Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5

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) schools selection Offline WP for Indian Schools

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.

Candidate articles very broad in scope

Dear fellow editors: I note that almost all of the articles cover very broad areas, and that WP's ability to produce high-quality articles on specific subjects is not highlighted in the selection. Tony 02:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True, although a few articles may be included, depending on their quality, and others may be pushed back to other versions. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends a lot on how big V0.5 gets, which is hard to tell at the moment. If it's 1000 articles, then many will be broad in order to be comprehensive. If it's 5000 articles, we will have room for a lot of specific articles, and I hope we manage to do that. But the specific articles will make it into both later versions and any more specialised selections that we may produce, like the proposed gazetteer. Walkerma 04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK; but is the aim to be comprehensive? I'd have thought that the selection might purposefully include a fairly equal number of broad- and narrow-scope articles, if the aim is to promote WP as a high-class source of information. After all, many of the most hit-on sites are on relatively specific topics. Just a thought. Tony 05:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is indeed the purpose for Version 1.0. This is just a test release, to see how things would work out, and that's why it is a bit narrow in scope. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Show all

Is there any way to make a button to show all? Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 03:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't figured out a way it can be done without breaking everything... it's a MediaWiki issue. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Is there any way to view all accepted 0.5 articles in a list without click 50 'show's? Couldn't we make a subpage for that, if there isn't already? Ch u ck^(척뉴넘) 04:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's Category:Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 04:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category templates within V0.5

When we were setting this project up, I was thinking that we would have one template for each of the ten "top level" categories of WP:V0.5, instead of one ({{V0.5}}) like we have now. The thinking was that if we got 2000 articles, it would be a huge category, but if we put templates up like {{V0.5 Arts}} or {{V0.5 LangLit}}, we could have ten categories of 100-300 each, much more manageable. It would be easy to know which template to put on, as one has to place the article in that same category on the page anyway. This system would also give us the chance to look at statistics by broad subject area - so we could see differences in quality, for example. What do others think? Walkerma 06:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or just add a parameter to the existing template (e.g. {{v0.5|class=FA|category=arts}}) to accomplish the same thing. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like an even better option! Can you make the requisite change, Tito? Thanks! Walkerma 15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions now available at Template:V0.5. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 00:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tito, that's fantastic! Walkerma 00:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

V0.5 template & icon

I was very pleased to see that we now have a logo for the project! Thanks to Essjay for getting that done! I like the artistic element - the single jigsaw piece symbolising the idea of V0.5 being just a small piece of Wikipedia, and the start of something bigger. Or maybe I got it wrong, art was never my forte! Once concern I have, though, is that now we have a template that is three times the size it was before. Do you think we could get an icon that is smaller, yet still has a readable 0.5? I'm not good at such things myself. Thanks, Walkerma 07:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to make the icon a little smaller in the template anyway. However I have another serious issue to raise. I looked at Talk:India after uploading the icon, and at the bottom it lists:

Wikipedia:Version 0.5 | FA-Class Version 0.5 articles | Uncategorized Version 0.5 articles

Surely we only need the middle one of these categories? I'm not sure how to fix that sort of thing, can someone please do that? Thanks, Walkerma 09:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do need all three. The last one is the category within 0.5, the second one is the assessment category, and the first one is the fail-safe backup category, in case someone makes a typo and the other two are not initialized properly. It also serves as a real-time list of articles with the template. Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Count

I added an article count to the V0.5 list. Could the reviewers increase the count while adding articles? Eyu100 19:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will just I don't want to increase the number in every saving. When I finish for today, I will count all of them. Good to see you in the team. :) NCurse_work 19:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for helping out. We should be able to display on the page the statistics table (shown below) generated by the bot each morning, but I couldn't manage to do that without messing up the formatting. I added some links instead (I can manage those!). For now when we have small numbers the article count method is probably better, but in a few days I propose we sit back and let the bot count the articles for us! This assumes that Tito (or someone else smarter than me) can find a way to add in the table neatly.

Version 0.5 pages by quality
Quality
Quality	Total
Assessed	0
Total	0

Walkerma 05:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped it in there more-or-less cleanly, but I'm not sure if I've chosen the best place for it. Kirill Lokshin 06:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you counted VERY wrong - I got 39 articles. Are you sure you didn't miss anything? Eyu100 15:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's automatically updated by Mathbot, so if there's a mismatch, it could mean either that (a) the articles were recently added and haven't been counted yet or (b) the articles don't use {{V0.5}} properly. Kirill Lokshin 15:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, figured it out: nobody bothered to actually create Category:Unassessed Version 0.5 articles, which contains our missing articles ;-) Kirill Lokshin 15:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could I ask reviewers to include the assessment of the article if at all possible when posting the template on the article talk page? For most of our nominations this is going to mean adding {{V0.5|class=FA}} for FAs or {{V0.5|class=GA for GAs, in place of just {{V0.5}}. I think this will allow the bot to generate more useful statistics for us. Thanks! Walkerma 03:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like the automatic count is way ahead of the manual one now; is it really worth it trying to maintain two separate counts, or can we just say that a day's lag is acceptable and stick with the automatic one? Kirill Lokshin 05:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that (if people don't object) we stop the manual count at on June 1st, that will allow us to check that the bot is working OK. By then the day's lag will be a less significant proportion. Now that it's including GAs and unassessed (thanks Kirill), I suspect that the bot is more correct and is catching the fact that some of us may have forgotten to update the manual article count.

I also should mention, when adding the class, please also add the category too, as described at {{V0.5}}. This will life much easier later on, as it tells us (for example) lots of statistics like how many science articles we have in V0.5. Walkerma 05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Education

Relatively minor point here, but I definitely think that Education (and sub-articles) need to be under the "Social sciences and society" category, rather than "Everyday life". I suppose the everyday life category could be subsumed within the social sciences and society one but, regardless, education needs to be put on the same hierarchy (for want of a better word) as politics, law, economics etc. Cormaggio ^@ 11:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated Education and placed it in everyday life, and I don't mind this change at all. We've discussed this before, and felt that education was difficult to place, but I think perhaps you're right - I'll move it. This point is not so minor - once we have 100 education articles we want them in the right place! Thanks Walkerma 01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Away

Just in case I go quiet for the rest of the week, I wanted to let people know that I will be heading out of town from Tuesday till Friday night, for a conference. In fact it will include a meetup with another WP1.0 person, User:Sj. I expect to check in here each day, but my contact may be sporadic. Walkerma 04:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generic template

Boris at WP:Chem has been experimenting with a template called Template:Maintenance, which is designed to deal with articles like glutamic acid that overlap several projects (in this case WP:Chemicals, WP:Molecular and Cellular Biology and possibly WP:Drugs). Although it will presumably have to be moved onto the talk page, I thought this idea was interesting and may be useful to people here, especially if we want to ask wikiprojects to use these templates. Walkerma 07:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite honestly, I can't see what the point is. Why have a separate template for the categories if the regular project banners will still need to be on the talk page? They could include the category code themselves quite easily (and could potentially allow for different rating by different projects, although it's not clear how we would deal with that). Kirill Lokshin 10:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have project banners at all? What's their real purpose? I had Template:Maintenance to mention the projects that work on the article. I was told that this was a form of self-reference, so i had to remove it. One simple template could add the article to the appropriate class categories of the projects and mention those (at the very bottom) projects as well, with not too much screen space taken.
Every rule has an exeption and the "self-reference" one should have its own - categorization of an article is clasified as "self-reference" but almost every article uses it, several times. And just because some people don't want to break it they have to add the talk pages to the categories, now how does that make sence? I, as an editor, preffer the "article" way - i have faster access to the categories and articles becasue i don't have to go through the talk pages each time, the readers wouldn't mind it either becasue its out of their way. -- Boris 17:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem comes when our mirrors reuse our content. Someone reading Hurricane Katrina on answers.com doesn't particularily care about the rating of the article or any other intra-Wikipedia information. By putting meta-data on the talk page, we do a favor to our mirrors. Tito xd^(?!?) 18:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why this version?

I think it is better to make a good quality of Wikipedia in general. Wikipedia is always online, so why is this version needed? I have discussed about it with a friend of mine User: Radiant!. I think that Wikipedia need to be better organized. Maybe it is possible to create organizations within Wikipedia with a hierarchy, appointed tasks and deadlines, so editing will be teamwork instead of a chaotic free walhalla for editors.--Daanschr 07:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people on Earth doesn't use internet. Wikipedia (in my opinion) is not just an online encyclopedia, but an encyclopedia. We have to reach people, we need a version that everybody can read, and they will see, we are much better than other encyclopedias. That's why we work on it now. NCurse_work 09:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the people that doesn't have internet, doesn't have a computer either. So, where should they put the cd?--Daanschr 10:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no on-line costs using a CD disk in the cd drive. The wiki cd is potientally useful and free for many people who have a computer but who do not have an internet connection or who have got a slow pay-as-you-go internet connection. The wiki licience permits the cd disk to be copied and shared. Snowman 11:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

timeline?

Hi fellow editors

I'm new to this project, so please forgive my ignorance. Is there a timeline for the stages of the project? Will there be an opportunity for final perusal and judgement of the candidate articles for the trial CD?

Tony 09:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First we create a Version 0.5, where we will see our fault, the complicated parts of the projects. Then we switch to Version 1.0. In these two stages, an article will be reviewed at least 3 times. And then, we can end up with the CD. Briefly, we work like that. :) Welcome in the team, and good work. We need contributors, so ask any time. :) NCurse_work 09:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]