Wikipedia talk:Version 0.5/Archive 1

University of Michigan but not Michigan State University?

Both schools are internationally known, both schools have some of the largest enrollments in the world, both are featured articles, both have encyclopedia like writing yet the University of Michigan article is selected for .5 and MSU is not? Want to explain that?? AStudent 15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Show all

Is there any way to make a button to show all? Chuck^(척뉴넘) 03:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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? Chuck^(척뉴넘) 04:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

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

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

Done. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

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. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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
	Total
Assessed	0
Total	0

Walkerma 05:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. Titoxd^(?!?) 18:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the purely practical reasons. Screen real estate on the talk pages is much cheaper, so the tags (and associated categories) can be made as complex as needed without major complaint. This definitely wouldn't be the case if they were on the article itself. Kirill Lokshin 18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

"Screen real estate"? Please explain what you are talking about. -- Boris 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The space the template takes up on the screen, in other words. I suspect that if you made {{Maintenance}} any larger than it currently is (and it would need to be larger if we wanted to use it to replace WikiProject banners), you'd hear loud howls of protest as soon as you put it on any article that was at all prominent. Kirill Lokshin 20:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh-huh, which is exactly my point - we (all the projects) need a small simple template, whether is {{Maintenance}} or another one doesn't matter, that adds categorization and editorial functionality (or whatever you wanna call them), and doesn't take much screen space so it doesn't bother the readers. -- Boris 01:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Which completely misses the point ;-) It's only very recently that any categorization and editorial functionality has begun to be added to the project banners; their original (and still their primary) purpose is to advertise the WikiProjects in question! Kirill Lokshin 01:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The mirrors don't display that info anyway, at least "answers.com" doesn't - SKF 2082958 on answers.com and SKF 2082958 on WP at the time when the info form the article was taken for the "mirror". As you can see the "chemistry stub" info is not displayed on the "mirror" at all, now if the mirror does not display that template then it will probobly not display {{Maintenance}} either, would it? So what's all this "wiki" noise about? Or am i missing something? -- Boris 20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Software for CD version (0.5, 1.0)

I see the job as too big to be done via hand selection. I am also more interested in coverage than quality - I figure the quality will just get better. So, I want automated methods, both for selecting good coverage, and (less important at the moment) version selection. I also would like to target a size - 128Meg, 512Meg, 600Meg, 1Gig, 4Gig. I am also interested in post-processing - stripping redlinks, including main article references on core articles, like History of South Africa etc. I want to be able to tweak parameters, then press a button and get a new CD (from my downloaded XML dump of en and a picture collection, and possibly via a live mediawiki snapshot of that content).

This is what I have tried, mostly with available tools, and a bit of perl.

• Download recent XML dump.
• Download list of articles from category (currently using the WPCD template)
• Trim the full dump to the above article list (natively performed by mwdumper --exactlist)
• Import this to mysql
• import (full) category dump to mysql (sql dump downloaded from wikipedia)
• Use mediawiki/maintenance/dumpHTML.php to convert this to HTML
• perl script removes categories with less than four included items from HTML dump
• redlink removal by un-anchoring HTML with class=new (red links) - but not Categories (that always seem to appear red)

Problems I have come across:-

• templates (particularly {{main|History of Country}} and the like) do not make it through dumpHTML.php. Maybe I have to hack the php.
• Remove all the dross at the end, like inter-wiki links.

Could this be done by tweaking the CSS from dumpHTML ?

Any other ideas ? Wizzy…☎ 14:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the approach here could be explained as relying on hand selection by the whole Wikipedia community. We at WP:WVWP are just starting to contact the WikiProjects one by one, soliciting nominations. I think that way we will dig up a lot of articles that we might otherwise miss, while also giving ownership of this project to the whole of the community (important IMHO!). In the long term this will be very valuable for expert peer review of every article - indeed with help from the bot we already have several thousand articles that have been assessed by subject experts. I agree that our approach will leave a lot of holes in our coverage for V0.5, I suspect mainly in Arts, Humanities and Business, and we will need to allow in some weaker articles for the sake of completeness (as with Saturn, proton, etc.).

I hope that work on the SOS CD will continue in parallel with this, and we can share article lists as we proceed. I hope we will be releasing two CDs this autumn, one (V0.5) for adults, and for older children an expanded version of the SOS CD as planned at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Test Version. Regarding size, User:BozMo said that 5000 articles would probably fit on one CD using the same software as before, so I am taking that to be a target size for Version 0.5 also - though I don't expect us to reach that. Since this really is a test of a whole new approach to working as well as the technicalities, I don't mind if we "only" get 2000 or even just 1000. If the system works well, is scalable and is growing, then we have a viable way of producing static versions of Wikipedia. Regarding the more technical aspects of producing the CD, I'll have to let some others comment, those who understand such things! I'm really glad there are some people out there like you who do know how to do this! Thanks a lot, Walkerma 17:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced sections

As a result of the overly-large "social sciences and society" section, relative to the other over-sections, the current list looks poorly-organized and unbalanced. Could I, perhaps, take a shot at a stylistic restructuring? -Silence 17:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I won't block your way. :) Just do as you wish, and we will see at the end. NCurse _work 19:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, but one question, should war and military go under history instead? Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Only if "politics and government" also goes under history. All wars are historical only insomuch as all politics and movements and such are; there are articles for ongoing wars, still-existing milarities, modern weapons, and universal battle stategies. "History" is terribly generic, making it largely useless for actually finding a specific article; it should therefore be avoided as much as possible, whenever there's another section it could conceivably go under: if something could go under either "physics" or "history" (like Einstein's annus mirabilis), put it under "astronomy"; if something could go under either "war" or "history", put it under "war"; etc. Also, war is very much a social/societal activity, and has a strong relationship to politics/government (to the extent that our article on humans currently has "war" as a subsection of "politics and government"); so it just goes very well under the "Society" heading. -Silence 20:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Great! Detailed list. It'll be easy to work with it. Thanks. NCurse _work 19:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I was meaning to bring this up before - I'd like to see television and films moved from Socsci into Arts. In the Work via Wikiprojects group we list these under arts (largely because that is how the WikiProjects classify themselves), I think that's a better place. We may want to include something for journalism and the like under Socsci, but something like Casablanca (film) belongs under Arts IMHO.

Another thing (mentioned by Silence), I find it very hard to categorise some articles on historical political figures. To judge from nomination positions, others are confused too. Should FD Roosevelt go under History or Politics? What about William of Orange, or Justinian the Great? Is Napoleon military, political or history? If Silence could suggest some clearcut guidelines, I'd be grateful. I think something like World War II belongs under "War" but for Adolf Hitler it's harder to decide. One more radical solution is to consider double counting - e.g., put Roosevelt under BOTH History and Politics. The bot shouldn't double count them I don't think, so I don't think it's a problem, though I'm not sure if the template could handle 2 cats at once!

One thing - all V0.5 articles are currently tagged with their category (we're not using that yet, but we will as the project gets bigger). If Star Wars etc. gets moved from Socsci to Arts, then the template at Talk:Star Wars etc. needs to be changed to make it correspond. The categories are all listed nicely at {{V0.5}}.

You may or not be aware of how we chose the ten categories - they were discussed at great length (several archives full!) at core topics talk before we put things to a vote here. I'd like to keep the ten categories, but I'd love to see you reorganise things within the ten.

Overall, I'd say go ahead, this revamp is needed. Walkerma 03:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• "If Silence could suggest some clearcut guidelines, I'd be grateful." - In general, because "history" is such a broad (and therefore unhelpful) categorization, and because just about every article on Wikipedia has some historical aspect to it, I'd recommend that whenever an article would go equally well under "history" and under another category, we should put it under the other category. Ideally, the "history" section would actually be completely empty, though in practice that's probably impossible because there are some pages that don't fit neatly anywhere else. -Silence 01:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Food for thought: It could be good to put all the biographies in one section. Maurreen 02:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? Aren't there too many? If a section's too long, it could be hard to navigate. (If we're considering reorganizing the "biographies" section, though, I could, on the other hand, see an argument made for moving all the people to non-people-specific sections, e.g., all the philosophers to "Philosophy". I'm not sure it's necessary, but it would be consistent with what we've already done for the major religious figures, like Jesus. *shrug*) -Silence 03:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Having tried the new layout for this page, I think I prefer the original layout for the sections. We had about 100 kB (many hours of typing!) of discussion here, here, here, here and here, before we agreed (by unanimous vote) here on the ten-category system, and it is (therefore) the default throughout the Wikipedia 1.0 project. It is the system we use on the nominations page, and also for the categories generated by the template. On a more practical level, I also find it hard to find things in the new page. I think the "imbalance" is not really much of an issue in practice because the no. of articles is not unbalanced in the same way, and as I mentioned we can probably put films and TV under Arts rather than Socsci. Do people mind if I revert the categories back? Walkerma 04:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If you find it difficult to navigate the new organization, the WP:GA organization method is vastly superior to the "half-and-half" method we had before I redid the listings. I have no strong opinion as to whether we should use "overcategories" or just leave everything at the same order of hierarchy in a simple alphabetized list, but going halfway just leads to inconsistency and makes the list a heck of a lot harder to navigate for users who are new to the listing—and those users are the ones who will most need the layout to be tailored to them, since they, unlike older users, won't be accustomed to however the page is laid out. -Silence 05:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind, this format is ok but I do agree with Walkerma that it's hard to find things. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "half-and-half"? Are you referring to alphabetising things? We copied most of the setup from WP:GA, and we tried to match the GA listings as best we could to the ten WP:1.0 categories. Thanks, Walkerma 07:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Organization problems

1. The Art & Architecture outline now apparently includes the complete outline for the page.
2. Also, I'd like to suggest that the "Music" section be changed to "Performing Arts", but it's not clear to me how to change it. Maurreen 13:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I changed music to Performing Arts. NCurse _work 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Maurreen 02:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced that "Music -> Performing arts" is a smart move. Film is both mass media and performing arts, so under the new scheme, where would it go? -Silence 02:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I could go either way with Film, but GA puts it in Mass Media.

I don't see why Music should have a higher-level category than Film, Theater or Dance. Maurreen 03:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

GA's opinion doesn't matter one bit in this issue, because GA doesn't have a "performing arts" section: there's no way of knowing what it would have put under it if it did. "Performing arts" is an extremely broad category, encompassing dance, theatre, television, radio, film, music, and numerous other disciplines; its current implementation seems to be both hasty and inconsistent. Until you've decided what, exactly, goes under it (it was implemented without even bothering to add theatre, or anything else, to it in addition to "music", thus making it merely misleading and confusing for anyone who sees the music notes and etc.), I strongly recommend keeping the listing at "Music". Practicality is more important than silly worrying about whether music "deserves" a higher-level placement than film or theatre or dance (and, incidentally, it does!, at least for film and dance); our categorization is a matter of usefulness, not objective importance. -Silence 03:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you and I operate from different approaches. I recommend agreeing to disagree.

As far as what is confusing, please see the section under "Art and Architecture", which lists all of the following:

"Contents [hide]

1 ­ 1.1 Architecture 1.2 Art 1.3 Artists 1.4 Museums and galleries 2 ­ 2.1 Food 2.2 Drink 3 ­ 3.1 Alphabets and transliteration 3.2 Languages 3.3 Linguistics 4 ­ 4.1 Literature 4.2 Writers and critics 5 ­ 5.1 Actors, models and celebrities 5.2 Cinema 5.3 Fictional characters 5.4 Film 5.5 Journalism 5.6 Television 6 ­ 6.1 By nation, people, region or country 6.2 Genres, styles and eras 6.3 Instruments 6.4 Music festivals 6.5 Performers and composers 6.6 Recordings and compositions 7 ­ 7.1 Philosophers 7.2 Philosophical thought and movements 8 ­ 8.1 Sport and game people 8.2 Computer and video games 8.3 Games 8.4 Festivities 8.5 Sports 8.6 Sports teams 9 ­ 9.1 Divinities 9.2 Myths 9.3 Religious disputes 9.4 Religious figures and leaders 9.5 Religious movements, traditions and organizations 9.6 Religous texts 10 ­ 10.1 Continents 10.2 Countries 10.3 Geographers and explorers 10.4 Geography 10.5 Parks, conservation areas, and historical sites 10.6 Places 11 ­ 11.1 Geology and geophysics 11.2 Mineralogy 12 ­ 12.1 Archaeology 12.2 Historians, chroniclers and history books 12.3 Historical figures 12.4 Africa 12.5 Americas 12.6 Asia and Oceania 12.7 Europe 12.8 World history 13 ­ 13.1 Atmospheric scientists 13.2 Climatology 13.3 Meteorology 13.4 Tropical cyclones 14 ­ 14.1 Biologists and medical scientists 14.2 Biology 14.3 Evolution and reproduction 14.4 Health and medicine 14.5 Organisms 15 ­ 15.1 Chemicals 15.2 Chemists 15.3 Chemistry 15.4 Materials science 16 ­ 16.1 Cryptography 16.2 Hardware and infrastructure 16.3 Programming 16.4 Software 16.5 Websites and the Internet 17 ­ 17.1 Engineering 17.2 Engineers and inventors 18 ­ 18.1 Mathematicians 18.2 Mathematics 19 ­ 19.1 Astronomers and physicists 19.2 Astronomy 19.3 Physics 19.4 Planets 20 ­ 20.1 Air transport 20.2 Bridges and tunnels 20.3 Maritime transport 20.4 Railroad transport 20.5 Road transport 21 ­ 21.1 Military decorations 22 ­ 22.1 Business 22.2 Businesspeople 22.3 Economics 23 ­ 23.1 Education 23.2 Educational institutions 24 ­ 24.1 Crime, criminals and punishment 24.2 Law 24.3 Lawyers, judges and legal academics 25 ­ 25.1 Politically significant people 25.2 Politics and government 26 ­ 26.1 Psychologists 26.2 Psychology 27 ­ 27.1 Heraldry 27.2 Royalty and nobility 28 ­ 28.1 Peoples 28.2 Social phenomena, movements and subcultures 28.3 Social scientists 29 ­ 29.1 Armies and military units 29.2 Biographies of military people 29.3 Conflicts, battles and military exercises 29.4 Legal issues and treaties 29.5 Military camps, tribunals and facilities 29.6 Military history 29.7 Weapons and military equipment 30 Related articles "

I don't know how that happened. But the format is confusing to me. So, if someone else knew how, it could be practical to fix that. Thanks. Maurreen 16:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Tito, thanks for fixing that. Maurreen 11:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

There are over 1.2 million articles on Wikipedia, so it shouldn't be too tough to find a few to pick out and turn into good/featured articles...yet I can't quite find "just the right one." Any suggestions? I'm especially looking for things with lots of published resources that have a short/nonexistent WP article. Please leave some suggestions on my talk page...thanks! Paul 17:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The front page states "There is also an alternative listing and statistics table updated automatically from the talk page templates by Mathbot at around 3:30am every morning.". 3:30 am what? If whoever wrote it could give a time zone it would clarify for the rest of wikipedia--Tmchk 01:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a mention that it is UTC, also often seen in signatures on Wikipedia. Thanks, Walkerma 02:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The Holocaust copyright problems

This article is listed on the project page under the History section. The images in the article have incorrect copyright tags, some claim the autor died over 100 years age, some use obsolete PD tags and other claim fair use with out rationale. I have left a message on the article talk page advising that this issue exists, it needs to be addressed or lose GA status. Gnangarra 15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! We will be reviewing copyright when we go to press, but it's helpful to know of these problems in advance! I've added a comment to our table. Thanks, Walkerma 02:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Publishing

I passed Publishing, but I'm not sure I did the template right. Maurreen 15:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Now fixed. The class=B was right, but for the category you must use one of the ten "tree top" categories we voted on, see {{V0.5}} for a list of them and their abbreviations. Thanks for helping with reviews, Walkerma 16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Disputes page

What happened with the disputes page that was going to be created? Someone passed Ethanol, which admittedly had been assessed as {{A-Class}} by WikiProject Chemistry, but it had several problems with wikification, a few severe problems with wikimarkup (some of which I've fixed already), and several "citation needed" templates sprinkled all over it. I would have failed it on quality, and encouraged a new submission after problems were fixed, but I was "beaten to the punch" in a way. What do we do about these cases? Titoxd^(?!?) 03:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Consider it an inevitable part of having a test release and ignore it for the time being? Relatively minor problems shouldn't really be an issue; if we could afford to reject articles based on them, we could have just restricted the field of candidates to FAs. Kirill Lokshin 03:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

There are some I would have passed that others failed - and vice versa - this is to be expected with a single review system. I suggest we leave things as they are for now, and once nominations have closed (less than two months now!) we can discuss any anomalous choices. If an article is classed by a WikiProject as A-Class it should usually be fine (though it was assessed as A about a year ago, I think). Being "alcohol" this article probably attracts a lot of vandalism, but that also makes it high on importance. As an organic chemist myself I'll try and fix it. But yes, it is a test release and it will have flaws in it, and I think BozMo's script takes out unused wikilinks and CitationNeededs anyway.

Regarding a disputes page, I think we should have one, though we haven't had a lot of need for it (thankfully). We will definitely need one for Version 1.0. If someone would like to create one and to monitor it, that would be great (and also to set up a page for Chuck's idea on getting two opinions). From my perspective it's yet another job to be done and another page to be moderated, and I personally can't handle any more committments. A much bigger priority for me is getting us up to 500 articles approved by July 31st, because right now (IMHO) lack of coverage is a much bigger problem than article quality. As for Kirill's point, I go regularly to WP:FA, WP:GA, WP:VA or WP:CORE and try to nominate a few more, I would encourage others to do the same. There are still many important-topic FAs that haven't even been nominated. Cheers, Walkerma 04:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)