We would like to publish Wikipedia's best articles. To create a CD or DVD with our best works. Now we're making a Version 0.5 where we can find out our faults, the hardest parts of the nomination procedures in order to get ready for Version 1.0 which could be released on CD. Let's join! :) NCursework20:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Maybe on CD. But our goal is to creat a stable version of the best works. It is not defined exactly, where to publish. NCursework21:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Finding a publisher for V0.5 won't be hard, it will just be a single CD containing the most important quality articles on Wikipedia. The Germans found that their DVD release went straight to #1 last year on amazon.de, so I think publishers will be glad to work with us! A test CD has already been released in English by a kids' charity, and they are advising us here. As for the longer term, a new Static content subcommittee is being assembled at Meta right now, in order to help organise these things across different language groups. Walkerma05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Just out of interest, isn't a hard and therefore uneditable version of Wikipedia an idea that runs counter to the philosophy of Wikipedia? The free encyclopedia anyone can add to?124.178.83.12009:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
A central part of the philosophy of Wikipedia is to disseminate knowledge to the world - not just people with a broadband internet connection. This CD (which is going to be manufactured in the next few days, by the way), and those that follow, will give help a lot more people have access to Wikipedia, many people who couldn't otherwise be reached. These are just snapshots of the online Wikipedia - and they don't interfere in any way with people being able to edit the online version. Free access to knowledge is the main purpose here, and the wiki is just a means to that end. Walkerma15:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I was going to ask exactly the same question as Josh Rocchio... Maybe this question should be answered in this article? :) --ZeroOne01:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We have a miscellaneous category on the talk page. I passed the article Space exploration, and I couldn't find a place to put it. I put it under engineering. Should there be a separate miscellaneous section?
The misc section on nominations is mainly needed because many people nominating will not be familiar with the layout - but the people assigning sections at V0.5 are reviewers who are more familiar with things. I think you made the right choice for now, but at some point we should probably create an appropriate section for space-related articles like that. One trick - if it's a GA, see where it is located there. Since we stole our layout from them, you should be able to put it in the same place! Thanks, Walkerma03:50, 20 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I noticed that an error in the template {{0.5 set nom}} was causing the bot to consider each set nominee to be already passed. This has inflated our statistics temporarily. I think I have fixed the problem, but that means our numbers may be down temporarily. However, once we start passing some of these the numbers will bounce back - there are over 50 articles listed in the European Countries listing. Please try to nominate and review at the V0.5 Set Nominations page to help this process along - the Euro countries have been up for two days with no comments from our review team so far! I am considering the Continents passed. Walkerma03:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion
Well, I would quite like to dispute the quality of an article which has already been selected, The Giver, if I could figger out where and how. It's a FA, but I've just put it on WP:FAR for review.[1]Bishonen | talk18:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC).Reply
Mmm, why not let the FAR run its course first, rather than spreading discussion on the article's qualities (or lack thereof) over multiple pages? Kirill Lokshin18:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, Kirill Lokshin, I wasn't trying to spread the discussion, that's why I didn't mention what problems I see with The Giver. Bringing it here after the FAR is what I had in mind. It does seem like it would be convenient to have a disputes page for things like that. Meanwhile, perhaps people who frequent this page here might like to join in over at FAR, since the article is one of "yours"? Bishonen | talk20:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC).Reply
A disputes page is much needed, can someone set one up? I'm pretty busy right now, and I also still need to set up the Core Topics review page I promised? Thanks, Walkerma04:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
Following on from discussions here, I would like to propose a realignment period during September (and October if consensus is that we need it). Here are some of the points, mostly copied from before: Walkerma04:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Copied from earlier discussion, new material in italics
My original goal for the project was around 2000 articles, but that began to look unlikely, and I envisaged 1000 articles as a minimum. My secret goal for V0.5 as of July 1 was for us to reach 500 articles by month's end, and we instead made 600! Thanks to all who have helped with that! Things had slowed down, but the new FA review page has really helped people speed up the process. I think the 1000 articles is attainable, especially bearing in mind that we will keep reviewing after nominations close.
However, the new system has one down side - most articles are passing on quality rather than importance. Thus we have an article on Ann Arbor, Michigan - a notable place, but surely much less notable than many US cities we don't have such as Philadelphia, (B-Class). If we simply carry on our current track we will be quite productive, but our test release will be quite unbalanced. That isn't a disaster - we can point out that it is a test release - but I would like also to test out systems for achieving balance. Some of those systems are already in place - the new Core Topics Review page, for example, where we can assume importance is OK and we only need review for quality (in effect the reverse of the FA page). Another thing we can all do is to nominate more of the important topics - particularly sets of important topics (like capital cities in Asia, or the 30 most important chemical elements). I would like us to consider having a realignment period after August 31st, where we would focus on the question, "What still needs to be in V0.5?" We can perhaps set up a list - sort of "Vital articles plus" and work through that list. We aim to edit/review that by September 30th, or later if it looks really long. Meanwhile we can leave the general nominations page open - we don't have a torrent of nominations! Once that realignment list is all checked off, we go to press. Thoughts? Ideas? Walkerma16:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree overall. I have been concerned about the balance of 0.5. On later releases, or editions, I would suggest using importance as the primary factor, or baseline list to work from, over quality. Maurreen16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
What do people think about this issue? Should we close nominations after August 31, as originally proposed, or keep things open? Do people have any ideas for helping us achieve more balance- VA reviews, lists of top-importance topics from top-level WikiProjects? Thanks, Walkerma04:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
There a few ways this could be done. I'm ruminating on more of a reply, but I think a large factor is how much time you want to give it, which could help decide other things. I'm guesstimating maybe 400 articles were approved in one month and 200 the second month, so it might be able to continue at the pace of 200 per month. Maurreen05:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Numbers are as follows: Began on May 25. We had 75 by Jun 1st, then another 208 added by Jul 1st and a further 334 added by Aug 1st. Qualitatively that's an initial flurry, then a slowdown, then a clear pickup in speed. If you (Maurreen) & I were to look over just the countries, that would add a lot to the total. The same would apply to the Core Topics, which have assessments to hand to make the job even easier. Personally I don't want the project to drag on past the autumn, as long as we have the countries and core topics as a bare minimum of balance. Walkerma05:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I would lean toward closing the general nominations the sooner the better, but with at least a week's notice. I'm not sure I (Maurreen) am up to giving half the countries a quality review. We might not need all the core topics. See the next section, list below.
Also, we might consider supra sections -- roughly speaking, a microcyclopedia that is balanced, plus a showcase (the stuff that is not balanced). Maurreen09:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
For the sake of efficiency and balance, we could handle coutries essentially similarly to how FAs are now being handled. That is, include them unless decided otherwise. Maurreen16:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I'm working with that assumption, and I'm hoping we can work through Country Review very quickly. When you say "quality review" do you mean "a thorough review" or "a review of quality"? If we take your last sentence as policy, "Include them unless decided otherwise" then only the latter is necessary. Indeed, we could hardly (say) countries A, B, C, D, E from a region then exclude country F because it's only Start; the review is more a quick check for us to spot any glaring problems so we have time to fix them. Based on the 70 or so countries I've looked at, all of them are B or above, and a handful have POV issues going on. Assuming all the countries are like that, I think we can race through the list. They all have a standard format which makes it easier: Intro - (Name in some) - History - Politics - Administrative divisions - Geography - Economy - Demographics - Culture - References. If those sections are all there and not written abysmally, then it's at least a B. Some countries have "no culture" (I won't list them here!) but that's the only blank section I've found. So I think we can get countries done very quickly, and that will give us a good foundation to build on. Walkerma18:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Mainly by "quality review" I meant "thorough review". But as this discussion is evolving, we're at least leaning toward essentially just making sure that we have all the country articles and that none of them will embarrass us, more or less, right? Hopefully, if any are awful, we'd be able to see it and to fix it quickly.
The initial evaluations of core topics was very cursory on my part. It took me less than five minutes on each article. Is that what you have in mind for the countries? Maurreen03:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
The missing articles you list below are EXTREMELY helpful, thank you! I will try to set up a page for them, (perhaps /Missing articles?, and I think we should consider all of these as nominated. A few of them like Dance are already on the noms list, but most are not. Many, many thanks for these lists, Walkerma18:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! I'm glad you like them. It took me a good while to do. I tried to consider the context and balance of the entries that had already been included, if that's clear at all.
Some historic figures and the like need to be added to balance the celebrities, but that was more detail than I felt up to at the time. Maurreen03:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Agriculture is not missing. It has already be approved.
I'm not sure that agriculture many agriculture subjects need to be included. It's not that I don't think it's important, but I'm trying to move this toward overall balance and keep the number of missing priorities fairly small.
Now that I think about it more, if these articles of sufficient quality, it would be even better to nominate them through the standard process. Maurreen03:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Great though both of these are, we have Queen I suggest we hold them over for nomination in V0.7 - neither are FAs or top 1000 topics, and officially nominations have closed. Walkerma04:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please comment in the above discussion at #Realignment period! I was hoping more people would comment! I'm expecting that we will close general outsiders' nomination on August 31 as planned, but once we close nominations we will keep reviewing until we are finished. We mainly need to decide what other things we need to nominate/review, and come up with a deadline for finishing the reviews. I'd like people to finish the FA reviews they signed up for by August 31 if they can so we have that out of the way. Walkerma17:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
If we would get onto it, we could finish FA reviews in some days. Anyway, we should appoint "topic-leaders" who would be responsible for a specific topic. They should list all articles that are still missing in their field in a subpage. I think this is the best way not to leave anything important article out. NCursework19:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sounds like a good suggestion! We could ask people to comment on the fields they picked for FA review, perhaps. We should use Maurreen's above list as a starting point. Once I finish with exams (one tomorrow and another Thursday, then the marking) I can set up such a page if there are no objections. Walkerma03:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
"List of European countries and all countries listed there (52 in all) are now included." Are they counted? So are they in the Total: 696? NCursework06:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Technicality: are 0.5 and 1.0 going to be processed by a bot that unlinks wikilinks to articles not included in the release? RickP06:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've always wondered about that. :) Walkerma will reply... And what about images? What about main articles in the sections? External links? NCursework07:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
I have noticed that some pages in ver 0.5 retains the phrase see this page, but it is a red link and only the red link marking is removed leaving rather meaningless phrase without a link. Usually the page can be rewitten to encluce the linked page in a sentence which makes sense. Some times there is a whole section called See also and there is a whole list of unlinked redlinks, which can be a bit irritating. Snowman10:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
We'll be using User:BozMo's scripts from the SOS CD, this removes redlinks and "See also" sections. We are also now in touch with the Polish 1.0 people, so we'll take a look at their code as well. We should probably get a group of people started on this in the next couple of weeks. Fancy helping us? Walkerma04:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why does the template show nothing as assessed for importance? If it is being done, why can't I find a link to where it is taking place so that I can help? — User:ACupOfCoffee@02:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Currently we are not using the importance template, it doesn't really help us. Also, determining importance can cause upset to some people who have their article classed as "unimportant". In practice, you can regard anything in Core Topics or any country as "Top-Importance", then after that it's up for debate - but let's not spend time debating! Cheers, Walkerma05:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Here's a concern that depends on how you organize the CD. Joan of Arc appears on your project page under military biographies. She's certainly that, yet she's also a canonized saint (and a very popular one). It's taken careful editing to balance different aspects of her fame for the article. Would it be possible to cross-reference her? If you develop a general biography heading that might be still better. Durova04:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
There are a lot of cases like this - is Benjamin Franklin a politician, a figure from history, or a prominent scientist? (He's all 3). Like with books in a library, we can only put the article in one place in our list - and it tends to go where the nominator put it. But for the CD I hope we will be able to put things in multiple categories, as in the online Wikipedia, e.g. Biographies of French people, saints, military figures. Incidentally, I have put in a request for saint nominations, but had no response so far. Thanks, Walkerma05:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Since {{V0.5}} is generally used as a secondary assessment, at best—in other words, there is almost always at least one WikiProject template with an assessment already on the talk page when the 0.5 template is added—I thought it might be neater to try and condense this template somewhat. Hence, my edit here; any comments would be very appreciated! Kirill Lokshin04:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, as the project assessments spread across Wikipedia, we don't need the prominent A-Class or whatever like we used to. I like the change, I'm a believer in keeping templates reasonably small. While we're on the subject, I blundered my way through the creation of a template called {{Chemical Element}}, now being tested at Talk:Samarium (my favourite element!). Since all the elements of significance are in Version 0.5, I proposed to the Elements WikiProject (which had no template) that I combine the two, they seemed OK with that (though only the main person there replied). You'll notice, Kirill, that the V0.5 part is even less prominent! Let me know if you see any obvious bugs, I'm a bit like The Sorcerer's Apprentice when writing templates. I wanted to test out the idea of us moving towards combined templates - I think once we have a lot of articles assessed we might be able to set up a scheme where we simply include the version # in a project template to generate our Version X.X lists. Walkerma04:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'd like to suggest that the release might have two main sections: the "cyclopedia" and a "showcase." The cyclopedia would have more balance; the showcase could be considered extra. This setup could reduce the potential for complaints that the release has x but not y. Maurreen17:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sounds good! Things are still rather fluid right now, and I expect that the two will be quite well joined, but it's a nice approach. Walkerma02:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have set up a page called Wikipedia:Version 0.5/To do, which lists the outstanding tasks. We have about four weeks to try and get through various lists - we can do most of this if each reviewer can take on about 40 articles, or 10 a week. If you review sets of similar articles together it can often go quite quickly - up to 10/hour. I don't think we'll get through every article on every list - but let's try to do what we can. The good news - after Sept 30, all reviewers can take a well-deserved break for a while. Please sign up on the new page for something, to help us through this final review stage! Thanks, Walkerma
"Geography and places"? "Unclassified Places" is pretty vague -- although nature isn't really comparable to Antarctica, the other article under that heading. -- bcasterline • talk00:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Maybe for now we just need an extra section on the page called "Miscellaneous," as there will be other core topics like this. I think our plan for the actual release was to use something similar to the categories found on the nominations page, as these match with the template categories, by which Nature would go under category=Natsci (Natural sciences) in the template. The list as it is now is based on Silence's test, which no one found time to switch back. Walkerma00:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've now created a Miscellaneous section for these types of things. It'll be small, but this isn't the first time we've had this problem. Walkerma01:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Is it just me and firefox or is FFVII listed twice?
Also,
Video games are popular pages, but they have no need here. People that end up grabbing a CD of wikipedia don't buy it for video game knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.146.146 (talk • contribs)
You're right, it got double-listed in the "recent additions", but that's not critical. I think it was chosen because we have a set of featured articles (FAs) on the Final Fantasy series, and we are trying to showcase a lot of our FAs. OK, it's not traditional encyclopedia stuff, but it may appeal to some readers. Don't worry, we're trying to cover the basic stuff as best we can, these articles could be seen as a bonus read. Walkerma01:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)Reply
As far as I understand, there is nothing in GFDL to stop someone selling copies of the CD, as long as they acknowledge Wikipedia as the source. We plan to make the Version 0.5 collection available for free download, with production/distribution on CD for more-or-less cost by a publisher; the Foundation itself is not in the business of publishing or of turning a profit. It will be made clear in the CD description that the collection is made up of a core of important topics, with an emphasis on Geography, but with perhaps 500 articles (out of the expected 1900 or so) on less important topics, used to showcase some of our FAs. Walkerma05:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Main articles of a subject (Literature: Literature, Geology and _:Geology, _)
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Right now, we put these in the miscellaneous section, but they should probably have their own section because they are very important. Also, a person looking for "Literature" would not be able to find it. There should either be a "main articles" section for each subject or an entire top-level tree containing all the other top-level trees and their main articles. Which one would work better — any thoughts? Eyu10005:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't have a problem with there being images on the assessment tags and all, but they should probably be made transparent, because they don't look very good as is. I'm not capable of working with .svg files, so I can't do it myself. --Coredesat (talk) 06:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Why aren't Demosthenes & Leonardo da Vinci in the Historical figures subsection? Also, the Food and drink section could be Goods which would be able to include such topic as shoe polish in a subsection called Household objects or something like it. Lincher21:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to make those changes, unless anyone objects. I found Leonardo very hard to place - he deserves to sit alongside painters such as Michelangelo, and also alongside scientists/inventors like Galileo. We need to be able to put him in at least three categories in version 0.5. Walkerma02:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I find the misc section a bit useless by itself. If it was as populated as the other sections then fine but it is not. I agree that LDV should be in three sections but the first thing he is known for is painting, as he started painting before everything, the rest came with it. Lincher02:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Actually, it can be very valuable as a holding place, and for that reason it should be small, and should disappear in the finished Version 0.5, though. People usually move things out as you're doing. It's 3am and you're tired, you've just reviewed 19 articles (as I did tonight), you think, "Where the heck does this go," you can stick it in Misc. Interesting your comment on LDV, I watched a program on public TV recently - he is best known for painting, but back then (roughly speaking) artist = artisan = engineer. He studied anatomy, how to build things, mathematics and painting, because those were things artists were expected to know. It seems there has been a resurgence of interest in LDV's machines, and I can even see a time when he becomes more known for that. That's all academic, though, and I'd be happy to see him under Painters or Historical Figures. Thanks a lot, Walkerma05:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I know what reviewing is all about, I lend a hand with it at GA and it is a hassle because they are all of different level. If you ever need me for help on some reviewing, just pop by my user page or send articles to review in GAC and I will gladly review them. Lincher14:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
At last it looks as if we are reaching the end of reviewing, and we have a pretty good collection of articles. Assuming that we finish Core Topics (very likely), I'd like to propose we end the reviewing process at the end of next Saturday (November 11th). If we haven't reviewed every FA and GA by then it's not a problem IMHO - we have a good core of important topics covered, and we should now start focussing on producing the final product. After our IRC discussion earlier tonight, we have a possible publisher willing to release Version 0.5, although we need to sort out details of an agreement before we can be sure. I think we need to start working on getting the articles and pictures organised and formatted properly, and running scripts for obvious vandalism, gratuitous bad language, cleanup tags etc. It would be nice to get the CD produced in time for (fairly late?) Christmas shoppers, say by the end of November, even if it is just a test! Does this seem reasonable? Walkerma04:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for not being able to go to the meeting earlier today, but I was away from my computer at the time. I think that is very reasonable, and hopefully the publisher (whoever that is!) will tell us what is needed. Titoxd(?!?)04:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Actually, we've had much more progress in the last month than we had in September! Partly thanks to you, Eyu! Still, we are almost there. I've emailed you the log and info on the publisher - we'll make the publisher info public once we have formalized the agreement. Cheers, Walkerma07:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Having noticed that Cryptography has been chosen for v 0.5 (for which I thank those involved on behalf of we in the WP crypto corner), I have finally realized it's been misclassified under the wrong heading. Cryptograpy is a branch of engineering (see cryptosystem and cryptographic engineering) not a branch of mathematics. It's methods are indeed mathematical in many respects, and its uses mathematical results (eg, in re randomness) heavily. But it is a practical enterprise, and with G H Hardy's view ringing in my head, I must suggest that it be moved to a more appropriate heading. ww09:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Thanks, folks, for all this work. The biglist I got from Eyu weighs in at 1494 articles - but I think a build script should pull directly from the category. Perhaps User:Titoxd could come up with a one-liner for us ? Regarding a reader - what would this be ? A Windows executable ? What about Mac or Linux ? I still think a javascript search is the way to go. Wizzy…☎07:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
That sounds like an out-of-date list, the total should be around 1960 articles. User:Kelson (French Wikipedia) is evaluating an offline reader for us, it includes a search capability. He should be able to let us know tomorrow how it went. See the ToDo list, please add/update that page as you make progress. Must get to lab. Thanks a lot! Walkerma17:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
The thing is, the elements are not included in this listing, nor the countries... I've added the countries, but I'm running out of time to do the elements. :( Titoxd(?!?)17:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
I am sure that you can find an astronomy icon with a better copyright than the one used with a "fair use" on this flagship page. Snowman14:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for spotting that! We are checking for this problem in articles with a script in the next few days, but might have missed that icon. I've changed it to a very basic PD icon. Thanks, Walkerma16:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
The new basic astronomy icon looks fine, to me. The icons for "Archaeology" and "Military and war" are the only two photographic icons remaining and look out of place, to me. Would it look better if all the icons were of a basic type to keep consistency throughout the page? Incidentally, I would be interested to know what PD stands for. Snowman18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry - PD is "Public Domain". I think the photos you mention are at least "icon-like" - the nuclear mushroom cloud may be photographic but it is also iconic of war, likewise the pyramids. At the same time, I agree that simple is best for such things. If you can locate better examples, please feel free to change them over - thanks! Walkerma19:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
To me, the 2 remaining photographic images seem so small it is not possible to see what they are without clicking on them. Might as well just click on a smudge. They are square and do not resemble the others and so I feel that they look out of place. I am giving small details some attention, because it is a key page that will be viewed many times. Unfortunately, at this point in time I am not sure how to seek out alternative simple public domain images on the wiki. Snowman23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
OK, I'll try to hunt something down when I get time. My main priority now is getting the sub-pages written (the ones that come off this) - these will be less seen, but at present 4-5 of them haven't been written, and the publishers need them in the next few days! Cheers, Walkerma00:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
With some html4 it would be possible to make it possible to click on the icons to go to the pages. As far as I know this is not possible in wiki mark up. Snowman11:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps the wiki could provide a few dozen (or up to one hundred) navigation icons and show an approved list of icons on a Wiki navigation icon page. These icons would be carefully selected for being universally recognizable and not too bulky for the wiki servers or the WPCD. This might establish a broader role of "click" with these approved navigation icons to improve the presentation of key main pages and many other pages. All the image descriptions and histories of these icons would be accessible from the Wiki Navigation icon page if anyone wanted to read about the history of clipart or simple icon. Can anyone advise if the wiki will have to overcome any technical issues to do this? Perhaps it is something for the next mediawiki upgrade. Although, not on the wiki as the present time, navigation icons appears to be a standard feature of many web pages now. Snowman14:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Great idea! Let's see if Tito will comment on this issue. I don't think they like people using click, though, because I think it's a sort of "cheat" on the software that may cause technical problems if widely used. I'm not very knowledgable on this stuff, though. Thanks, Walkerma15:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
The wiki page says that navigation icons give problems with Safari, in text-only browsers, and in screen readers for the disabled, and possibly other situations. This could be overcome by a page code (java script or html4) that tests the type of browser prior to rendering a page that contains a navigation icon, so that a text alternative is automatically presented in certain situations. I guess that all pages with icons on them would need this special code. After some pilot tests I think that all this could be done automatically for a list of approved wiki navigation icons. Snowman18:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Perhaps browser identification and automatic rendering would not satisfy all the rules and it is a bit complex. However, would it be easier to have some wiki approved icons that also have the text on them, or ones where the editor can write some text on them and choose an icon. The clickable area would be combined text and clipart. Perhaps a bit like a user box (various sizes to choose from), but where the entire box is clickable. Would that be acceptable? Snowman19:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry I didn't reply before, I wanted to ponder it before replying, then got distracted. But in general I think it's a great idea. Walkerma14:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've been meaning to post something on the main 1.0 team page, but I was waiting for some firm news. The serious scripts have been written, but some work still needs to be done. The most serious delay, though, is waiting for lawyers to go through contracts, etc. I'd guess some time in February, but I can't be sure - it might be next week, or it may be March. It won't be available for download until the at least after the CD is ready. The good news is that the offline reader software is basically ready - they are just cleaning up the presentation at this point - and the navigation pages were done over a week ago. Also, we have made plans for the start of seeding for BitTorrent downloads, please sign up with the Torrent project to help, they need all the seeders they can get. When I know some firm information I'll be sure to post something very soon afterwards. Walkerma04:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
All "beliefs" do not belong under "religion and beliefs"; only religious (including spiritual, mystical, supernatural, etc.) beliefs belong there. Philosophical, political, scientific, etc. beliefs do not belong in such a section. Therefore "Religion and beliefs" should clearly be simplified to "Religion". This same change was instituted in WP:FAsome time ago, but somehow this page hasn't kept up with the times. -Silence04:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
If you think they're not a part of religion, then instead of "Religion and beliefs", replace "Beliefs" with something more specific and descriptive, like "Mythology" or "Folklore". The problem isn't so much with the "Religion and X" format (though ideally, the shorter the title the better) as it is with the vagueness and inaccuracy of just using "Belief" here. -Silence15:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Why isn't there anything on rock and roll on there? Richardkselby 00:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
We have Elvis, but he's about the only representative of traditional rock and roll. If you use a wider definition, we have Springsteen, Queen, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, etc. Sure, we could use some more - could you suggest some suitable articles at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations and we'll take a look at them once Version 0.5 has come out (in a week or two?). Thanks, Walkerma04:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
All articles in Version 0.5 are automatically included in Version 0.7, and (we expect) in later releases too. Tito's new template will make that clear, and should remove any ambiguity such as you have found. Walkerma04:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I remain confusticated. Should I fiddle with the templates to say that the article is in 0.7, then? And is that the same as "Release Version"? I suppose I'm highlighting a general sense that the entire issue and process is confusing from a non-insider POV, and I'm a pretty "serious Wikipedian", so if I'm confused, I imagine newer users are totally lost with regard to this topic. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib]ツ05:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The new template should do that for you. (Part of the reason behind the new template is to get rid of the massive proliferation of WP1.0-related templates that was occurring recently.) As for the Release Version category, to be honest, I've no clue, and I've been actually working of the inside of this project... go figure. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)05:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago16 comments5 people in discussion
Assuming there are no last minute hitches, the Wikipedia:Version 0.5 CD should be going on sale on March 26 at www.wikipediaondvd.com for around 10 Euros/$US13-14 (a portion goes to the Foundation). It will also be made available for free download. It consists of 1964 articles and a set of navigation pages, with an open source (GPL) search engine, Kiwix, developed by Linterweb. We now have an ongoing collaboration with Wikimedia France, and User:Kelson wrote many of the scripts for Version 0.5. This CD will make a great birthday present for your loved one! Walkerma05:55, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
A few things. First - AWESOME! I know you guys have put your heart and souls into this project for a really long time, and finally heres the fruits of your labors! Great job! Secondly: the website is kinda broken right now, clicking around the buttons doesn't do much. I'm guessing that'll change by the 26th. Lastly, I'd suggest informing the community in these places:
community notice board
village pump
signpost/wikizine/(blogsphere?) (planet.wikimedia.org, email some blogs BEFORE it is released)
Thanks! We're holding off on the big publicity for now, expecially as I understand the website may not be working for Monday! But we will certainly hit the publicity button when the time comes - thanks for the list! (I didn't think of the participants - good idea) Titoxd is already writing a blog for Planet Wikimedia (and he's building towards it with other blogs about the 1.0 project), and the WMF has a press release ready to go out as well. The rest of the money (a) covers the cost of the CD, cover, distribution, and development of the software. However, the whole thing will also be available for free download, and the software is GPL which means it can be used by others for their releases. We hope that it will be just the first of many such releases. If you want to look at what the NEXT generation search engine (for Version 0.7 and beyond), you can see what Linterweb is developing here. Cheers, Walkerma03:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
(unindent) The latest news is that the date is now Friday, March 30, and is looking fairly definite. It's still next week, at least! From la bouche du cheval: Oui tout à fais le 30 Mars début de la vente. There were couple of unresolved issues which are (I think) now resolved, so all that remains is to get the website up. Cordialement, Walkerma20:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Can we download early to get a torrent started (early seeds so people can get it on the 30th)? Is this the final ISO for 0.5 that is being released? JoeSmackTalk20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
As a courtesy to Linterweb, I would ask that people do not jump the gun with downloads. They have put a lot "up front" to create this release, I think the CD launch should mark the official launch - and the free downloads should not begin until then. I'll check with Kelson, I believe he was working with Linterweb on getting a server ready to start the seeding. We've waited this long, I think people can wait a little longer before getting this! Thanks, Walkerma21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Gotcha, I understand. Keep in mind though the first question will be "Where can I get it?", and you'll want to be able to respond with a website to buy, a link to download directly and a link to a torrent. JoeSmackTalk22:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Great news, thanks for the update. The torrent aspect of all of this is insubordinate to the direct d/l, it can wait till a day or two after the release. However, many people (As JoeSmack has said) will want a torrent asap. I'm just wondering what will happen if some other human were to make a torrent before us...but I do have my doubts for that. I'll update the Torrent Project main page as soon as we're given the green light for a torrent release. Nominaladversary23:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Any update? I still cannot download or buy, and it's the end of the 3rd. Wikipedia Signpost declared today was the day, so I'm guessing others are confused a bit now as well. JoeSmackTalk05:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't know any more than you - I think they're still waiting for the bank! I've been assured that is all that remains. I'll give Pascal a ring after class today. Banks and lawyers work on their own time scale, unfortunately. At least there is a clear explanation on the website now. Walkerma13:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
On this release, unfortunately it is - the CDs were made last week! We've fixed the problem for the next version, at least. Thanks! Walkerma03:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have a question about the versions of articles being used for this project. I've been heavily involved with a couple of the articles included — nothing major, just TV show ones — and just went along to the WikipediaOnDVD website to have a look at the web versions. I was somewhat surprised, and a little dismayed, to see that the versions of The Quatermass Experiment and Quatermass and the Pit included there are old ones, missing the huge amounts of rewriting, correction and referencing that I've done in the last couple of months to keep them at featured status and save them from FAR. When was the cut-off point for article versions, just out of curiosity? Angmering22:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Originally the cutoff point was to be October, but since the reader software wasn't ready we waited until January. The dump was made in early January. I made a point of inserting newer versions of Gerald Ford and Six Party talks, to make sure we included Ford's death and the breakthrough in the talks, but even these two updates were a bit of a headache for the people compiling the files.
Wikipedia is an ever-changing collection, and every day these articles are evolving, hopefully improving. We hope that we can (in time) set up a production line for releases to keep the CDs/DVDs improving as well. I hope we can also shorten the time lag between the dump and the release, now we have the scripts, etc.. The next release will probably be at the end of this year, and it will include both your articles in their new, improved version. Thanks for making them better - these were important programmes in the history of British television. Walkerma03:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yeah this seems to be another problem with our bank server. But most problems seem to progressively disappear, thanks to Pascal's tenacity at contacting and recontacting the banking service :) Btw, we may soon be accepting american express (to be confirmed). Nytux21:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Tito, that's a great overview of the story behind the story. I think too many people have forgotten that the whole project was just supposed to be done by late 2004! Good to see Maurreen getting credit, too. Thanks for an excellent piece! Walkerma04:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Question: Does the Version 0.5 identify which version of each article was taken? And does each wikipedia article identify the past version that was put into Version 0.5? Remember16:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not as yet. Most of the dump was made in early January. It's an excellent idea, though, I'll see if the people who wrote the dump scripts can do this. I wonder if we could have a bot add some metadata into the WP1.0 template (that's being rewritten) to record this for posterity. This is the type of reason we made this a test release- we can get such things done in time for the full release. Thanks a lot! Walkerma03:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Not sure where to announce this, but the link to wikimedia foundation is broke as someone typed in .oorg. Thanks — Jack · talk · 13:22, Sunday, 15 April 2007
Thanks, I'll try and get that fixed. The whole website was down yesterday, and that was our main concern! It's now back up. Walkerma14:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
While I personally may not agree with Creationism, placing it under "Myths" is bound to stir controversy. A not-insignificant percentage of the U.S. population (as well as a decent percentage of world population,) believe that Creationism is true historical fact. Listing it as "Myth" is laced with difficulties. If we have a "Religious beliefs" section, that would be more appropriate. (List all beliefs there that the scientific/skeptical community may regard as "myth", but a given religion may regard as fact.) 71.59.215.19717:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC) (Really user ehurtley, apparently my login won't take here. Cookie blocking or some such.)Reply
As a Christian myself, I certainly understand your point. I think the reasoning is that we are using the more traditional meaning of the word myth (see Myth) as "a sacred story concerning the origins of the world or how the world and the creatures in it came to have their present form." The idea of the myth as false is a modern, additional meaning, and I agree that it could stir up feelings. Version 0.5 is already released, but probably the best thing for the future will be to break this topic away into a separate subsection, away from Roman mythology etc. And we have to be careful not to stir up animosity from atheists, too! Thanks, Walkerma17:45, 24 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, that's why I suggested "religious beliefs" or some such. For example, I Don't believe in "creationism" at all, but I still don't think it belongs under "myths" because of the more common usage of the word as 'false story'. Ehurtley19:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
No, that is not possible. The articles were mirrored during january 2007. IMHO, in the future, we will be able to work with article specific versions. Best regards Kelson12:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
With the distribution of the files on torrent and various sites, questions are starting to come up about how the files are used. Searching through everything here, the best answer I can come up with it to download KiwiX and use it. It took jumping through four or five pages here, two or three google searches and multiple sites to get that much information. A simple section on how the files are installed and used as well as what other software is either needed or suggested would be very helpful. The CD may have all the needed set-up, but apparently the torrent/website copies don't (or are just not foolproof in explaining they do - I didn't download it to check, I'm just asked the questions). Creol (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)Reply
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Caesar cipher has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Thanks, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The Cantos has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.
Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Iowa class battleship has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It seems to me that the project page needs to be updated to make it much clearer as to how to purchase or download the CD. It seems to have been written for experenced users only who would have not trouble following the embedded links. Even when you get to the main page http://wikipediaondvd.com/ the link is very misleading: "English -The Free Encyclopedia - 1988 + articles" A very strange way to link to a purchase site for the CD. The next page http://wikipediaondvd.com/site.php could also use some work. The download link should be clearly marked as "free download" The layout is a bit strange as well with the top menu bar missing the download tab and the left side links missing the purchase link. Dbiel(Talk)06:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Reply
Don't worry. That page is now very simple: "The web server software is running but no content has been added, yet." Why is that domain name and this article still wasting space, when version 0.5 no longer exists? David Spector (talk) 17:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just wondering, because I already have. Sorry; the list was very inaccurate at parts. You know, under "musical instruments", the only article listed was "Guqin"? Tezkag7201:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
The selection was made during 2006, and the list shows what was published on the CD in April 2007. I've added an archive template to clarify that. I'm aware that the musical instruments area was one of the glaring omissions from the selection, but the CD was mainly a "proof of concept". The release we are currently preparing for publication, version 0.7, had the final selection made in October 2008, and that contains (for example) at minimum these 74 articles on instruments, and these on fish; I hope these are OK by you! If you want to help with the review process for Version 0.8, please take a look at WP:1.0 and let me know. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 08:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, there is a VO.5 template on Talk:Montevideo assessing it as class=C. The article had a major uphaul recently and I think it is a B class by now trying to go further up. Can you please reassess? Thank you. HoverfishTalk16:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply
