Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 10

This is the tenth archive of the talk page for Wikipedia:Version 1.0 talk page. It covers the period from 29 May - 31 July 2006.

Proposal for Torrent Project

I hope that this is not in the wrong place...but, i think a group of people should make a torrent file of the encyclopedia and seed it for a while...it'll make everyone's life easier when they want to download it. Nominaladversary 02:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain (for technically challenged people like myself!) how this would work, and what it would do? I assume you are referring to BitTorrents? This could well be very relevant to this group, can you give us more detail? Thanks, Walkerma 03:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, I want to use a Bit Torrent client to put the Wikipedia CD up for downloading. Many people use Bit Torrent already, so getting people started on Bit Torrent won't be hard. Bit Torrent is like...hm, well its like this: One person downloads a file from the internet, lets say the Wikipedia CD. Now that person creates a torrent of the file which will be like 30kb. That person will upload the torrent to this site, for people to download. Peole with a Bit Torrent client will open the torrent and will begin downloading the Wikipedia CD from the person who downloaded it originaly. Now, as time progresses two people will have the complete file, then three and so on. The more people who have Bit Torrent open and are "seeding" the file (basically means they are uploading), the faster the file will be able to download. I hope this helps, if not, just post right back. Nominaladversary 18:56, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this sounds like a useful idea. Would you be interested in helping with that in the autumn, when we start releasing offline versions of Wikipedia? Thanks, Walkerma 05:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i will help. When the project starts, i think a notification be displayed so we can have as many people helping as possible. Also, because the file is big, we'll need mutiple trackers and people to publish the torrent on various torrent sites. I think we should put both files (the cd and dvd) version in the same torrent, because 90% of torrent clients that are out there allow the user to choose which exact files he/she wants to download from the torrent. This will reduce the number of torrents we need to show or answer people's questions with. I hope im being clear, if not, just ask. Nominaladversary 21:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Back again, I have downloaded the file, and I am going to make a torrent and call it "Wikipedia CD-2006" I will later email an admin to host the torrent and tell people visiting wikipedia that there is a torrent for the cd, and i'll just put a link in here and host it myself. I'll pst back here when the torrent is up, is working, and has atleast 2 trackers. Nominaladversary 21:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Great news! You say that you downloaded the file, do you mean the SOS Children's CD, released earlier this year and described here? If so, you should probably let them know here. If not, can you explain the file you're referring to? By fall of 2006 we expect to have another couple of CDs coming out - Version 0.5, and an expanded version of the SOS Children's CD. Thanks a lot, Walkerma 04:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I have the Wikipedia CD on the SOS children site. I guess in the fall I can just stop seeding this cd and work on the newer one. I couldn't figure out how to put more than one tracker on there, but i found a reliable one. The torrent is right here. Someone please post back here saying it works. I am 99% sure it works, but you never know. Nominaladversary 20:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Another thing, once this is working (the whole torrent thing), where should i post to tell people? Does it go on the project page? I'm going to contact SOS children and see if they can host the torrent as well (its only 28kb) and they can give a message to the people who wish to d/l the cd. Nominaladversary 20:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

28kb, very impressive! Yes, I would contact User:Bozmo and the SOS folks first. If you want to get the word out around Wikipedia, I'd contact the Community Portal and leave a note at the Signpost mentioning the Torrent project and the availability of the SOS site. Oh, and by the way, are you going to sign up as a member of the Torrent project?!! I hope that as we come out with Version 0.5 (October?) and an updated expanded SOS CD (late 2006?) you will be able to convert those versions too. Walkerma 03:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Once Version 0.5 comes out, we'll make a torrent for that, and change the Torrent Project Page. We will also do our best to keep up with the update and distribute that as fast as possible. My next stop will be User:Bozmo, thanks for that. Nominaladversary 14:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Good! That should be User:BozMo, by the way, my mistake. Walkerma 17:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Tagging particular article versions

I just became aware of this effort because of the tag added to Talk:Jupiter, and I got to wondering: shouldn't the tag include the exact version that was assessed? That way, when the time comes to burn the actual CD or whatever, the compilers of the CD can (if they want) do a final assessment of the changes since that version and make sure nothing has gone terribly wrong. As it stands now, to get a similar final assessment would require re-assessing the whole article, even if 90% of it hasn't changed. (Though I guess it would be possible to dig up the revision history and check when the tag was added.) --Doradus 13:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually what happens now is close to tagging. The bot picks up the assessment when it does its run at 3:30am each morning, and then it records the version it found. If you take a look at the main bot-generated list, then you click on the number next to the article name, that takes you to the version the bot found on the day of assessment. It looks as if Talk:Jupiter didn't include an assessment, that's why it's not on that list, but most are. You should also take a look at Wikipedia:Static version, which is a recent proposal related to this, and I am also doing a discussion on this & related validation issues at Wikimania 2006. In the meantime, we'll be using what the bot tells us is the assessed version in most cases. Please join us, and thanks! Walkerma 13:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Out

Sorry I haven't been around for a while, and won't be much for a while. I'm bogged down with work and life. Hope all of you are doing well. Maurreen 20:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Mediocre prose getting through the FAC process: we should all be concerned

Dear fellow editors

Are you aware of this discussion that is currently evolving on the FAC talk page? This discussion arises from the belief by some of the regular reviewers in that room that it's becoming increasingly difficult to stop nominations with substandard prose from being promoted.

A few of us work hard to try to uphold high standards, since the FAC criteria are a model for the project as a whole; FACs are supposed to represent "the best" of WP, and are paraded on the homepage as such on a daily basis. However, for many a nomination, those who care and who have the critical skills to force the issue risk being swamped by supporters/fans who are marshalled for the cause, or simply by those who like the topic and have no clear idea of what fine prose is (viz. the steady flow of Pokémon promotions).

We could use more help in that room, which is why I'm writing this note. On this team are some of the best copy-editors involved in the project. I put it to you that, as well as working towards this vererable goal of publishing a top-quality CD, that you become a little more involved in one of the pivotal processes for WP, by assisting us in resisting pressure to go easy on Criterion 2a (the requirement for "compelling, even brilliant" prose).

We'd love some of the talented editors and writers here to become more involved, whether as regular reviewers or by 'dropping in' at least occasionally.

Please let me know what you think. Tony 07:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I second this motion, bad prose seems to be ignored when people review articles over at FAC, and articles with bad prose are getting nominated, and its just not up to standards. There's absolutely no point in the entire process if prose is ignored, because its very important for the readability of an article. — Wackymacs 07:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I, on the contrary, don't think it is a problem, at least on FAC. The problem is at WP:PR. Either way, avoid ForestFires and keep all the discussion there. Titoxd^(?!?) 08:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. "Those who like the topic and have no clear idea of what fine prose is" won't reach their aims because when an article will get into Version 1.0 it will have been reviewed 3 or 4 times. Somebody will drop them out. So I'm not worried about it. Now, we work on the core topics, nominate the best articles. In my opinion, the best solution would be to limit the number of reviewers. It would raise questions but stop POV nominaters. NCurse _work 08:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd have thought it would be of keen interest to the Version 1.0 team, since the goals of the CD are similar to those of the FA system. Rather than a forest fire, this was a plea for assistance and support. Tony 16:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, WP:FA is used as the hallmark for a quality article; if that standard is being eroded it is of great concern to us here, as we naturally tend to assume that an FA will automatically pass on quality (though I still try to read much of an article when I'm reviewing it, in case). At the same time, we are stretched very thin here, and obviously we don't want to get distracted from our main goal. I'll try to take a look at a few "iffy" FACs myself when I get a chance, and I'm sure others will too. Thanks for letting us know, and please update us if there are any major developments. Walkerma 16:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the article John von Neumann

I have taken up the Walkerma challenge, and reviewed the article John von Neumann for quality. I can comment only upon the sections Biography and Computer science.

The bibliography section seems quite consistent with all that I have learned of his work. I did not verify dates, nor order of birth. However, the nomenclature, and source (title purchase), is correct, from my reading. The more negative characteristics claimed of von Neumann's behavior will need verification by others. It is sad to see that von Neumann's appointment is not described as the first tenured faculty position with the Insitute for Advanced Studies.

About the computer science section I can give a bit more detail. It properly discusses the controversy respecting the title now given to single instruction, single data style machines; i.e. the von Neumann architecture. I would argue that the term given here is better than that given elsewhere in Wikipedia. To wit, the von Neumann machine is the self-replicator, and the von Neumann architecture describes an information processing machine, the embodiment of the Turing machine. There are many architectures to information processing machines, many of them known long before the birth of von Neumann. For instance, consider the card processing machines of Herman Hollerith. Aside from this disagreement with language, the discussion of architectural naming is quite reasonable. I find the von Neumann/Eckert-Mauchly controversy is balanced, and includes mention of all relevant issues. The links to the topic are thorough, though I would argue that one should be included in the words "many feel" with the link leading to a discussion of the controvery, per se.

The links to cellular automata and the universal constructor give a full overview of von Neumann's computational work, though there might also be included links to articles that discuss his work on ballistics computations, and related areas (i.e. 3D pressure dynamics [shock waves] in explosives - shape charges). Shock waves are mentioned but, the mention does not give reference to ballistics and explosives.

I know of no reference to back the notion of a proof written by von Neumann respecting the efficiency of consumption of extra-terrestrial resources, like asteroids, by means of self-replicator. This should be verified, and the source attributed.

It might be best to combine the ballistics and explosives with the paragraph that now includes Richtmyer, or to use the combined material to construct a more modular group of two or three paragraphs.

William R. Buckley 19:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that! Do you mind if I copy this over to the article talk page, so the people working on the article can see your review? Thanks, Walkerma 20:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't copy the whole review. Instead, put a pointer to this page on the article talk page. That would be much more space efficient. When you extended your request for review of the John von Neumann article, you did not provide detail as to the expected means of expressing such review. More information as to the mechanism for validating selected articles for release as Version 1.0 is requested. William R. Buckley 16:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

The detailed criteria are given here. At present we are accepting nominations for Version 0.5 using those criteria; the Version 1.0 nomination page is there but not yet open. If you are willing to help us review articles for inclusion on the Version 0.5 test CD, we'd certainly appreciate it. You can look over the procedure on the aforementioned V0.5 nomination page, and you can sign up for the Review Team if you think you can help us. Thanks again, Walkerma 03:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Paper?

I saw on the 1.0 page...about a paper release? Like an actual encyclopedia? Does anyone know what they exactly mean by "paper"

"Paper" means paper, as in "book." Maurreen 11:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Biographies as a test version

Food for thought ... maybe a set of 100 - 200 biographies could be an early test. They could be pulled from stuff already approved, as an interim step before we have a full 0.5. A good set of biographies would be broad enough to have wide interest. It could also be small enough to publish in one volume on paper. We have about 50 biographies approved for 0.5 so far. Maurreen 17:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, like the Geography project this sounds like an excellent subset to consider for an early release. Whilst I disagreed with the idea of having biographies in their own section on 0.5, I think this idea is very sound. I've seen data that suggest that bios are some of the most popular pages for viewing. We might want to consider approaching Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, who oversee a very extensive List of people by name, though there only seem to be a couple of active people on that project. You might be amused by my posting there, which contains a useful list of all the bio FAs at that time. Overall, I'd say let's get 0.5 done and review the situation then, we can't afford to divide our meagre resources right now. After 0.5 we can decide if we want to focus on 1.0 (hopefully underway by then), a childen's version, Geography, Biography or something else. I can see me spending a lot of next summer on this idea, though! Thanks, Walkerma 18:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Joining

If we join, do we get to assess the articles or not?

Jasrocks ^(talk) 10:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If you join, you can nominate, review, and promote articles to Verison 0.5. Welcome in the team! Have a good work! :) NCurse _work 11:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick question with 'Index of Subjects', I would like to add the Adelaide category (Category:Adelaide) to this to be checked by the bot. Can someone do this for me or tell me how to do this in a more detail. Cheers, Jasrocks ^(talk) 23:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Generally people sign up for the main project, then choose one or two specific things to work on. If you want to review articles for Version 0.5 (and later versions), please also sign up for the Review Team. If you want to assess articles for quality at Core Topics, the supplement needs assessments done. Welcome!

As for using the bot, take a read of the instructions. Mainly, you have to set up a project template similar to the ones suggested, and set up the relevant categories. Let Oleg know here when you're ready to go. A couple of things not covered well in the instructions, they are still in a state of flux:

• As well as quality, you can now have importance read by the bot. This is less likely to change over time than quality, but many groups have adopted this.
• VERY NEW: You can also add comments via the bot, from a /Comments page. Read this discussion.

Let us know if you need any help. Walkerma 04:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, now I know what it's like to feel like an idiot. I read those instructions before asking here. Could someone just set it up for me (if it isnt too much of a problem). Jasrocks ^(talk) 05:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Related question. I would like to start a section on aviation articles, but no such WikiPorject exists. Is it allowed to do this through Portal:Aviation? Would a better option be to go through Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, Airports, etc? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 00:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ammendment - I just realized there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport, but I am not an active member and not interested in other forms of transportation. What course of action should I take in starting this inititive (sp?), ask first or just join them up and start adding aviation articles? Can I add aircraft, airports, and other articles covered under the sub-projects? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 00:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal: nominate sets of articles

A proposed process that might either complement the 0.5 process or used for 1.0. A group of articles may be nominated as a set, which would undergo a more rigorous process before being passed or failed as a whole. The process might not be as rigorous as, say, FAC, on a per-article basis, but rather should consider the group of articles as a cohesive unit.

Here is how I imagine the process would unfold:

• A new set is created and nominated, for example the set of planets. Nine articles (the named planets) are initially nominated.
• Through some kind of FAC-esque process, it is generally accepted that, yes, the set should be included, and no, we can't dump Saturn from the set even though it sucks (but not bad enough to keep the entire set from passing). During the nomination the set is malleable, articles like Sun and Moon are added.
• After the set has already passed, additional articles may be added to the set through the current process.

So am I completely nuts here? I can't help but think we'd get better depth if we could say "Okay, I want United States and History of the United States and Geography of the United States and..." without having to nominate each of them individually. WikiProjects could use it to make a cohesive proposal, while it can still be used for subject areas that don't have active Projects. Nifboy 09:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

That has potential. Maurreen 10:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea. I've thought all along that we need to deal with a group of related things all together - we don't want to have proton and neutron without having electron, but how is best to handle this? Your idea would work well, I think. Do you envisage a specific "nomination of article groups" page for such things, and perhaps a "review of article groups" page as well? Would you be willing to set this/these up and help run them (I'd be happy to participate)? I feel it would be worth some effort, because (a) it will make WP0.5 and WP1.0 better to have complete groups and (b) although reviewing would be more lengthy, we'd get perhaps a dozen articles at once when completed. Please let us know what you can do. Thanks! Walkerma 16:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely think some kind of formal "set review" is necessary; at first I was thinking talk page + concensus = changes, or maybe just leaving the nom pages open after "passing" for further commentary, but the chaos would be a bit much. I'll get started setting up pages, but my template-fu is weak. Nifboy 20:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, let us know if you need any help. Walkerma 20:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Set Nominations has been created, as a temporary page (it will probably be moved to "Wikipedia:Version X Set Nominations"). I haven't decided whether I want it for 1.0 or 0.5 (or both) yet (leaning towards 0.5), and have therefore called it "version X" in the article. Nifboy 21:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Set Nominations has been created, and is open to further input and template creation. Really, the only template I need made is {{0.5 set nom}}, which would be "This article is part of a set of articles nominated for 0.5" where "A set of articles" would link to "Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Set Nominations/X" where X is the name of the first parameter. Nifboy 22:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

See Template talk:0.5 set nom. Maurreen 04:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

There is now a test case on the set nominations page.I would like to get some feedback before blowing the page open to the public, though. Nifboy 06:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Topic priorities

I had an idea about article topic priorities that might build lists such WP:VA, WP:CORE, the four-level importance scale used by many wikiprojects, and Silence's idea of a scale.

Besides that, I think it would be good for the to use a set of several numbers to designate the importance, and a scale that designates each priority level to correspond to a set of some defined number. Here are a couple of examples.

One option is based on powers of 10.

• Priority level 1 -- The 10 most important items.
• Level 2 -- The 11th to 100th most important items.
• 3 -- The 101st to 1000th most important items, and so on.

Another option is based on doubling.

• Priority set 100 -- The 100 most important items.
• Set 200 -- The 101st to 200th most important items.
• 400 -- The 201st to 400th most important items, and so on.

Defining the size of the sets in each level would be more clear than otherwise. For example, two people might agree that "Foobar" ranks as between the 500th and 100th most important topic. But without defining the size of the set, one person might assign it a Level 1 priority and another might assign it a Level 3.

These could be set up by continuing in the same vein as the core topics or with categories or both. Categories could allow subcategories, such as "the art articles within level x."

If desired, this system it could be used as a guide (not mandatory) for 0.5 or a later version. Also if desired, this conceivably could be widely distributed or automated.

Further, one way to lessen the potential for conflict within this system could be that we might want to discourage people from moving an item more than one level at a time. Maurreen 15:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem with this is that non-experts are deciding how important something are. This is I think that with articles rated by a project, the subject-matter experts, that rating should be a main factor. Rlevse 17:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Indian assessment project

I have started a Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Assessment project for India. I wanted to know how Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/India articles by quality will be autopopulated? Is there a bot doing that? Please advise. - Ganeshk (talk) 07:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The India Project's page must be populated manually: It's helpful for categorizing and sorting articles by hand. The 1.0 subpage will be populated by the bot, based on articles that have {{WP India}} on their talk page, and ordered by quality. Nifboy 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the response. - Ganeshk (talk) 07:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Starting an aviation assessment

(Copied from above.) I would like to start a section on aviation articles, but no such WikiProject exists. Is it allowed to do this through Portal:Aviation? Would a better option be to go through Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport, Wikipedia:WikiProject Aircraft, Airports, etc? I think the transport project would encompass all articles, even the ones not covered by the aviation related projects (such as Flight, but I am not an active member and not interested in other forms of transportation. What course of action should I take in starting this inititive, ask first or just join them up and start adding aviation articles? Can I then add aircraft, airports, and other articles covered under the sub-projects? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 13:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now I think that going through the transportation project will not work. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Work via Wikiprojects people have already contacted the sub projects within transportation and recieved various replies at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPTechnology. I think for now, until I recieve some feedback from someone more involved here, I will begin by working with each project (aircraft,airports) seperately. I will leave the remaining aviation articles for later, probably working through Portal:Aviation...but maybe not. Suggestions? - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 01:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't reply sooner, I was moving from my main job to my summer job. We haven't yet worked with a portal, all of the contact from here has been via projects. However, I am aware that in some subject areas the portal has also become the main focal point, a de facto WikiProject. Is that the case here? We will certainly have to address this portal issue at some point, as well as the RNBs (for an example see this list). Do you want us to discuss how we would work with portals such as the Aviation portal? If that's the most efficient way for you to cover the subject, I'm sure we can set something up. Thanks a lot, Walkerma 07:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me, I think at this point going through the Aviation Portal is the only feasable way to do it. While I can't confirm the amount of people viewing aviation articles through the Portal, I can say that the Transportation Project seems pretty dormant. And the articles I'm hoping to have rated (flight, Aeronautics, Amelia Earhart) do not seem to fall under aircraft/airlines/etc project view. For now I'm willing to let this stay on hold (I'm busy setting up and expanding the Aircraft Project ratings). - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, while I read this over i'm thinking, Amelia Earhart could be done under biographies. I wonder if I can find a project for other articles (physics for example) - Trevor MacInnis (Talk | Contribs) 04:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Dynamic pocket cyclopedia

I have drafted a page intended to be an evolving list of 100 to 300 of Wikipedia’s most important featured articles, featured lists, and designated good articles. Maurreen 15:10, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Previously reviewed versions

Logs and templates for FAs and FLs indicate which version of the entry became featured. If those versions were used for a release version, that could cut out the work of reviewing each article again for quality. Maurreen 11:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Name

I wonder whether we should change the name from "Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team" to "Wikipedia Release Version 1.0 Editorial Team". Maurreen 22:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I agree with adding "release" to any reference to this project, as in "Wikipedia Release Version 1.0 ___." Vir 20:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that "Wikipedia 1.0" as a term has come to mean so much more than a particular offline release of Wikipedia. When we come to work on the actual release version 1.0 (after nominations at WP:V1N], we will have to be careful to make it completely clear what it is. For that reason I would like to see the word RELEASE reserved for that specific version. Many activities organised here will be going on long after Release Version 1.0 is history - contact with new WikiProjects, improving Core Topics (all to FA standard?!), to say nothing of the other versions (1.1, 2.0, Geography project, Biographies Project, etc.). Sooner or later we will have to find a new name for this page. We may wish to consider using is Sj's terms "Static version" or "Static content" as used on Meta. Walkerma 23:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Static version" is good. Maurreen 14:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Martin, thanks for clarification. Are you saying to reserve "release" for WP: Release 1.0, 1.1, 2.0, etc.? If so, I see your point but wonder if the word can be used more flexibly through adding qualifying words (see pt. below).

For what it's worth, "static" doesn't "feel" right to me. "Static" implies lack of growth. For the whole 1.0 project, some name would help. 1.0 is unclear. The 1.0 processes (wikiproject, core topics, release, etc. processes) likely will be continually developing, yes? Perhaps taking a step back is needed: is it possible to describe what is it that is being named as 1.0 (so far). Then, generate a list of name options to signify that?

Hmm, what about this? An extra word attached to release might work, such as: "Release Evaluation" or "Release Publishing" or "Release Work" with this then added to Project or Team or Group. Examples: Release Publishing Project or Release Work Group. Such options convey the idea that there may be multiple tasks going on related to generating selected releases of WP. Or is that too utilitarian and wordy and/or not close enough to what is going on? Vir 05:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Mainly for clarity, I'd prefer not to make any new name too different from the current name. Here are a couple other options:

1. Offline Version(s) Editorial Team
2. Snapshot Version(s) Editorial Team Maurreen 12:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Maurreen, Martin and all,

These options are from consulting a thesaurus for "static": fixed, frozen, standing, stationary, still. I don't like the connotations of any of these. These are from a thesaurus for "select": chosen, elect, picked, preferred, selected, screened. Here are some other options that convey other aspects of a release version: abridged, limited, published.

The 1.0 project doesn't have a mission statement (or does it?) that covers its current range of projects. Would such help in clarifying direction and choosing an umbrella project name? The current intro sentence reads, "We are working toward a set of articles suitable for release in print, CD, DVD, or some combination." (There it is: "release," key word.) Would it be helpful to revise this sentence or write a mission statement?

I like "release" as part of the 1.0 project's umbrella term (as in options above) because it connotes both a "snapshot" and a moving series of "snapshot" versions with various formats (and the processes related to those). Does another word convey both of those properties? Vir 01:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with the word "static" or its synonyms either. But changing the name isn't important to me either.

"Limited version" or somesuch has potential. "Select Version Editorial Team" won't work, in my view, because it suggests that the team was not self-selected. "Published" would be redundant, because WP is already published.

I'm not sure we need more of a mission statement than what we already have: ""We are working toward a set of articles suitable for release in print, CD, DVD, or some combination."

But I had been thinking a writing a short section with just a few bullet points about "Why We're Doing This", for people who come and ask or wonder, etc. Maurreen 03:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the options above aren't a good fit. For my part, I think that Release Version(s?) Project or Team or some such may be best umbrella description. But, I do not think it matters too much what the project is called. A good description of the scope of the project(s) is important. The outline of the project(s) with descriptive bullet points sounds helpful. Vir 21:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to sound pessimistic, but none of the alternatives are "exciting" (for lack of a better word) enough to merit a name change of a well-known page in my eyes. Titoxd^(?!?) 03:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ha! That seems so for most options. Seems something could be better than "1.0" though, "Release" perhaps being the best option. Anyway, I'm taking a long break on this ID. But, I'll probably be contributing to WP via another ID. Take it easy, Vir 18:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Inheritance Trilogy assessment

Hey, I've just streamlined the TRilogy articles' importance and quality scale, and then added it to the index. Is there anything else I need to do, or will the Mathbot automatically work on categorizing the articles by quality and importance? --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 10:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it's started automatic work. Received my reply :) --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 15:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Arts & Culture

So, except for Bach, apparently culture was invented in 1927? - Nunh-huh 07:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you refering to a list somewhere? If so, can you add some suitable nominations/suggestions? Walkerma 16:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Summary Style

Quick question - I'm working on an article that was selected for the Wikipedia CD. Due to the article size, we utilized Summary Style and combined some sections off into a new subarticle. The subarticle is specific to the parent. Should the subarticle be automaticly added to the CD selection category? Morphh 13:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It has to be reviewed. What is that article and subarticle? I'd have a look at them... NCurse _work 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

FairTax and Predicted effects of the FairTax. We just made the split this week so we're still cleaning things up and trying to get the best summary. Morphh 03:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Index Suggestion

I originally posted this message on Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia-CD/Download, but after I found the main project page, I decided to post the message here too:

I have downloaded and tried the CD version, and I have some suggestions for the next version. In the "index" folder there are some special pages like "nature", "places", "science" etc. I have some comments & suggestion regarding these:

1. "Places": I think this page could benefit from being divided into "Countries", "Capitals", "Cities", "Continents" and "Regions". To bundle them all together makes it a little messy.
2. "Nature": Same thing here. This page could be divided into "Animals", "Plants" etc. and perhaps to a certain extent comply to the kingdoms in the biological classification system (see Kingdom (biology) and Scientific classification). I would suggest "Animals", "Plants", "Fungi", "Monera" or "Bacteria" and "Protista", that is, 5 toplevels.
3. "Science" could benefit from a division into Chemical elements, Chemical compounds, and subdivions of science like "Mathematics", "Physics", "Chemistry", "Biology", "Earth Sciences", "Astronomy" and "Technology" etc. Perhaps it is even better to skip the "Science" page and have separate pages for the separate disciplines.
4. "General knowledge": I am not sure of the intention of this page, but it would definitely benefit from being divided alphabetically, with an A-Z index at the top, which links to anchors further down (like on the List of countries page).

That's all for now. If you want further clarifications on my opinions, feel free to contact me on my talk page.

My regards, --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 02:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

That's helpful, thanks. The next version will be 5000 articles and we will have to find a better way of dividing the contents. The WP category Portals probably still don't quite work and this is the major obstacle to the CDs usefulness. --User:BozMo

I have tagged about 25+ articles for cd inclusion and I am interested in helping out in any way I can, so I add myself as a participant in this project. I am interested in almost everything, and regarding this project I am particularly interested in design and categorization, since I have good experience with these matters. However, feel free to contact me regarding anything. My warm regards, Dennis Nilsson. --Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 23:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Numismatic Assessment

Hi, I just started Wikipedia:WikiProject Numismatics/Assessment. Please check it out, make sure everythings up to code and add this page for me. Thnx  :) Joe I 09:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Everything looks good. I just put the (Numismatic articles by quality) category and the (by importance) category into Category:Wikipedia_1.0_assessments, so now it can be read by the bot. We'll see if it picks it up tonight. Thanks, Walkerma 18:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)