This is the talk page for the CORE TOPICS sub-project of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team.
/Archive 1 (To end Jan 2006) | /Archive 2 (Feb 1st - Mar 12th, 2006) | /Archive 3 (mid-March 2006) | /Archive 4 (late March 2006) | /Archive 5 | /Archive 6 | /Archive 7 | /Archive 8
WP1.0 editorial team discussions – Core topics COTW – Wiki sort discussions – FAs first discussions – Work via WikiProjects discussions – Pushing to 1.0 discussions
I propose that the current information at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics be replaced entirely or largely with the information at this page: User:Silence/Core.
I've been working on this list, in various forms, for over a month now. If we're going to try to avoid overdiscussing list details as much as possible so as not to waste time and energy, then I would argue that this list would be a vastly stronger starting point for us to rely on than the current list is: it's not only greatly-enhanced in terms of coverage, with many of the less-important and lower-quality articles replaced by vastly more-important (bye-bye oceanography, hello water!) and higher-quality (bye-bye craft, hello Sun!) ones, and has exactly 150 articles, but also has been thoroughly checked-over, with each entry's article reviewed, and most of them updated with new information.
Numerous errors have also been fixed, like typos, inaccuracies, dab-page-listings, mis-alphabetizations, etc. Furthermore, all the badly out-of-date sections of the page (except, for the sake of expediency, for "Changes from original list", which I will update on request if anyone wants me to) have been updated, including "Article status summary", and I have added dozens of links to relevant WikiProjects in the convenient, yet previously woefully unused, column allocated to them, allowing users to immediately see, for example, that there is a WikiProject for organized improvements to ecology article ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecology), a very valuable resource for a project like Core Topics. - Silence 04:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm ready to recategorize and retemplatify the Core Topics now, per recent changes, if noone objects. The current categories and template placements for Category:Core topics articles by quality is badly out-of-date. I'm assuming that these categories are only for the main, 150-article list, not for the Supplementals (hence if we do eventually categorize the Supplementals, they'll probably be in a different set of categories). So, shall I go ahead with the switchover? - Silence 03:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The table is rarely updated and can be overwhelming. I'd like to move it to a subpage. Maurreen 22:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved the table and list of removed items to the same subpage, and I added a tree listing all the current core topics. Maurreen 14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to replace Nuclear power with the original Nuclear technology, which had been deliberately chosen to encompass both nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Maurreen 15:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I’m thinking we could move these stubs to the supplement:
Similar to Chemical substance, Performing arts has developed from one screen to four. We have Visual arts in the core but apparently removed Performing arts. I see these two as parallel. I'd like to see them together. I am open about whether they are in the core or the supplement. Maurreen 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to restore Painting. We have Visual arts, Art, Drawing and Sculpture. I don't know why "Painting" was removed. Maurreen 03:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this should be added to core topics, alongside "planet", "star", "galaxy" and "universe." Serendipodous 14:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Many articles seem to work as sets. I joined this project because I really see the value in this way of doing things and learned a lot from working with
User:Maurreen and
User:Sunray on the
Community article. I noticed that the "main" articles that appear on "core topic" articles are important, too. Just a few exapmles in the
Community context are
Community development,
Sense of community and
Structure and agency articles. The Work via
WikiProjects way is, IMO the only best better way to handle such complexity if you have well organized WikiProjects.
I've had a theory for a long time that "topics" have to be handled with plenty of focus and guidance. I see that North America is getting some attention and as one can see, its "context" is humongous! Though Louisville is only one city in one U.S. state called Kentucky, there are plenty of people there who know a lot about it and are well qualified to perfect that article. Yet The United States is only a country in North America. (Follow the linkage to see where I'm going with this). I think that The Places Team at WP:1.0 can provide much leadership in this area and has already.
Similarly, the Core Team (you folks) could help along struggling projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject International law by coordining and connecting their efforts to more successfull projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. But from what I've seen from here, the Law wikiproject isn't very enthused about WP:1.0 assessments. However, the smaller project, which doesn't even have a listing here might be more inclined to get on board. That's why I nominated the International law article, which appears at the #5 spot when you google "international law" as a search term. I found all this out when doing research for the international community article.
One more point. Many WikiProjects focus on Portals. WikiProject U.S. states is working to focus and guide several of the WikiProject (Your state) projects toward United States, before building their own state or city portal. If and when interest in North America wins it a COTF spot, I believe that Portal:North America should be kept in mind here and members of this crew can start Wikipedia:WikiProject North America to help manage the article and its context.
The big thing here for editors and readers alike is ease of use and logical structures. I've been dealing with WikiProjects, Portals, Templates and Categories (including Category:Wikipedians from a holistic standpoint for a while. In fact, though I can't prove it directly, I may have been partially responsible for the creation of the Portal namespace. (You'ld have to study the deletion logs for deleted WikiProjects). It may even be a good idea to use Wikipedia:WikiProject Core as a catylist for bringing about Project:Core (the Project:(topic) namespace is a new namespace to replace Wikipedia:WikiProject (topic)) to go along with Portal:Core (which replaced Wikipedia:Wikiportal (topic)). It would certainly reduce typing and simplify linking. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Community#Applied_community_development_at_Wikipedia for an idea. Just my $0.02 worth. Sorry for the long post. • CQ 02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed these two from the tree: Calculus and Non-euclidean geometries. Our practices is to discuss changes to the list before making them. I would go along with calculus if at least one item is deleted from the sciences. Maurreen 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Eh, one more comment. Aren't there some relatively standard trees of knowledge out there that we can use as a base. LOC, other library systems etc. I assume they'd all be different, but if we had a way of averaging their top 100, 200 topics, etc then we could avoid reinventing the wheel. - Taxman Talk 22:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the original list included calculus. Maurreen 05:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I am wondering whether Humor, Continent and Electronics should be redesignated as B class. Maurreen 16:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Physics is the only branch with nine articles. I would like to delete at least Color. Maurreen 16:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you open to either trimming the list to get it closer to 100 or making replacements to get what I would see as more balance between science and other major groups? Here is the count for major branches:
IMHO, there's no problem having 100+ core articles. And science is a fairly important subject and one people frequently look up in an encyclopedia. So I would be against any change. Cedars 12:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you think W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan are core? The first is FA, the second... not. Adam Cuerden talk 21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I ask this because I don't think Talk:Galaxy needs "Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration." It's a recently promoted FA! I was thinking of making its appearance contigent on whether or not blah=no, or something.-- Rmky87 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. I used a perl script to make a list of articles listed as "core topics" that are also tagged with cleanup messages. It's at Wikipedia:Core topics - 1,000/with problems. FYI. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this the right place to point out that the clothing article is a disaster? It's one of the Top 150, and contains minimal citations, bizarre content, lack of mainstream facts, and lots of original research. In addition, it appears to have been written by a registered sex offender with clothing fetishes. I am trying to improve, but need major help!! NuclearWinner 20:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been wanting to tackle film for a long time. However, my minimal effort - and I suspect that this is a common issue across most of the core topics - is how exactly to approach articles on such broad subjects without biting off not only more than I can chew but more than I can even comprehend biting into! While I've been able to get some ideas together by looking at the handful of core FAs, it would be nice if perhaps some of the editors behind these successful articles might be able to write a quick guide as to how to face the daunting task of writing a quality core article. Any advice is very much welcome! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 06:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Something I noticed in the online version of version 0.5 was that the fact that not all articles are included is not only a problem just because you can't click on them and look them up. It is compounded by the fact that articles are written assuming that other articles are available to refer to. A lot of this, such as "see also" links, has been diligently removed, but things still get problematic especially with big articles which covers subtopics which branch out into their own larger articles. This kind of writing also tends to occur in both the best written and the most important topics.
For example, the article on the September 11 attacks contains 13 sections which are started with the {{ main}} template in the current revision. In the case of the shorter of these, the sections are more introductory and follow similar style guidelines to lead sections - that is, they omit details which are more appropriate in elaborative sections in the main article, and there is not always such a density of citations, because facts are explained and cited in more detail in the main article.
Is there any current strategy for dealing with this sort of issue? The possible approaches I can see are:
Any thoughts? BigBlueFish ( talk) 20:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
That is why I have never liked the policy of making everything concise, making more articles. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 21:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Sense is missing from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.5.81 ( talk) 15:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Sex is listed as a core topic, but unfortunately can focus on two different classes of things --
I've rewritten the entire article with the first aspect in mind, for a couple reasons: it's categorized under biology, and the hatnote for the article had said "This article is about biological sex. For alternate uses, such as sexual intercourse, see Sex (disambiguation)." I'd like to know if (and to what extent) the current article is covering the material envisioned by the core team. Thanks... Madeleine ✉ ✍ 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks weird to see a country article alongside continent articles, were you conscious of this? It really doesn't match the list. There's a separate article for the continent -- Australia (continent). Madeleine ✉ ✍ 05:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I think calculus and set theory and major omissions from the core topics. Calculus and set theory are definitely "core" to mathematics. Set theory is essentially the foundation of mathematics. And calculus is essentially the foundation of modern mathematics - and it is essential in everything from astrophysics to electrical engineering to modern medicine. Kevin Baas talk 16:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Folks here may be interested to hear that there was finally some closure on the Core Contest, which was held one year ago. The winners have been announced and will receive their prizes, and more contests are planned in the future. Walkerma ( talk) 08:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't Evolution be a core topic? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 21:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate {{ Core topic}} for deletion. IMHO, {{ WP1.0}} should be used instead; it includes all {{Core topic}}'s functions and a lot of other useful ones. I have recently orphaned {{Core topic}}, but I wanted to bring it up here first. So, does anyone oppose the deletion? Thanks for your input. — Ms2ger ( talk) 19:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we should demote "Brain" from Core - it's one organ - and put "Evolution" - a truly core subject to biology - in its place. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I started making a table of articles, but I'm busy right now and don't have the time to finish it. Here's what I've got so far if anyone feels inclined to work on it. Mr. Absurd ( talk) 01:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Top-level topic | Second-level topic | Article | Class |
---|---|---|---|
Culture and society 15 |
Business and economics |
Advertising | B |
Business | B | ||
Economics | B | ||
Money | B | ||
Everyday life | Clothing | B | |
Education | B | ||
Food | B | ||
Personal life | Start | ||
Popular culture | Start/B | ||
Leisure | Game | B | |
Sport | B | ||
Toy | B | ||
Miscellaneous | Film | B | |
House | Start | ||
Humour | Start |
I just noticed a miscount - there were five science miscellaneous articles, not six. I suppose this means there's an extra slot or two (total: 148). Looking at the old list, Australia or Trigonometry seems a good choice. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 14:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Might be worth adding to the list. Nergaal ( talk) 02:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The Elite Nine here are a bit inconsistent with those at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1... I will make a post on the talk page there as well. I think we should build a consensus and have the CORE pages match the VA Level 1 articles. Voyaging ( talk) 20:32, 10 May 2012 (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)
This is the talk page for the CORE TOPICS sub-project of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team.
/Archive 1 (To end Jan 2006) | /Archive 2 (Feb 1st - Mar 12th, 2006) | /Archive 3 (mid-March 2006) | /Archive 4 (late March 2006) | /Archive 5 | /Archive 6 | /Archive 7 | /Archive 8
WP1.0 editorial team discussions – Core topics COTW – Wiki sort discussions – FAs first discussions – Work via WikiProjects discussions – Pushing to 1.0 discussions
I propose that the current information at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics be replaced entirely or largely with the information at this page: User:Silence/Core.
I've been working on this list, in various forms, for over a month now. If we're going to try to avoid overdiscussing list details as much as possible so as not to waste time and energy, then I would argue that this list would be a vastly stronger starting point for us to rely on than the current list is: it's not only greatly-enhanced in terms of coverage, with many of the less-important and lower-quality articles replaced by vastly more-important (bye-bye oceanography, hello water!) and higher-quality (bye-bye craft, hello Sun!) ones, and has exactly 150 articles, but also has been thoroughly checked-over, with each entry's article reviewed, and most of them updated with new information.
Numerous errors have also been fixed, like typos, inaccuracies, dab-page-listings, mis-alphabetizations, etc. Furthermore, all the badly out-of-date sections of the page (except, for the sake of expediency, for "Changes from original list", which I will update on request if anyone wants me to) have been updated, including "Article status summary", and I have added dozens of links to relevant WikiProjects in the convenient, yet previously woefully unused, column allocated to them, allowing users to immediately see, for example, that there is a WikiProject for organized improvements to ecology article ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Ecology), a very valuable resource for a project like Core Topics. - Silence 04:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm ready to recategorize and retemplatify the Core Topics now, per recent changes, if noone objects. The current categories and template placements for Category:Core topics articles by quality is badly out-of-date. I'm assuming that these categories are only for the main, 150-article list, not for the Supplementals (hence if we do eventually categorize the Supplementals, they'll probably be in a different set of categories). So, shall I go ahead with the switchover? - Silence 03:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
The table is rarely updated and can be overwhelming. I'd like to move it to a subpage. Maurreen 22:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I moved the table and list of removed items to the same subpage, and I added a tree listing all the current core topics. Maurreen 14:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to replace Nuclear power with the original Nuclear technology, which had been deliberately chosen to encompass both nuclear power and nuclear weapons. Maurreen 15:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I’m thinking we could move these stubs to the supplement:
Similar to Chemical substance, Performing arts has developed from one screen to four. We have Visual arts in the core but apparently removed Performing arts. I see these two as parallel. I'd like to see them together. I am open about whether they are in the core or the supplement. Maurreen 05:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to restore Painting. We have Visual arts, Art, Drawing and Sculpture. I don't know why "Painting" was removed. Maurreen 03:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this should be added to core topics, alongside "planet", "star", "galaxy" and "universe." Serendipodous 14:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Many articles seem to work as sets. I joined this project because I really see the value in this way of doing things and learned a lot from working with
User:Maurreen and
User:Sunray on the
Community article. I noticed that the "main" articles that appear on "core topic" articles are important, too. Just a few exapmles in the
Community context are
Community development,
Sense of community and
Structure and agency articles. The Work via
WikiProjects way is, IMO the only best better way to handle such complexity if you have well organized WikiProjects.
I've had a theory for a long time that "topics" have to be handled with plenty of focus and guidance. I see that North America is getting some attention and as one can see, its "context" is humongous! Though Louisville is only one city in one U.S. state called Kentucky, there are plenty of people there who know a lot about it and are well qualified to perfect that article. Yet The United States is only a country in North America. (Follow the linkage to see where I'm going with this). I think that The Places Team at WP:1.0 can provide much leadership in this area and has already.
Similarly, the Core Team (you folks) could help along struggling projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject International law by coordining and connecting their efforts to more successfull projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Law. But from what I've seen from here, the Law wikiproject isn't very enthused about WP:1.0 assessments. However, the smaller project, which doesn't even have a listing here might be more inclined to get on board. That's why I nominated the International law article, which appears at the #5 spot when you google "international law" as a search term. I found all this out when doing research for the international community article.
One more point. Many WikiProjects focus on Portals. WikiProject U.S. states is working to focus and guide several of the WikiProject (Your state) projects toward United States, before building their own state or city portal. If and when interest in North America wins it a COTF spot, I believe that Portal:North America should be kept in mind here and members of this crew can start Wikipedia:WikiProject North America to help manage the article and its context.
The big thing here for editors and readers alike is ease of use and logical structures. I've been dealing with WikiProjects, Portals, Templates and Categories (including Category:Wikipedians from a holistic standpoint for a while. In fact, though I can't prove it directly, I may have been partially responsible for the creation of the Portal namespace. (You'ld have to study the deletion logs for deleted WikiProjects). It may even be a good idea to use Wikipedia:WikiProject Core as a catylist for bringing about Project:Core (the Project:(topic) namespace is a new namespace to replace Wikipedia:WikiProject (topic)) to go along with Portal:Core (which replaced Wikipedia:Wikiportal (topic)). It would certainly reduce typing and simplify linking. See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Community#Applied_community_development_at_Wikipedia for an idea. Just my $0.02 worth. Sorry for the long post. • CQ 02:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I removed these two from the tree: Calculus and Non-euclidean geometries. Our practices is to discuss changes to the list before making them. I would go along with calculus if at least one item is deleted from the sciences. Maurreen 15:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Eh, one more comment. Aren't there some relatively standard trees of knowledge out there that we can use as a base. LOC, other library systems etc. I assume they'd all be different, but if we had a way of averaging their top 100, 200 topics, etc then we could avoid reinventing the wheel. - Taxman Talk 22:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the original list included calculus. Maurreen 05:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I am wondering whether Humor, Continent and Electronics should be redesignated as B class. Maurreen 16:01, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Physics is the only branch with nine articles. I would like to delete at least Color. Maurreen 16:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you open to either trimming the list to get it closer to 100 or making replacements to get what I would see as more balance between science and other major groups? Here is the count for major branches:
IMHO, there's no problem having 100+ core articles. And science is a fairly important subject and one people frequently look up in an encyclopedia. So I would be against any change. Cedars 12:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you think W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan are core? The first is FA, the second... not. Adam Cuerden talk 21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I ask this because I don't think Talk:Galaxy needs "Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration." It's a recently promoted FA! I was thinking of making its appearance contigent on whether or not blah=no, or something.-- Rmky87 21:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Greetings. I used a perl script to make a list of articles listed as "core topics" that are also tagged with cleanup messages. It's at Wikipedia:Core topics - 1,000/with problems. FYI. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 15:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Is this the right place to point out that the clothing article is a disaster? It's one of the Top 150, and contains minimal citations, bizarre content, lack of mainstream facts, and lots of original research. In addition, it appears to have been written by a registered sex offender with clothing fetishes. I am trying to improve, but need major help!! NuclearWinner 20:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been wanting to tackle film for a long time. However, my minimal effort - and I suspect that this is a common issue across most of the core topics - is how exactly to approach articles on such broad subjects without biting off not only more than I can chew but more than I can even comprehend biting into! While I've been able to get some ideas together by looking at the handful of core FAs, it would be nice if perhaps some of the editors behind these successful articles might be able to write a quick guide as to how to face the daunting task of writing a quality core article. Any advice is very much welcome! Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 06:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Something I noticed in the online version of version 0.5 was that the fact that not all articles are included is not only a problem just because you can't click on them and look them up. It is compounded by the fact that articles are written assuming that other articles are available to refer to. A lot of this, such as "see also" links, has been diligently removed, but things still get problematic especially with big articles which covers subtopics which branch out into their own larger articles. This kind of writing also tends to occur in both the best written and the most important topics.
For example, the article on the September 11 attacks contains 13 sections which are started with the {{ main}} template in the current revision. In the case of the shorter of these, the sections are more introductory and follow similar style guidelines to lead sections - that is, they omit details which are more appropriate in elaborative sections in the main article, and there is not always such a density of citations, because facts are explained and cited in more detail in the main article.
Is there any current strategy for dealing with this sort of issue? The possible approaches I can see are:
Any thoughts? BigBlueFish ( talk) 20:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
That is why I have never liked the policy of making everything concise, making more articles. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 21:07, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Sense is missing from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.5.81 ( talk) 15:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Sex is listed as a core topic, but unfortunately can focus on two different classes of things --
I've rewritten the entire article with the first aspect in mind, for a couple reasons: it's categorized under biology, and the hatnote for the article had said "This article is about biological sex. For alternate uses, such as sexual intercourse, see Sex (disambiguation)." I'd like to know if (and to what extent) the current article is covering the material envisioned by the core team. Thanks... Madeleine ✉ ✍ 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
It looks weird to see a country article alongside continent articles, were you conscious of this? It really doesn't match the list. There's a separate article for the continent -- Australia (continent). Madeleine ✉ ✍ 05:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I think calculus and set theory and major omissions from the core topics. Calculus and set theory are definitely "core" to mathematics. Set theory is essentially the foundation of mathematics. And calculus is essentially the foundation of modern mathematics - and it is essential in everything from astrophysics to electrical engineering to modern medicine. Kevin Baas talk 16:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Folks here may be interested to hear that there was finally some closure on the Core Contest, which was held one year ago. The winners have been announced and will receive their prizes, and more contests are planned in the future. Walkerma ( talk) 08:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't Evolution be a core topic? Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 21:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to nominate {{ Core topic}} for deletion. IMHO, {{ WP1.0}} should be used instead; it includes all {{Core topic}}'s functions and a lot of other useful ones. I have recently orphaned {{Core topic}}, but I wanted to bring it up here first. So, does anyone oppose the deletion? Thanks for your input. — Ms2ger ( talk) 19:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we should demote "Brain" from Core - it's one organ - and put "Evolution" - a truly core subject to biology - in its place. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 12:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I started making a table of articles, but I'm busy right now and don't have the time to finish it. Here's what I've got so far if anyone feels inclined to work on it. Mr. Absurd ( talk) 01:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Top-level topic | Second-level topic | Article | Class |
---|---|---|---|
Culture and society 15 |
Business and economics |
Advertising | B |
Business | B | ||
Economics | B | ||
Money | B | ||
Everyday life | Clothing | B | |
Education | B | ||
Food | B | ||
Personal life | Start | ||
Popular culture | Start/B | ||
Leisure | Game | B | |
Sport | B | ||
Toy | B | ||
Miscellaneous | Film | B | |
House | Start | ||
Humour | Start |
I just noticed a miscount - there were five science miscellaneous articles, not six. I suppose this means there's an extra slot or two (total: 148). Looking at the old list, Australia or Trigonometry seems a good choice. Shoemaker's Holiday ( talk) 14:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Might be worth adding to the list. Nergaal ( talk) 02:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The Elite Nine here are a bit inconsistent with those at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/1... I will make a post on the talk page there as well. I think we should build a consensus and have the CORE pages match the VA Level 1 articles. Voyaging ( talk) 20:32, 10 May 2012 (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)