I am hopeful that the Selection Bot is almost ready to use, after we do the final fixes and testing during July. I think we should be able to generate a good selection list of around 20,000-30,000 articles by August, and provide this to our publisher (Linterweb). If there are no delays in publication, we should have Version 0.7 ready for sale by autumn. We will need people to help out with the logistics, checking etc. Please let me know if you want to be involved. Walkerma ( talk) 07:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Sum 41 should not be included in the release version. It should not be included because (1) the article is not of good quality as it currently stands, and (2)the band is not of high historical (or commercial) importance. The article as is multiple citation needed tags, less than 20 citations, several of which are to npov commercial websites and 'MTV News' and is quite short relative to those on other musicians of high historical importance. The band is not notable relative to many others. If the release version includes only the 100 most popular (largest selling, or highest polling) popular music groups and artists, it seems unlikely that this group would be on the list. The article states that they've sold 10 million albums total. Some more notable artists sell 10 million records with each new release. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.83.137 ( talk) 18:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
as the pop punk article shows, that assertion is difficult to justify; pop punk has been around since the early 1980s, or before. 69.203.83.137 ( talk) 17:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
It'd be real nice if the intro to your page told people what the project was all about instead of making us guess! // Fra nkB 03:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It seems that this page should really be titled "Release 0.7" and there should be a whole different page at "Release Version" explaining what a release version is. Thelem ( talk) 22:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
We will hold an IRC meeting at #wikipedia-1.0 on Monday, August 11th at 1900h UTC. Complete details are on the main 1.0 talk page, please sign up there. Walkerma ( talk) 16:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if this has already being worked on or unrelated, but I looked at the provisional selection list and WikiProject Schools wasn't on the list. Education, Education in Australia, Education in Canada, and Universities all have selections, but our project doesn't seem to appear at all. Is it because none of our articles scored high enough? The manual nomination list at Wikipedia:Release_Version only includes two schools from the 0.5 release: B-class Hopkins and FA-class Stuyvesant, and I think articles like Stonyhurst College and Baltimore City College are possibly worthy of inclusion -- Jh12 ( talk) 03:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
We had a discussion in WP:MILHIST wondering how many DVD would be released. Depending on the number we would scale our efforts contributing to this project. Currently, we can't imagine many people with a DVD drive and no internet access and question the whole sense of the effort. Wandalstouring ( talk) 11:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if this isn't the correct place to ask, but is anyone aware of duplicates on SelectionBot's lists? For example, there are several The Legend of Zelda articles that can be found at both User:SelectionBot/0.7/V-3 and User:SelectionBot/0.7/T-2. Do we need to remove one set of these? Pagra shtak 16:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
When will this Release version be released and till when will articles be able to be put in? Was signed,
Jouke Bersma (wikipedia ever since 2005 and highly interested in especially Frisians) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 ( talk) 08:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Will Greate Pier be on that DVD in October? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 ( talk) 10:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Quick question... I assume that template tags (refs, POV etc) will be stripped from the text of the release version prior to publication? -- ROGER DAVIES talk 11:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Why is 4X marked as selected here, but not listed at User:SelectionBot/0.7/V-3? Pagra shtak 05:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go at improving Chordate, Arthropod and Mollusc and have posted requests for review at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals. Hoever apart from my requests there's been no activity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animals since 26 Aug. Is there any way to expedite reviews in time for the issue of v 0.7? -- Philcha ( talk)
Although there is a conflict of interest in assessing your own articles, generally most wikiprojects don't mind if you (honestly) assess your own articles up to B class. If you think you have met the GA standard, you could submit them to the Good Article queue, but that won't meet the v0.7 deadline. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 13:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I re-assessed Arthropod and Chordate, so all 3 are B class now. Regardless of the recent taxonomy (which I did not check), there is no way they are either C or Start class. -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 14:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
How are redirects selected for inclusion? Does a bot select them all automatically, or do they need to be individually tagged by WikiProjects? -- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 13:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This appears to have been included only because it was mistagged as top-importance in Ohio. Please fix. -- NE2 23:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
As I'm writing, the Road transport (not roads) section of the list features the following articles: Automobile, Automatic number plate recognition, Bicycle, Hours of service, Maserati_MC12, Plug-in hybrid, Mini, Trucking industry in the United States. I doubt that the MC12 is more important than iconic cars such as the VW Beetle, the VW Golf, the Ford T or the Fiat 600. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 23:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
auto mobils = car —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 ( talk) 13:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Can I suggest two things:
1) WikiProjects are notified much earlier of the proposed articles to be included from their specialist areas. Last time, there was an undignified scramble and you chaps were too busy to respond to the questions we posed. 2) The project page is much clearer about what has and has not been included. Can you simply post one list, whether selected by bot or approved manually? And please work on some plain English text to explain the process.
Many thanks -- Dweller ( talk) 16:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.
All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot ( Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
One more thing I think (after I tried v0.5, pocket Wikipedia and school version) is that the off line version is hardly editable(you could but much trouble). This lost the most useful function of Wikipedia--editing--I really hope the v0.7 or v1.0 could have this important function for offline user(people could edit the articles (on their computer hard-disk, DVD may be installed to the hard drive, etc,.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.208.219 ( talk) 10:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Please check these links. I found the first link in each pair by searching the Prefix Index of the Wikipedia namespace.
-- Wavelength ( talk) 23:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl ( CBM · talk) 03:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)