Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Archive 9

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

Overall strategy

Walkerma and I chatted on the phone today, and we have agreement between us on a general plan. (Martin, please feel free to correct or expand on this.)

We envision essentially parallel tracks going to the same place. Mainly this includes:

1. He plans to set up 0.5 qualifying, as oulined under Plan A, in the major stages section above.
2. Simultaneously, I'll work on 1.0 qualifying, roughly as outlined at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Qualifying. The name will be changed to "Version 1.0 Qualifying". And any entries that qualify for 0.5 will automatically be eligible for nomination for 1.0 (they're eligible for nomination but don't automatically qualify).
3. We are interested in some coordination with BozMo's work. For example, possibly his current release could become the official WP school version. Maurreen 20:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Question: Any articles passed through on WP1.0 Qualifying qualify automatically for WP0.5? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, 1.0 is expected to have higher standards than 0.5.

Some other points we discussed

1. We agreed that "Importance of topic" is the main factor in determining if something is in or out, at least initially when we have a small number of articles. However, the quality of the article would also be a factor, so in each case we will decide by weighing up these two things.
2. Articles would be nominated for the 0.5 or 1.0 release, then approved or not based mainly on those two criteria.
3. We will use Core Topics as a core of materials, then with WikiProjects and others "feeding" us with non-core articles via the RVQ nominations and WVWP tables. Then we use WP:VA to look at our coverage to see where we lack articles, and try to fill in the gaps. We can perhaps develop trees based on core topics, VA and the "Importance" levels provided from the WikiProjects to ensure we cover all of the most needed articles first.
4. For V0.5, I propose to automatically qualify any A-Class and FA-Class articles that meet the "importance" criterion, and to automatically nominate any "important" B-Class articles. Thus we can check the bot's log each day for any new B-Class and nominate them.
5. Personally, I'd like to propose release WP:0.5 in early fall.

What do others think? Does this sound like a viable strategy for getting things done? Walkerma 00:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Names

Walkerma brought up at a related discussion the name for the overall project might need updating at some point. Now that he mentions it, a few names might need tweaking.

For starters, whether now or later, we might change the name of the overall project from "Version 1.0 Editorial Team" to Release Version 1.0 Editorial Team". Or someone might have a better idea.

Also, just a thought, but maybe "Test Version foobar" might be better than "Version 0.5 foobar." I don't feel strongly, but then if there is more than one test version, you won't need to rename pages or make new pages. Maurreen 17:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing entries

We might also set up a page for entries that have passed o.5 or 1.0 to be removed. This should be rare, but it might be needed in case anyone finds factual errors. Maurreen 17:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Mailing list post

I made a post to the Foundation's mailing list, which you can see here. I'd certainly appreciate if someone with more knowledge than I have would answer some of the questions from the board's members, as there have been some already. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 21:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

All I saw on the archive was a question about technical stuff, which is out of my realm.

As an aside, I don't understand the purpose of mailing lists to talk about wikis. Maurreen 03:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Category sections for Version 0.5

I'm trying to put together the main V0.5 listing page HERE, and I'm basing it somewhat on the GA listing page. I really like this because of the way only the section headers show. In WP:FA they only have 1000 or so articles to deal with, but for V0.5 I would like to prepare for more than that if necessary (hey, I'm an optimist!). Originally I was planning on using our ten top level categories (which I like), but it's awfully tempting just to copy over the GA headings. There are far more of these (28), but of course that means you get straight to a narrower category (for example, we have literature & language together, at GA they have them separate). The format used at GA allows them to do that while still keeping everything in one screen. Within these 28 sections they have further subdivisions. The advantages of using the GA sections are as I see it:

• Much greater harmony between GA and V0.5
• More precise categories

but the disadvantage may be that in other contexts (e.g. in categories, assessment tables, etc) we may prefer the top ten. I'd appreciate some guidance here - does anyone have any for me? Thanks, Walkerma 03:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

We can have more than one subdivision for each top-level category. For example, Lang & Lit can be split into #Language and #Literature. While consistency with other projects is nice, consistency within the project is more important, IMO. While the categories don't have to be copied right over, the format they use, (hiding unwanted sections) is easy to implement, so I can do that if you want me to. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly about either. It seems like Tito has in mind combining the two systems, which could be good.

At the 1.0 listing page, I generally have in mind to use an "organic tree" -- that is, not to create any category until until there is a need for it. Maurreen 03:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I think we should try Tito's excellent suggestion, though I probably won't do more tonight as I still have to write a homework for my advanced organic chem students - not a trivial task! I think the GA cats evolved in the way you describe, Maurreen. Thanks for your prompt assistance, Walkerma 03:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I played around with your subpage a bit. Tell me what you think (I still need to make a few things pretty, though...) Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you guys are ahead of me or I missed this, but I think it would be good to be able to jump to any given category (at least the main ones). Maurreen 04:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that might be a nice way to do it, Tito, thank you! Maurreen, can you explain? I'm seeing all 10 and 28 categories up there - as long as you scroll down (currently the template is forcing this). Do you like this format, Maurreen? Thanks, Walkerma 05:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with it.

I'm not sure whether my browser is a problem or I'm just not clear. At WP:FA, I can see the list of categories relatively high on the page. Then I can click on my desired category and don't need to scroll further.

But it's not a big deal either way. Maurreen 05:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't finished it making it pretty, but I have a similar, prettier idea at my sandbox (look at Arts, for now). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's nicer! I think I like the purple bars going across, though (not seen in arts, but is in the others), it helps the main cat to stand out, and I prefer it to the H1 headers. Although I'm not a fan of WP:FA, I can see Maurreen's point - with the GA format each category takes up a whole line, so if you want to look at science you have to scroll down quite a way. I wonder if there's some way of giving the "top ten" levels a whole line, but fitting several of the smaller cats into each line? It's probably not worth spending a long time on, but if it's simple it might be an idea. Once again, thanks! Walkerma 06:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, with a dirty admin trick, my sandbox is now visible at your subpage, which I had to do anyway for GFDL purposes. I can probably cook up a custom table of contents to make things easier. Do you like how it looks now? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Other than the white Arts header box, I think it's fine, thank you. We're gradually making progress! Have a good night, Walkerma 06:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Argh... it shows up well in FireFox, but it does show up transparent in MSIE. I'll try to see if I can get help on this one. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Custom TOC done. Does that one help? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the template

I think our main navigation template is getting unwieldy. Maybe something smaller should be used, at least for the pages we're setting up for our new projects. I'm leaning toward the smaller, the better, but I'm flexible. Maurreen 05:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree, but I'm leaning towards having an alternate template that goes on the bottom of the page. We can keep the current navbox for pages where it works, but in other cases like the new V0.5 and V1.0 pages use a new "bottom of page" style. Do you think that would be OK? I do like being able to go to any other part of WP1.0 with one click. Walkerma 06:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That has potential. It could be good as more horizontal than vertical. Maurreen 17:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia update

I think wikipedia should be released as a program that updates when from the internet obviously so that article content is kept up to date by the addition of further material when it is in an apprpriate form, peer reviewed etc. Supposed 17:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be an ideal situation. I think early releases will have to be static files, but we should definitely talk to the Wikimedia folks to design something like that. Thanks, Walkerma 18:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Which brings the hard question to the front: how exactly are we going to release the version? Who is going to publish it? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 22:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a strong feeling there are people waiting in the wings who will appear when the time is right for publishing. For example, see Sj's comment here last year. I do think we will need to set up a sub-project to organise this, and this should probably be done once WP:V0.5 is filling up with approved articles. At that point people will see that we have a product ready, and I have a feeling that a lot of "inactive" participants from this team will become active - those people would probably be the ones organising or at least helping with the publication. I realise a lot of this is speculation on my part, but it's based on my sense of how this project works. If I'm wrong, though, I think Bozmo can help (he did the children's charity CD earlier this year) and the German WP1.0 folks can advise too - they even have a print version coming out of the WHOLE of German Wikipedia, stubs n'all! So let's get a product close to ready, and I bet the publication will work itself out fairly easily. The "update" idea will require a lot more work, though. Walkerma 01:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit afraid that not being completely sure about the specifics might deter a few users from submitting and improving articles for 0.5, as they'll believe that nothing has been done behind the scenes, so they have time to make things later. You know how students and assignments work... :P At the same time, Sj is a part of the Special Projects Committee, and approaching the Foundation and Wikimedia Deutsche for info about the specifics behind their release would give that subproject an added boost. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 01:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

You may be right to some extent, but my experience here at WP1.0 is that if you start getting things done, other folks see that things are being done and are more willing to contribute. (Conversely, if you do nothing, they do nothing too!) I wasn't aware of that committee at all (it seems to be quite new)! Maybe we should formally approach them? I suspect User:David_Gerard would be a good PR person too (look at the right hand side of his user page - he's very interested in WP1.0). If nothing firm appears by August, I have submitted an abstract to present on WP1.0 at Wikimania in August (organised by the aforementioned Sj), and if approved I can hopefully network with the right people there to set something up. I sincerely hope, though, that I can say in my Wikimania talk (if it happens), "We have these 3000 articles approved for publication, and the XXX project is organising publication, while the YYY people are going to do marketing, ready for us to release WP:V0.5 in October 2006." I can hope, can't I? Walkerma 02:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know. The german print version of the WP is dead. The selling price of this version would have been as expensive as the Encyclopedia Britanica and would need more than one metre wood. So the help by the community was realy low and the company stoped the project. Even the work on the WikiPress-Books is low. (same company) Maybe they lost their interest in publishing our stuff or they make a break because of the summer holiday or the football-WM. --80.135.68.44 10:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Busy

Hi, I'm irregular lately because extra stuff is going on at work. Hope you're all doing well. Maurreen 20:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A relevant proposal

An idea which you will probably be interested in: Wikipedia:Static version. Essentially what is being proposed is that articles deemed complete, whether by going through the FA process or some other way, should be copied to a static version. Updates from the live version would then be applied at intervals. The proposal aims to eliminate the problem that many high quality articles are observed to deteriorate over time. Your comments on the idea would be most welcome. Worldtraveller 00:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

We are always interested in proposals of this type, if they can become established. You'll notice on lists such as this one that the bot we are using is set to save the version it found on the day the assessment was done - for the same reason. One difference between this and WP:STABLE is apparently that the person reading an article would see the static version rather than the highly editable version, perhaps on another domain name altogether. I'm not sure I like that disconnect. My preference is to have a parallel namespace of validated articles, checked by a panel of subject experts, but to leave the main namespace article open to editing. This is roughly similar to TidyCat's proposal. The idea here is that the user can simply click on a tab to go between "Validated" namespace (to be created) and "Article" namespace. Walkerma 04:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the idea is definitely that the 'static' version would be the default version to display. I really think this could make things a lot more productive - casual vandals could still find the live version, I'm sure, but their changes would no longer be visible to readers. I am sure, if this idea came to fruition, that there would be an 'edit' button on the static version, saying something like 'work on next update', and equally a link on the live version to the current static version, but the more I've thought about it, the more I'm convinced that the clearer the demarcation between 'development' and 'finished' articles, the more reliable and authoritative the finished articles can be seen to be. Whether the URL is of the form stable.wikipedia.org/article, en.wikipedia.org/stable/article, or en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable:article, I feel that the separation needs to be made, and that it would retain all the benefits of a wiki while mitigating many of the disadvantages. Worldtraveller 08:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)