Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 13

This is the archive of discussions at Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team from Sep/Oct 2006. Please don't add to discussions here.

Next release version

Martin, aka Walkerma, set up a page similar to the 0.5 nominations to start nominations for the next release version. Sorry, but I suspended that.

I think we ought to evaluate, see what we've learned and discuss things first.

A few things I've seen:

1. Some people get upset when their nomination is not approved.
2. The current set of 0.5 articles is not very balanced.
3. The standards are somewhat vague, which has good and bad points.

Here is my idea of a general plan for the next version:

1. At least generally require only one approval, similar to 0.5.
2. Keep a page for disputes.
3. The release would have two sections, a "cyclopedia" and a "showcase."
   1. FAs would be included in the showcase unless there is a compelling reason otherwise, that including the article would embarrass us. In other words, I think it's unlikely that we'd exclude any.
   2. Use importance as the main criteria for the cyclopedia. Work fromWikipedia:Core topics - 1,000, Wikipedia:Vital articles or something similar, which would form the list of automatic nominations. Of course, those lists can be improved anytime.
      1. The list could be handled somewhat like the FA Review page has been handled for 0.5. But the articles whose quality is not up to par need not be removed from the list, but just noted, hopefully to encourage people to work on them. Maurreen 18:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I was wrote the post below, and posted it before seeing this. It sounds like we are pretty much in agreement on everything! Great! I hope we can improve the balance at 0.5 during this month, though it won't be fixed by Sept 30. Walkerma 15:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Version 0.5 Nominations now closed, what's next?

Since we are now definitely past August 31 in all time zones, I closed nominations for Version 0.5. Articles already nominated but not yet reviewed should be reviewed during September (please help!). Since we already have dozens of solicitations out there for nominations, I have created a generic page for nominations here, so that people have somewhere to place their suggestions for the time being until we decide what version comes next. When we agree on the next release we can copy and paste this page over, and have the page disabled by ready to use for the version AFTER that when it's needed again.

As I mentioned above, my life is about to get very busy, so I won't be able to take the lead on the next Release Version, but I will still be able to help out with reviews etc.

• Should we have another version?

I'd say that now the train is moving, we don't want to stop it or we may never get it going again! Walkerma 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• What version should come next?

I'd suggest Version 0.7, and aim for a close of nominations in January 2007. Focus on importance, make sure we have all the VAs, any core topics/supplement/core biographies that missed 0.5, etc. Roll over all of Version 0.5, and try for about 3000 articles total. Walkerma 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Should we use the same system next time as for V0.5?

For test (pre-1.0) versions I'd say yes, in general, but try to nominated groups of articles, and use the FA review page as a model - that seemed to be more productive. Walkerma 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• What about for Release Version 1.0 itself, our first major release?

For Version 1.0 itself, I'd like to propose a radical change - use the WikiProject assessments to automatically include articles. We now have over 70,000 articles assessed - almost 50,000 in the last month alone - let's use those data! If we decide criteria carefully, after ranking WikiProjects in terms of levels of priority/importance for WP1.0, we can simply include ALL articles from certain categories quality/importance. We should use stable versions only where these are available (this will probably come on line later this year). We MUST have a system that can scale to tens of thousands of articles, and I think an approach like this is needed - we can't realistically review 30,000 articles ourselves (and anyway, the WikiProject assessments are by subject experts). We will have to do some "reality checks" - some projects tend to be more lenient with the grading than others - but I think we will have to move in that direction. Walkerma 18:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Who will coordinate Version 0.7?

YOUR NAME HERE?

Eyu100 04:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (possibly)

Any other thoughts or suggestions? We can also discuss some of these issues on IRC tonight or on Sunday (see details further up this page), and we can schedule more IRC discussions as needed for weekends after that. Walkerma 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Future versions, editions, continued

OK, it seems like Martin and I agree in general principle on the procedures for the next edition.

As to when to start that -- I think we should hold off until at least we have few nominations left to check. Otherwise it would diffuse energy, take away time from 0.5. For example, there are more than 100 nominations at the main 0.5 nomination page that have not been reviewed.

As to 1.0, I'd prefer that we figure that out at least after we are done with 0.5. For one thing, that would give us more opportunity to learn from the experience of 0.5. Maurreen 17:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Next IRC meeting on Sunday

We will be holding another IRC meeting on Sunday September 10th at 4pm EST, 20:00 UTC, on #wikipedia-static. Please sign up here if you plan to attend, and suggest any agenda items you would like to cover.

Attendees

1. Walkerma 21:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC) I must apologise - I may have to leave after an hour, but hopefully we can cover most of the agenda in an hour.
2. NCurse _work 21:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC) (Probably)

1. Maybe next time. I unfortunately can't be there. NCurse _work 18:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

1. Titoxd^(?!?) 05:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC) (still uncertain, depends on RL busy-ness)
2. Kirill Lokshin 16:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
3. Dna-Dennis ^{talk - contribs} 16:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
4. Kelson 11:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
5. Jleybov 18:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
6. Maurreen 16:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggested agenda items

1. Progress on a publisher for Version 0.5 (if any) Walkerma
2. "Front-end" software - any new ideas? Walkerma
3. What should come after version 0.5? (Other views besides mine!) Walkerma

Non-article featured content

How does a "featured list" get recorded, e.g., Timeline of discovery of solar system planets and their natural satellites? Rfrisbie^talk 20:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen those tagged as FA-Class before, but I don't know if that's general practice throughout. Kirill Lokshin 20:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally I tag an FL as FA-class, and anything else as NA, just because it's hard for a generalist to assess quality & completeness of a list like List of rivers by length. However, lists and the like are often extremely valuable as navigation tools and IMHO we need to make sure all relevant ones are included in offline releases. For all set nominations I have always nominated the appropriate list, too. For that purpose the quality (FL or not FL) is less important in an offline release than relevance - for example, the list of rivers is extremely relevant to help find the rivers we have listed (if these are approved). Walkerma 20:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

You can tag portals and images as FA, as pages don't get picked up by the bot anyways if they're not in the main namespace. (We use that in WP:WPTC.) Titoxd^(?!?) 03:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering

Why do we need it on a CD/DVD if we already have it on the internet? And would if someone accidentally puts an srticle with false information on the disc, and some kid uses it for a school project? My guess is that you guys would get sued. Sorry, I'm just not that sure it will sell good. XD375 12:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The German DVD proved to be popular, and we have every reason to believe that other languages will turn out the same. Not everyone in the world has a high-speed internet connection on their laps 24 hours a day. Much of the world doesn't even have electricity! As for false info: (a) We expect it to have much less of this than the online version, as every article has been at least looked at and (b) We will of course have necessary disclaimers, and I don't foresee litigation over high school projects (or Britannica would be bankrupt by now!). As long as the kid cites his/her source, they should be OK, and so should we. There have been zero lawsuits since the first DVD came out in Germany in 2004. Walkerma 15:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

To which I will add: a CD/DVD is much harder to vandalize. Many people who do not want their kids going anywhere near most of the Internet, Wikipedia included, would have no problem with giving them access to certain large bodies of our content on a CD/DVD. - Jmabel | Talk 00:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Next meeting

There will be another IRC meeting on Saturday September 30th at 3pm PDT (UTC-7) on #wikipedia-static. Please sign up here if you plan to attend, and suggest any agenda items you would like to cover.

Attendees

Eyu100 04:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC) (possibly, not sure)

Walkerma 15:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC) (maybe only part time, depending on family commitments)

Topics

1. Tasks remaining before Version 0.5 can be published.
2. Thoughts on Version 0.7 or whatever comes next.

Interesting link

For history versioning, something that can be really useful is this tool. It gives a statistical overview of an article's history, which may be useful, instead of providing the full editing history of an included article. Titoxd^(?!?) 02:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks excellent! Better than the list you get from "cite this article" and much more convenient! Thanks, Walkerma 03:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So what is Wikipedia all about, anyway?

Hi, I am not a member, just dropped by to ask a question. I see from the Wikipedia:Signpost that your group has examined 100,000 Wikipedia articles. Were they randomly chosen? If so (or even if not), do you happen to have kept any count by subject area? E.g. how many are on science topics, history topics, bands, schools, localities, businesses? Even better would be a table correlating ratings with topics.---CH 02:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The main index (in particular, the "statistics" pages linked there) give a breakdown by each participating WikiProject, which should be suitable for rough estimates by corresponding subject area. Hope that helps! Kirill Lokshin 02:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The Signpost piece is slightly misleading - the team itself didn't assess 100k articles (or we'd be very tired by this point!), we merely coordinated the assessment by WikiProjects. I wouldn't know how to assess the quality of an article on some aspect of The KLF but a member of the project will. The topics assessed so far depend on which projects have signed up - for example Chemistry has signed up, but the Dance WikiProject has not - but we hope in time to see nearly all projects participating, with articles from all corners of Wikipedia represented. Oh, and we're now up to 130k articles! Walkerma 15:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Size of CD / DVD

Folks, I had some time to put together a method for producing an HTML tree of these articles. I have made a page at User:Wikiwizzy/CDTools that describes it. Some assembly required, and too many hardcoded paths in the scripts..

This would enable other people to create CDs of specialised content, like military history or mathematics, and update the CD from recent XML dumps. I have no method for selective excising of sections yet, that BozMo needs for his CD.

Wizzy…☎ 21:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

is there going to be a way to click on something that leads to the live version for an updated look/edit? JoeSmack ^Talk(p-review!) 22:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Not currently. Will see what it takes. Wizzy…☎

Thanks Wizzy! We really need people like you who can handle this sort of thing, I'm clueless I'm afraid! We will need to submit Version 0.5 to this process in about a month or so, can we borrow your scripts? Are some of your scripts the same as BozMo's? Is the tree the same as his? If not, where does it differ? Some comments:

You may certainly use my scripts. I asked BozMo for his scripts a while back, but he said they were not freely distributable. Mine are. Wizzy…☎

1. Do we have to remove references, inline or otherwise? I would have thought we would want to keep all that information. I'd say we would want them for Version 0.5, certainly. By all means remove external links and inter-language links.

   I will leave the refs in. Wizzy…☎

2. I'd suggest removing any cleanup and "Citation Needed" tags as unhelpful - you can't clean up static content! Neutrality and related tags are more debatable, I could go either way with those.
3. I'd like to see us run an anti-vandal bot on the articles to screen out bad language, "David is gay" and other erudite comments. No need to write a separate script IMHO, there are already bots out there that have been honed for this purpose.
4. I'd like to see us incorporate metadata on articles if this is possible; Version 0.5 that might only involve the assessment (eg to say that an article is FA standard, or only a Start-Class). This is included in the same talk page template that generates the Version 0.5 list, categories such as Category:FA-Class Version 0.5 articles. If this is impossible, we can manage without it.

   Currently the XML dumps I download do not include discussion pages. My goal is to make all this completely automatic - there is no way I am hand-editing any of this stuff. Wizzy…☎

5. In terms of organization, all Version 0.5 articles are organized into 11 top-level categories (the Misc category is very small though), as listed at {{V0.5}}. These also get generated by the talk-page template into categories like Category:Natural sciences Version 0.5 articles. Can the script manage that?

   If it is accessible from the main XML dump, particularly categories, it can be done. Wizzy…☎

6. The last point highlights another issue we face - organisation of content. That means redirects, lists, etc. That may be separate from the tree, but if you know of scripts that can (for example) find all the redirects to a given article and adds them to the listing, that could be very useful.

   Not yet. Wizzy…☎

7. Should we have an IRC discussion (Sunday 22nd?) with Wizzy, BozMo, Walkerma, and others who want to join in? Polimerik from pl might give us some insights and share some of the Polish scripts.
8. You should probably raise this at m:Talk:Special projects subcommittees/Static content as well. Don't be concerned that no one responds immediately (they won't), I'll try and solicit comments when I can via emails and foreign language user talk pages.

I must say I was very pleased to see your posting. Many thanks, Walkerma 05:09, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Great!

1. The front page should be our Version 0.5 main page.
2. References should stay in the articles (maybe the most important part of the project)
3. Templates shouldn't stay as they're linking to articles which don't exist in our Version.
4. Pictures really should stay...

NCurse _work 05:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Something that would help me greatly would be a mailed hard drive with all XML dumps and pictures from a particular date. It is impossible for me (in South Africa) to get these in a reasonable time, and I pay for bandwidth. I will pay for the disk.. Wizzy…☎ 10:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you need an actual hard drive, or would a DVD of the articles suffice? Walkerma 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A DVD would be fine. However, the picture dump runs about 100Gig these days - well beyond a DVD. I have the article dump from August - 1.3Gig - I just need a matching picture dump. If you send a newer picture dump, it would be great to send the corresponding article dump. If you cut down the picture dump to our article list, you have done most of the work for 0.5 already :-) These things are big. Wizzy…☎ 12:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is always Blu-Ray, but not many people even have a blu-ray player... Nominaladversary 12:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Search

The categories mentioned on the Version 0.5 main page are not main Wikipedia categories, and thus will need hand-sorting. What it really needs is a search. I have been looking at ksearch-client-side, a javascript search engine that runs in the browser. It is a javascript program that holds the search db itself - one-line summaries of the articles, and an inverted tree matching words back to articles. With some tweaking (cutting all articles to 3K, so it searches the lead paragraph only) I have reduced the javascript to a 'mere' 4Meg - still a bit big, but search is great.. It works fine in Opera, but Firefox only searches text up into the Ls - nothing later in the alphabet. It stops on the word length - if I move it earlier, it still stops there, if I rename or delete it everything works.. weird..

A search capability would definitely be a great help. I had assumed that we could lift the search from Wikipedia (or a dumbed-down version of it) and use it offline - but you seem to imply this is not the case. Can you confirm this? Walkerma 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The search in wikipedia relies on a webserver and a database, neither of which is present on a CD/DVD. Basically, it needs a computer. The only computer around is the one running the browser, and the only language we can use is javascript. ksearch-client-side does what we need, quite well, actually. The only downside is its memory requirements - I have it down to 2.8 Meg.

If you want to try out this search on BozMo's CD, follow instructions at User:Wikiwizzy/CDTools. Wizzy…☎ 19:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What is a tgz file? I've never heard of that, and my computer can't seem to unpack it. Is it possible to put it up uncompressed, or would that take ages on your line? Walkerma 19:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ungzipped. See ftp://ftp.wizzy.com/pub/wizzy/CDTools/ Wizzy…☎ 00:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work here, but it seems I need a UNIX machine to run a tar file, don't I? My Windows XP machine doesn't know what to do with it! Any suggestions? Thanks, Walkerma 03:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Winzip will read tar files (and tgz files). Wizzy…☎ 07:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories

The categories on the 0.5 page were someone's experiment, we will be using the 10 categories mentioned above (currently 10 + misc, though I hope misc can be disposed of for the release), the noms page is closer to what we will end up with. Almost every article in V0.5 carries one of the ten categories in its tag, that was done deliberately so we don't need to hand sort. For WPCD2 I notice they have started adding some categories like this, though many articles still have the basic tag. Walkerma 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I see your categories now -

{ category Miscellaneous | Arts | Langlit | Philrelig | Everydaylife | Socsci | Geography | History | Engtech | Math | Natsci }

And the (very important) Uncategorized category. Still a lot of work to be done there. FYI - my current 4000+ list of articles have these categories on the Main article page (not Talk:) - sorted by frequency:-

144| Category:Living people
105| Category:Chemical elements
 60| Category:Wildlife of Africa
 58| Category:Demographics by country
 54| Category:Coastal cities
 52| Category:African Union member states
 50| Category:Island nations
 41| Category:Landlocked countries
 40| Category:Capitals in Africa
 39| Category:Presidents of the United States
 38| Category:English-speaking countries
 35| Category:Transition metals
 35| Category:Monarchies
 31| Category:Metropolis
 30| Category:Atlantic hurricanes
 29| Category:Fellows of the Royal Society
 26| Category:Freemasons
 25| Category:Cretaceous dinosaurs
 24| Category:Spanish-speaking countries
 22| Category:Herbs
 22| Category:Republics
 22| Category:Members of the Commonwealth of Nations
 22| Category:Autodidacts

Well, I am glad Africa is listed so prominently :-) (Not sure why some of these are red-linked ?) Wizzy…☎ 11:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Monarchies should be Category:Monarchy but I don't know for Category:Metropolis though. Lincher 02:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Further investigation leads me to believe these are recently deleted categories. My dump is from 18 May 2006. Wizzy…☎ 08:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

Pictures - yes, it definitely needs these. Some quick math - User:BozMo/wpcd2 has about 4000 articles. They occupy 140Meg uncompressed. That leaves about 500Meg on the CD. That means each article has about 120 bytes (yes, bytes) of pictures :-( My experimentation finds that even a thumbnail needs about 20K. Seems some major selection needs to be done, or ... ??

I think 500,000 kB / 4000 articles means 120 kB per article, so it's not as bad as you say, it's about 6 picture thumbnails per article. But many of the articles on the CD are well-developed articles (B-Class or above) so they will tend to have a lot of pictures, and you may still have to chop things down a bit. User:Polimerek from Polish Wikipedia told me that for their DVD release (also coming out this fall) they plan to (a) remove articles with dubious copyright, (b) strip out all galleries and (c) just keep the first three pictures from each article. For WPCD2 you would be doing (a) first anyway, then (b) if you need to, and only go further as the need arises. Bear in mind the Poles have 250,000 articles to process so everything has to be automated - but in (for example) Bangalore you would remove the modern map of the city, which I would want to keep in. I suspect that just removing fair use images and compressing the rest to thumbnails may be sufficient for WPCD, and is almost certainly enough for Version 0.5. Walkerma 17:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Working from an old picture archive I have from last year, I have 3034 pictures out of the 18529 total needed. I have put a request for the others here. That is about 1/6th of the ones necessary. I work through the HTML, where the <div> enclosure indicates the required picture size. I use the unix convert command to resize the pictures, and edit the HTML to reference that picture (all automated). Pictures so far occupy 87Meg, at default compression, indicating that when I have all the other pictures it will be under 500Meg. It is looking great! Wizzy…☎ 16:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Bot stuff

Does anyone have any insight what is going on around "Obotrites" and "Rukai people" in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Ethnic_groups_articles_by_quality&oldid=82766804 this bot-generated page]? We're just starting on this stuff in Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic Groups. - Jmabel | Talk 07:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-article class parameters

Can anyone advise on how the non-article class parameters are supposed to work for the purposes of these combined WikiProject/assesment banners being placed on non-article talk pages? I have seen these banners placed on talk pages for relevant categories and template using class=NA, class=template, class=category, and so on. But the approach doesn't seem completely consistent.

An example is Category:Template-Class_film_articles where the Film WikiProject has grouped templates that have been "rated" template-class. This imprecise wording is avoided if the "NA wording" is used to say that the template is a template and doesn't need rating. Some template have been set up to do this, but I can't find any examples at the moment. Can anyone remind me where they are, or how to tweak the wording?

Going back to the film non-article parameters. The blurb on Category:Film_articles_by_quality shows that the system has been extended to include other classes such as List, Category and Disambig (I haven't found anyone yet using a "redirect" class to organise redirects, though see Category:Middle-earth redirects). I assume, that like the NA classification, these "non-article" classifications don't appear in the film quality statistics page and other stats pages, which I believe are maintained by a bot. I can understand why it doesn't include them directly, but what is the best way to generate statistics based on these non-article parameters such as NA, category, and template?

An alternative approach is seen at WikiProject Middle-earth, where Template:ME-project is used on article talk pages, Template:ME-category is used on category talk pages, and Template:ME-template is used on template pages.

Is there any reason to prefer putting all the parameters inside one template (as in the Film WikiProject), or to use separate banners (the Middle-earth WikiProject)? I prefer the latter approach, but was wondering if the assessment statistcs approach could be adapted to include stats on the number of templates, categories and other non-article pages? Carcharoth 11:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Another approach is the one I have started at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Middle-earth/Assessment#Page_types, where I am proposing a separate set of "page type" parameters and a separate line in the banner on which to display this parameter. Would this be helpful? Part of the reason for this is that it would be helpful to be able to assess some lists (currently, people tend to mix a "list" parameter into the rating scale), and in some cases to assess some of the larger templates (though this is not essential). Carcharoth 15:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't really answer this, but I've copied it in its entirety over to Wikipedia_talk:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index#Non-article_class_parameters. We tend to discuss template/bot technical issues on that page, and it gets a lot of knowledgable people passing through. Walkerma 05:28, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Carcharoth 10:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Opening up nominations for the next version?

Should we open up Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations? This page was designed to be a "rolling" page that would be perhaps Version 0.7 at first, then become perhaps Version 0.8, and so on. I think we should open it up because:

• Version 0.5 closed its nominations almost two months ago, and reviewing is getting close to complete.
• I think we are gearing up to start work on the next release anyway.
• These general nomination pages don't get that many nominations, so I don't see us getting too many coming in while we finish off Version 0.5. If we're not working on countries or FAs, we can clear any backlog in a couple of days, I think.
• Two or three people have already tried to nominate.

Do others agree with us opening this up now? Walkerma 05:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd be wary of opening it until we actually are close to finishing v0.5. For example, there may be issues with the nomination process that we haven't observed, and that we may notice when a publisher points them out to us; also, opening the page after an actual release would bring in extra reviewers. By the way, how is work going on the publishing aspect of the release? I haven't beem as active on Wikipedia as I would like to be, so there may be things I missed and don't know about... Titoxd^(?!?) 06:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been kept pretty busy with work, I have a pile of 60 lab reports next to me right now! That means all of my wiki-time has been spent on finishing off the reviewing, no time to chase publishers. We are getting close to finishing, but there are still >100 articles to review. We all do what we can! Cheers, Walkerma 05:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Progress

This section should be updated every once in a while. Don't post new bullets; just modify these and sign your name.

Progress:

• General nominations have been reviewed (100% done) Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 02:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Global cities are complete (100% done) Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 02:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• FA Review is not quite complete (80% done) Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 02:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Country review is now complete. Walkerma 06:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Biography Review (Core 200 biographies) is now complete. Walkerma 06:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Core topics review is now complete. Walkerma 19:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Version 0.5 Nominations/Missing articles: Reviewing is now complete. Walkerma 20:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
• Add more here Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 02:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 02:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 14:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)