Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia 1.0 Projects (talk)(FAQ)

Main bot list (talk) — (stats)

Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Release Version (t) (Nominations) (t) [You can help]
Version 0.5 (t) (ending) V0.5 to do — V0.5 bot list

CORE TOPICS CORE SUPPLEMENT Core topics - 1,000 (Talk) (COTF) (bot)

TORRENT (Talk)

"Selection" project (Talk)

WORK VIA WIKI PROJECTS (talk) Full list Arts Econ/Business Hobbies Humanities Science Technology Places


Pushing to 1.0 (talk)

Static content subcom.

If you are new to this page, please see the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/FAQs.

Core topics discussions – Wiki sort discussions – FAs first discussions – Work via WikiProjects discussions – Pushing to 1.0 discussions

1 Archives
2 Using WP1.0 Bot to indicate GA status, remove GA from the assessment scale
3 Assistance needed
4 Biography articles by quality statistics modification request
5 Can somebody point me towards the discussion....
6 New assesment
7 Changing the assessment scale
8 WikiReaders for the English Wikipedia?
9 Version 0.5 going on sale next week!
10 Stubs
11 Template help
12 Assessment help

[edit] Archives

Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team archive
Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team objections archive
Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team archive2
/Archive 3
/Archive 4 Sep - Dec 2005
/Archive 5
/Archive 6
/Archive 7
/Archive 8
/Archive 9
/Archive 10 29 May - 31 Jul 2006
/Archive 11 1 Aug - 23 Aug 2006
/Archive 12 24 Aug - 31 Aug 2006
/Archive 13 Sep & Oct 2006
/Archive 14 Nov 2006 - March 2007

[edit] Using WP1.0 Bot to indicate GA status, remove GA from the assessment scale

I recently made this suggestion that we should phase out GA from the assessment scale, and instead use the bot to record whether or not an article is GA or not. The replies were - one strong support, one rather doubtful. We have had recurring questions that indicate that the GA level is an ongoing source of confusion - just a few examples are listed below:

The problem lies in the fact that GA is not typically something that is given by members of the project - it is by an external reviewer. As such it is not a natural part of the Stub/Start/B/A scale of progress - hence the confusion. Any GA-Class article could be equally well be tagged as B or A. FA does not suffer from this problem, even though it is also externally reviewed, because it is automatically higher than any other level. There is not the ambiguity or overlap found with the GA-Class level.

My proposal is as follows:

After discussion/agreement with folks at Good Articles, edit the GA talk page template so that it produces a category "GA articles". Create any other needed categories.
Get WP1.0 Bot to read this just like it reads articles for Version 0.5, and let it produce a (rather useless!) list called Good articles by quality or something like that. It's easiest just to let the bot do its thing!
WP1.0 Bot can then place a note "GA" in the "Versions" column of every "WikiProject Foobar articles by quality" list, just like it notes 0.5, etc. (see example). (It would've been better in the Comments column, but I don't think this is technically feasible).
Once this is established, we can abolish the GA level in the assessment scale, because it will become redundant. A project can see automatically which of their articles is a GA, and since this is tied to the GA template itself it will be more reliable/up-to-date than the current system. In other words, the project still has an external benchmark (this was the reason for adding the GA-Class level into the scheme originally). I don't want to force projects to stop using it immediately, rather we should (a) delete it from the standard assessment template and (b) encourage projects to actually assess the articles as A or B. (I suspect 95% or more will be A) We should leave the GA-Class template in existence, and still allow WP1.0 Bot to read it, but I think it will gradually fade away. In time we should be able to remove it from the statistics tables. This will remove a persistent source of confusion.
Meanwhile, there are great benefits to the GA project as well. They will get an update every night showing how many GAs there are, and for the first time they will have a log showing all of the changes to GAs (I have found at V0.5 this is very useful for catching talk page vandalism!).

Is this a viable solution? Or do most people prefer the way things are now? Walkerma 04:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

So, I guess you want the bot to read Category:GA articles in addition to reading each project's GA category, e.g., Category:GA-Class mathematics articles, then putting all that information into the "version" column. That should not be difficult to implement.

The problem is however that as soon as the bot stops treating "GA" as a rating, all those "GA-Class" articles will become "Unassessed-Class" articles and somebody needs to go through them and tag them to "A-Class" or "B-Class". That would be a lot of work and people at all projects need to be educated about it.

In short, the technical problems are solvable, as long as you can take care of everything else. Let's see also if people think that this change is worthwhile (I myself have no opinion). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You're right, projects would have to assess their GAs, and that's why we couldn't do this change overnight - there would have to be an announcement and a transition period. However, GAs account for only 1844 articles in total (some of those will be tagged as A anyway), and most projects only have a handful, so I don't think it's a big issue. Thanks, Walkerma 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been following some of this discussion for a while, and I think you should not implement this change with only one strong support vote. I strongly oppose the change in the scale as it is now. I understand the problem, but I think there are other solutions.

It is my understanding that the A-class is of particular interest to the projects because they can classify articles that are at a high level from an expert's viewpoint in this category. GA, on the other hand, certifies that the article is at an advanced level from a writer/editor viewpoint. So it would have to be insured that A-class always means high expertise (even if it were rated by a community process like GA and FA, as was suggested recently by Ideogram). As the situation is now, some people think GA interferes with the continual improvement process within a project, because an outsider reviews it. I for my part think it should be (or can be since it's optional) valuable for an expert to see what an outsider thinks and to have some guidance as to whether a person without the expertise can understand the article (no jargon is one of the GA criteria if I remember correctly). If you separate the GA - FA process from the experts creating along their scale (stub to class A), you are likely to end up with a perfect article that is understood mainly be insiders and experts, which then moves on to be reviewed and graded by proofreaders and lay-people. I am not sure if the outcome can be satisfactory to any of the participants. Isn't there an advantage to having the processes intertwined as they are? --Grace E. Dougle 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't make try to force through a major change like this without getting a good deal of support. I agree with you that GAs provide a good "reality check" for projects, that's why I've always been a strong supporter of the GA concept. That's also why I want to see the letters "GA" appearing in project worklists. However, I don't think people nominate an article for GA in order to get an assessment grade for their WikiProject (though some may be looking for an independent review) - so I don't think it will affect GA nominations or "separate the GA process from the experts". There is not a scale going B → GA → A, these are apples and oranges, that is what we need people to understand. That's why ideas such as combining A and GA simply won't fly. You mention some alternative solutions to this problem - can you elaborate? Thanks, Walkerma 17:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Will we need a new page to handle logs for GA listing changes if this bot is implemented? Homestarmy 20:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The bot generates it automatically, and it would look like this example. The bot also automatically generates the worklist and statistics table, and it gets updated every night. So if someone passes the article [[Foobar]] on the talk page, it will be added in by the bot that night and you would see on the log, "Foobar added" or similar. (It might be best to leave the GA template without a quality assessment in it, to avoid conflicts with WikiProject assessments.) Walkerma 22:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, Martin, don't be so quick to assume that WikiProjects don't send their articles to get an assessment only. For some projects (WP:TROP comes to mind), GA is perhaps the only external assessment that they can obtain, as peer review has been kind of useless to us. (See Wikipedia:Peer review/Hurricane Mitch for a typical example.) Also, this pushes the "Is a GA an A-Class article" problem elsewhere, to WikiProjects, but doesn't really solve it. Also, GAs are not generally As; at least in my experience, GAs still need a significant amount of editing for accuracy and technical precision. So, I would oppose an elimination of the GA level from the assessment scale. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a very good idea. --Ideogram 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Agree that this is a positive change, though I don't agree with Walkerma that 95% or more existing GAs are really 'A-class' articles. IMO, GA reviews and reviewers are so widely variable that they're generally not useful even for getting an external assessment. Opabinia regalis 01:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thirded. The exact specifics of how the existing GAs will be assessed can be worked out on a per-project basis (I suspect that the larger projects will go through them in rather more detail than the smaller ones); but the basic idea of getting GA status out of its bizarre placement in the assessment scale is one I've favored for a long time. Kirill Lokshin 05:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks to everyone for their comments. Although I see on balance some support towards a change, it is by no means unanimous, and the number of people commenting is limited compared to the numbers affected. There are (IMHO) enough people opposed to the idea that I think we shouldn't force it through. However, there are many benefits to the GA project if they adopt the bot for keeping track of things. If the folks at GA start using the bot, then I'll see if Oleg can make the change in code to insert "GA" into the tables automatically. If and when that is established, I may raise this idea again - I suspect others will raise it anyway, once they see redundancy in the tables. But until such time there is strong consensus in favor of removing the GA level from the scheme, I'm reluctant to make such a drastic change. Walkerma 06:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there something we need to do first to have the 1.0 Bot list GA things? Homestarmy 16:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

(Pull left.) I was very interested in this proposal until I saw they the GA category in the ratings would be abolished. The problem I have had recently is that there aren't enough categories to put articles in, especially for the Olympics project. I find that many articles aren't stubs because they're full of tables, etc, but have little to no writing, so they're really not Start-class. Then, with your proposal, there'd be a huge gap between the Start and B classes, and I think there's a big distinction between them. I suggest maybe putting into place another category if you take out GA, because it's very hard to categorize articles into 3-4 categories. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 18:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing GA won't change the gap between Start and B at all. Also, an article consisting of nothing but some tables and no prose is a stub. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 19:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant between B and A. It seems that taking out this category would only cause problems with those editors who like to benchmark articles. Taking this out leaves a huge gap between B and A, the two major categories split by the promotion into GA. Once an article is made B-class, it should be watched and carefully reviewed until it reaches the top at FA. Taking GA out of the assessment puts articles at "A" before they are even GA'd, which eliminates a huge portion of this review process. I think this should be reconsidered.

In regards to the table, in the Olympics context, most of our articles are tables because a lot of what we deal with is results, medals, etc. That said, yes, writing should be there, but I certainly have a hard time calling a long, detailed, sourced list a stub. By general definition I see what you're saying, but I think our project must slide the scale a little bit, and this causes problems. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 19:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a faulty comparison. GA never had anything to do with WikiProject and Release Version assessments to begin with; the B to A gap has actually been there the whole time and isn't actually changing. GA still exists and can be sought independently (which was already the case anyway, since WikiProject and the 1.0 Ed Team don't assign GA status). I.e., nothing's really changing, other than clarifying the lack of relationship between the Start-B-A scale and GA status. The assessment scale also does not include WP:PEER review, either. As for your olympic tables, I don't see what problem is being caused. If the article lacks basic features - even lists should have explanatory introductions, then it is indeed a stub. I think this is a different topic, though. I too have some issues with the current scale (I think B is too easy to achieve, and I think that copyvio doesn't prevent B status is a huge error), but it doesn't related to whether GA should be in the scale when it doesn't actually relate to these assessments. (And it doesn't; it's quote common for something to be assessed as A-Class which has not achieved GA yet, or to be rated a GA when it has no assessment at all, not even Start.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, fair enough. But couldn't we make this an opt in (opt out?) thing? This seems to be a big change to the wikiproject assessments, which most wikiprojects have. I'm not sure if removing the GA bar would be beneficial. I know for our project, I've been trying to get GAs recently so that we can see where we have to go next as far as bringing up articles. We have an overwhelmingly high number of stubs and starts (which again brings me to the conclusion that we need another category between those two) but little above that. I personally like this category, and I don't think that everyone should have to conform to it, at least not until we get a better consensus. I would be willing to consent to a trial of the proposal to see how it would run, though. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 21:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't my idea to begin with, so I won't defend it much further than I already have. I think the fact that the scale also doesn't include WP Peer Reviews is significant. The lack of it doesn't seem to cause any problems. I can't see any need, personally, for something between start and stub; I could see B becoming more stringent and there being a C occupying the spot B is at now. But really, "Stub" and "Start" aren't particularly different. Both of them mean "this article sucks, work on it", the latter simply implies "this article doesn't suck quite as much as a stub would". B basically means "this article doesn't suck, but isn't very good yet either", and A means "this article is just about ready for FA status". If anything is missing, it seems to be something between B and A. While I can see that some people believed that GA filled that gap, it actually didn't, and removal of GA just highlights that the scale may need a little work. :-) PS: I don't think anyone is trying "impose" something on all the Wikiprojects, per se. It's just about changing the 1.0/Release Version scale. That has the trickledown effect that all the WPP scales have to change to, since they derive from this one, but that's just how it is, I guess. If the assessment scales were a WikiProject thing that 1.0 had adopted, the relationship would be the other way around. But the whole poing of WPP assessmen scales is to tie into 1.0, so they necessarily have to keep pace with 1.0 or they won't be serving their purpose any longer. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 21:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I like the bot idea in general. However, I am opposed to phasing out the GA status from the assessment scales. The arguments made above against its exclusion already state most of what I would say. I simply believe GA reviews to be a valuable tool in evaluating the actual usefulness of the article to a reader. Vassyana 00:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

But GAs already get flagged with nifty talk page templates of their own. GA status IS useful; the point is, in this topic and the like one below, that GA status doesn't actually relate in any meaningful way to WP1.0/RelVer and WikiProject assessments. I.e., no one is stabbing any kittens here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 01:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Then what leaves us from ruling out FA? That's pretty much the same idea as GA. It just wouldn't make sense to take one of them out, and not the other. And we certainly wouldn't want to take out FA. _└^Jared_┘^┌_talk^┐ 02:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't mind that either. There's no real connection between FA and WikiProject/1.0/RV assessments. It's entirely plausible that that an article could achieve FA (which is an independent process) while failing A-Class status, just because different sets of eyes and brains are examining it. I.e., no kittens would be stabbed by removing FA from the 1.0 assessment scale either. Mind you, I'm not advocating that. I think that we generally trust WP:FA to do a good job with assessments, and I think that most of us trust WP:FA to assess better than we trust random WikiProjects to do so. But I don't think that removing FA would do any actual violence to the assessment system. To me, once and article reaches FA, and is protected from boneheaded changes that endanger that status, the 1.0 assessment system is no longer of any particular relevance to that article at all. And FA's get their own nifty talk page banners too; they don't technically need to be flagged as FA by WikiProject banners. It's actually entirely redundant. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 02:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I think I would agree with pretty much SMcCandlish has said. (BTW, the B copyvio problem is something we could discuss later, I think, as copyvios are much less prevalent now than when the system was created) My perception is that although the weight of opinion is probably in support of this proposal, there is a significant minority who are strongly against. I wouldn't advocate riding roughshod over that, when there is no clear consensus to do so. I'm trying to get GAs set up with the bot at the moment, mainly because I think it would help the GA project itself, and if we get GAs autolisted by the bot that will help everyone. Once that becomes established, we can see once again if we can get a clear consensus to eliminate GA from the scale. In the meantime, I think that (as with importance) we can make the whole thing optional - in other words, some projects may choose not to use it, but that is entirely their decision after a vote of their own. Walkerma 06:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assistance needed

Can someone inspect the link below? The page, although done by a bot, is messed up for some reason; http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Album_articles_by_quality/37&oldid=110517893 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LuciferMorgan (talk • contribs) 22:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Something in Talk:Vicious Delicious/Comments is messing it up, but I can't figure out what... Titoxd^(?!?) 22:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That something was the assessment

{{Album
| class=Stub
| importance=
}}

which really had no reason to be on Talk:Vicious Delicious/Comments , as that's a comment page. I cut it out and now things are back to normal. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography articles by quality statistics modification request

I am one of the three editors running the present Biography articles assessment drive. As the present drive is reducing the number of unassessed biography articles, Kingbotk's tagging is increasing the number of unassessed biography articles (as the drive recently discoved). Keeping track of the number of unassessed biography articles for the drive has resulted in a motivational setback because the drive's gains on unassessed biographies have been set back by Kingbotk's tagging. To measure the drive's progress as a way of providing motivation to continue participating in the drive, we would like to keep track of the number of assessed biography articles. Would you please modify the Biography articles by quality statistics template to also present the number of assessed biography articles (e.g., total Biography articles minus number of unassessed articles). Thanks. -- Jreferee 05:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I could add such code to the bot, but it will then cause the statistics tables for all other wikiprojects to have that row of assessed articles. I could enable it only for the biography project, but I am very reluctant to make any changes to the code specific for any project (since there are more than 400 projects, and my code needs to be kept simple so that people translating it to other languages won't have trouble understanding it).

In short, I think your request should be satisfied in some other way than directly modifying the table. Perhaps one of you could write a simple bot which will read the statistics table, subtract from the total number the number of unassessed articles, and write that number somewhere else where you guys could see it easily. What do you think? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can somebody point me towards the discussion....

Apparently, many empty categories are being deleted. Normally, I would be fine with this but many are placeholders for various WikiProjects. You can see the list at User:Betacommand/Datadump/To be Deleted. As you can see there are many unassessed categories, A class, FA class categoriy, etc in there. Is it a problem for these to remain? Was there a discussion about this deletion that I missed? Thanks in advance.↔NMajdan•talk 20:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh my! That was definitely a very bad idea on the part of whoever deleted those. Kirill Lokshin 21:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so it wasn't discussed. We probably should take action so they are not deleted again.↔NMajdan•talk 17:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see you already have. Thank you!↔NMajdan•talk 17:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Its happened again.↔NMajdan•talk 14:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New assesment

Hey. I just started up Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronics/Assessment. Can you please set up whatever else is needed. Thanks :) Joe I 00:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you've got everything you need, now just wait for the bot to automatically add the project to Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Index. It should happen within the next two days. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 00:56, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Joe I 01:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing the assessment scale

Since the addition of GA, the A-grade seems to be a rather un-needed level. Most articles goes straight from GA to FA, without landing on A in between. I suggest firstmost to remove the A-level from the assessment scale. But by doing that, the B-level seems to be rather strange, as then it's the only level that is defined by a letter only, so I also suggest to rename that level into something else. Suggested renaming could be "Ok", "Mid", "Standard" or "Well"

The resulting scale would then be: Stub → Start → Okay → Good → Featured. _→AzaToth 01:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed many, many times now; the upshot is that (a) there's a strong consensus against removing A-Class, as the projects can't actually use GA-Class as an assessment level, and (b) there's a practical effort being undertaken to remove GA-Class from the scale entirely now. Kirill Lokshin 02:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

On that last point (b), I should clarify that we didn't get unanimous support for removing GA from the scale, but I think we plan to discourage use of the GA level where possible. We also plan to flag GAs automatically in the tables, so you can see that this A-Class article in the list is a GA, but this other one is not. On that note, I have been working on a template, so as to get the GA project using the bot. Note that the template does NOT have the class parameter (is this unique?), but it does include the category parameter like {{V0.5}}, since GA uses these same categories. The main thing it should do is to place things into the oxymoronic Category:GA-Class good articles (to keep WP1.0 Bot happy), as well as the main GA category; at present these cats have a colon in front, until I take the template out of my sandbox. Could someone knowledgable at templates (Kirill, Titoxd?) take a look over my crude cut & paste job for the GA project here? Thanks, Walkerma 03:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

NB: That's a redundancy, not an oxymoron; "GA-class stubs" or "Stub-class Good Articles" would be oxymora. :-) Anyway, I don't see any problem at all with removing GA from the assessment scale, since the two are not really related, other than it will take a lot of cleanup work - every article GA-rated by a WikiProject banner will need to instead be not-actually-downgraded to B-Class (or genuinely-upgraded to A-Class, if one is willing to do a close assessment and the article warrants the A rating), and then tagged with a GA header if not already so-tagged (either directly or in that new article history template that is making the rounds). An alternative that I don't think anyone has proposed before would be to fork GA into a "general" Wikipedia-wide GA assessment process at WP:GA and a new aspect that also empowers WikiProjects to do equivalent GA assessments, possibly obviating the need for A-Class to exist any longer, and with WP:GA able to countermand any WikiProject-assigned GA rating if the GA criteria were not actually met. I'm not proposing that, I'm just saying it is a possibility worth looking at and either discussing in depth for possible implementation, or consensus-rejecting (for) now "on the record", since it would almost certainly come up later anyway. I don't think this is WP:BEANS, as the "authority" of WikiProjects is growing all the time, and they are focusing more and more on assessments and ratings (cf. the rather new branch of the V1.0 Ed Team specifically about how WikiProjects tie in and assess importance/priority level, not to mention the near-Policy level of SfD, to which even CfD defers when it comes to stub categories, which was generated by WikiProject Stub sorting); if it's not discussed now it will still have to be at some point. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 04:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

PS: Category:GA-Class good articles is a redlink. Did it get moved, or did you mean something else? — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting my English - correctly right! Yes, the proposed cat is a red link, because I won't create it until the template goes "live" (ie., after people have checked it). Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Walkerma 21:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I used the bot to create Category:GA-Class Good articles et al. The template looks ok, for the most part, although I'll tweak a thing or two. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I just found a typo, and that was pretty much it. It should work ok now. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiReaders for the English Wikipedia?

After discussing Wikipedia:WikiReaders on a WP 1.0 IRC recently, Titoxd recently posted a nice blog on Wikireaders that appeared on Planet Wikimedia. In this he throws down the gauntlet - can we make Wikireaders on en, as the de:Wikipedia:WikiReader Germans have done? I think this is definitely possible. We may need to locate a suitable publisher, but other than that I don't see any major hurdles. We have enough people and infrastructure here at the 1.0 project to handle this. I would suggest the following:

Set up a WikiReaders subproject here at 1.0
Solicit suggestions from WikiProjects (WP:WVWP may be able to help with this).
Work with the relevant wikiproject(s) to put together at least one collection as a "demo".
Show the demo around some publishers till we find a suitable publisher of paper. (Maybe approach the German publishers too.) I would suggest focusing our efforts on small publishers, they are much more open to this (they stand to gain a lot of publicity).

I think it would be great to be producing CDs, DVDs and real books from this project - that was what the 1.0 project was originally conceived to be about. Walkerma 22:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I think #1 is as close to a "must" as there could possibly be. Again, the second point I brought up at Planet Wikimedia is that many users don't know they can make WikiReaders, but most importantly, they don't know how. One question, though: how large should a potential reader be? I mean, do we want things to be 10 pages, or do we want them to be in the order of magnitude of 100? 500? 1,000?

I ask because my dream as a member is to see a bunch of dead bark on a shelf, open it, and say, "I wrote that sentence." I imagine most people want to do the same too. It is much more feasible to print something as a WikiReader than to print the entire encyclopedia, for both legal (who wants to take the risk?) and practical (who wants to print 1.7 million articles?) reasons. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been meaning to get publish LGBT articles in Wikireaders for a while now, but got distracted by plans for an LGBT textbook on Wikibooks. However, if you want to use WP:LGBT as a starting ground (maybe by publishing all the Homosexuality and religion articles? They're a fairly well defined, broad series), I am happy to throw myself into it and haul the project along behind me if you would like. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Version 0.5 going on sale next week!

Assuming there are no last minute hitches, the Wikipedia:Version 0.5 CD should be going on sale on March 26 at www.wikipediaondvd.com for around 10 Euros/$US13-14 (a portion goes to the Foundation). It will also be made available for free download. It consists of 1964 articles and a set of navigation pages, with an open source (GPL) search engine, Kiwix, developed by Linterweb. We now have an ongoing collaboration with Wikimedia France, and User:Kelson wrote many of the scripts for Version 0.5. This CD will make a great birthday present for your loved one! Walkerma 05:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! :-) Kirill Lokshin 11:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks now like March 30, but that's looking pretty certain. Walkerma 09:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Great 164.116.80.114 18:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC) (I am eyu100)

Out of curiosity, how is this going to be advertised to the Wikipedia (and larger Wikimedia) community? This is an issue that has been raised on Wikibooks in the past, and unfortunately has not really been resolved. And it has been something that I have tried to tread very lightly around on proposals to build a for-profit publication, even if a major (even if nearly all) portion of the profits go to the WMF. IMHO letters in the various mailing lists is tantamount to commercial spam, and links on prominent pages of this project is also nearly identical to a form of commercial advertising as well.

I think if this were done directly by a local chapter, some of the advertising issues could be mitigated, or if some sort of "official" or even semi-endorsed arrangement with the WMF were to happen it might be possible. I guess I'm trying to say that this could be one very hot firestorm of trouble if you are not careful here with what you are doing, particularly since this website, "wikipediaondvd.com" is clearly using WMF trademarks, including the Wikipedia logo. The WMF did a DMCA take down notice when we tried this on Wikibooks. Don't say I didn't warn you, but this is going to be something absoutely huge on controversy if you aren't very, very careful here. And I'm not the one to convince either. --Robert Horning 00:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern. Don't worry, it's all official, the WMF is very much aware of the release. We have been keeping WMF informed throughout most of the process. A legal agreement was signed between Linterweb and the Foundation to allow use of the logo. The Foundation will also be issuing a press release about Version 0.5, even though this release has been totally produced by the wikicommunity and Linterweb. Note also that the collection will be made available for free download, and entire release is open source. Cheers, Walkerma 01:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

How do we rate stub articles which have absolutely no scope of expansion? For example Guz is an obvious stub, without much chance of expansion, but for the topic it covers it can be rated as a class B too. (relatively speaking) =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

In general, stubs with no potential for expansion are good merge candidates, which solves the problem rather neatly. ;-) Kirill Lokshin 17:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template help

Hey, would someone mind looking over {{WikiProject Indiana}} for me. Right now it doesn't include the dab, list, template, portal, image or cat classes. I have used those with the template on pages, but then it asks for an importance rating, which all but the list don't need. I tried updating it the way I know how(I'm very non-template knowledgeable) but I think the comment section was screwing me up. Anyways, would appreciate the help, thanks. Joe I 04:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Assessment help

I am trying to set up assessment for my project but am having trouble understanding what i am doing. Are there any instructions on how to do this? Simply south 19:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Using the bot is a good place to start. Do you have your WikiProject template set up to accept ratings? I can create the categories for you using the bot, if you'd like. Mahanga^{Talk to me} 20:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently experimenting right now via a user sub-page on the WPTIS Banner. Simply south 20:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../v/e/r/Wikipedia_talk%7EVersion_1.0_Editorial_Team_4589.html"