Wikipedia 1.0 — (talk) FAQ — To do
Release version tools Guide — (talk) — (stats)
Article selection process (talk) Version 0.8 bot selection Version 0.8 feedback
IRC channel (IRC)
Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Version 0.8 release (manual selection) (t)
"Selection" project (Talk) schools selection Offline WP for Indian Schools
CORE TOPICS CORE SUPPLEMENT Core topics - 1,000 (Talk) (COTF) (bot)
TORRENT (Talk)
"Selection" project for kids ((t))
WORK VIA WIKI PROJECTS (talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

I removed it from the list, but than read that only approved people should do so. As such I will undo my edit for now. The article fails on grounds of neutrality. Its a heavily biased article. Naacats 21:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That puts the burden on me to check this page every day until you have finished, doesn't it? I have nominated Taiwanese aborigines.--Ling.Nut 18:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure, we'll consider that nominated! I hope we can re-open this page in a week or two. Thanks, Walkerma 02:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry I just noticed the bit about self-nomination. Please note this as a self-nomination. Thanks. --Ling.Nut 00:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I addressed this to user BozMo initially, thinking he was in charge of this project? or something related?

I would like a simple description of the project somewhere, as I have read through a number of pages (various talk pages, 1.0 pages, 0.5 pages), and cannot easily distinguish between Wikipedia 0.5 and 1.0, or reach a clear understanding of where each project is at, and how and wether users can contribute. It would be ideal if this outline had a more descriptive name such as 'wikipedia offline (project)' or 'static wikipedia (version).

-thanks, dialectric User:Dialectric

Yes, I agree with you! The problem is that for our first "official" release (i.e., not BozMo's charity release), called version 0.5, we have been very busy, and pages have been created as needed. Once version 0.5 is released I plan to step back and create some kind of site map. The template (on the right) is the closest thing to it, and it's very helpful, but even that is quite out of date and it doesn't include explanations. The real problem is that there are only a handful of active editors trying to do a lot of work. As for the rename, we've discussed that very issue, and that's why this page is called "release version" nominations - but on the other languages the pages are all called version 1.0 for some reason, even the German project that has released several CD and DVD versions already. If you are interested in helping us, and you let us know where your interests lie, we can suggest some suitable tasks, and that would free someone up to work on this! Thanks, Walkerma 15:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Tours Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 04:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

W. S. Gilbert Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul McCartney & Milton Friedman. Lincher 04:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looking at the long list of these on the main nominations page, I wonder if these might better be handled as one big group, i.e., as our first [[Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Set Nominations set nomination]]? I notice that the talk pages haven't been tagged yet, so there's no wasted effort there. Set nominations worked well on Version 0.5 for a large group of closely related articles like this - the nominator tags all the talk pages and gives a brief assessment (such as "poor B, rather listy" or "Good B, just a few more refs to be A"). You can make a case for importance and completeness to the linguistically ignorant like myself: "Ulvonian is the parent alphabet for all the peoples of East Africa" or "There are only 17 basic families of alphabet commonly in use, and all of these have been included, hence the need to include Toctic which is only Start-class". Once several reviewers reach consensus - this may take a while - all get added in one go. What do others -esp. Lincher - think of this? Walkerma 05:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This would normally go with the WVWP for this list was created off of the B+ articles that came from the Writing system index page from Mathbot's assessment stuff. I concur with you and will thus create a seperate Set Nomination page. Lincher 12:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Briefly, we need to count how many articles we have. It wouldn't be very hard to do it, so can somebody ask Oleg? I don't know how Mathbot works, so I probably can't ask. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 06:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want, I'll set up the Version 0.7 project as one of the Mathbot projects, just like 0.5 is. That way we can get nightly updates of the statistics, the log and the listing. Just let me know here. Walkerma 06:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I want this version to be updated by Mathbot. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 18:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Walkerma, could you set up the release version for Mathbot? I don't know how to do that. I already posted once, but apparently you didn't notice. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 17:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bot is now down and, for that matter, the adjustments made by Walkerma in order for the bot to pick up our project is now on hold till the bot works again. Lincher 18:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is the difference between Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Vital articles and Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Core topics review? Should the former be redirected to the latter? If not, could someone update the intros to clarify? -- Beland 04:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One was created by the 1.0 team and the second one was copied from that and they changed in parallel. We are now working on the Core Topic one as to add relevant articles to the release version page. As for the Vital articles, they will be easily cross-checked later if it is an actual copy of the former list. If you are willing to help, please do so and feel free to ask questions if you aren't sure how to do it. Lincher 05:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please let me know if this discussion should go somewhere else, but the Music of Oregon article is a mess and needs to be cleaned up extensively before it is included. Katr67 20:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added your comment here; if you're knowledgable in this area, then please feel free to review and add further comments. Thanks! Walkerma 04:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, I'd suspect that very few (if any) of the "Start" class will be included - the criteria suggest that Starts are only used to complete a set that is otherwise nearly all B or better. Walkerma 04:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

trying to fill some cracks in the nom list, i've been adding things like Eggs (food), Census, Bed, Roof, etc. in a quality sense, these articles need improvement. in an importance sense, these articles should be nominated. do these meet the release citeria of Start-Class articles, only if they are part of a set or are essential or Articles needed for completeness? i thought they did, but i'd like to make sure before i feel like i could be spamming the nom list. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

here is a list of others as further examples. some suck, but all are pretty commonplace things. i tended to leave alone ones with a wikiproject assessment of quality/importance (they get to you i think), and i saw about 25-50% were selected for the 2006 CD release:

(oh, sig) JoeSmack ^Talk 17:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Joe - good selection! As you say, they are all fairly important topics, and everyday things like this may not get covered in projects. Some of them certainly look to be usable. I have poor & sporadic internet at the moment (away for Christmas) but I'll take a look properly when I return. Thanks, Walkerma 03:09, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Hope you're back) Should they be added? Should I start making lists of noms like these? This one was about 15 min of hunting around. JoeSmack ^Talk 05:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

not poor but completely wrong articles - when reading about the music of the czech republic, i gradually started to feel irritated as i was coming to a conclusion that the author knows nothing on the topic. i hope there are not many nominees like this.. Muflon 83 10:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

(undent) Somehow or other that article wasn't included in the relevant Wikiproject, where editors could find it. I have notified WP:CZECH. Hopefully they'll get some good editors on it. Ling.Nut 11:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page appears to badly need to be updated. It has all sorts of strikethroughs on it, and doesn't address WP:V0.7. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the person who was originally going to take charge here has gone on wikibreak, and I have been too busy with Version 0.5 up until now to take over. If nothing happens in the next day or so, I will get things going myself (V0.5 now has finished beta testing). I plan to get a lot of people actively reviewing, if I can. Would you be able to help us out? Thanks, Walkerma 18:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, I've made a start by writing a new FAQ page to guide our new reviewers. I will sharpen up the selection criteria, clean up this page, then we should be able to be in business! Walkerma 06:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thats a good little FAQ; you might want to post it up on the Notices section of the community portal. JoeSmack ^Talk 14:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This page still has strikethroughs. What does that mean? Also, it says that all Featured Articles are automatically nominated. What does that mean exactly (I.e. do they automatically get included? Who makes sure none are missed? etc.) Johntex\^talk 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yes, I've been too busy to clean up the page - to clean it up means actually writing several new pages. I also didn't get around to posting about the new FAQ, sorry Joe! All FAs are nominated (i.e., they don't need to be explicitly added to this page) because they automatically pass on quality. One of the review team will then review it for importance - if it looks to be too specialised for a general release it gets debated, and if two other reviewers agree it gets held over. Most FAs will pass, though. We make a list of current FAs, and remove or strike through all that have been reviewed. Then, as we review, we strike through the article name on our review list. Maybe I'll add this question to the FAQ once I get the FA Review page going! Thanks, Walkerma 21:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• OK thanks. That is helpful. An article I started (Baby Gender Mentor) just made it through the FA process. I will be interested in watching whehter it gets selected. It is certainly not as important as DNA but it does touch on some important social issues. Johntex\^talk 22:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, is there a time line on this project? It's looking pretty inactive...? --Ling.Nut 03:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the work was pretty much put on hold while WP:V0.5 was being finalized, and while MartinBotII was ready. The first one is done, and the second one is coming far along, so there'll be some activity here soon. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Titoxd. Long time since I've run into you. :-) Cheers! --Ling.Nut 03:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh. Same here. Hopefully V0.5's release this week will bring more eyes here, which are always "more better". Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(undent) If there is still a significant amt. of work to be done in mid-to-late August-ish, then I'll be happy to chip in. 'Til then, see ya round... --Ling.Nut 03:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following pages for musical artists will be apart of my set nomination for "Popular Music". These Three I nominated myself:

• The Cure (popular band, just approved for release)
• Arctic Monkeys (A-Class article)
• Grateful Dead (just approved for release)

These were nominated by someone else

• Smashing Pumpkins (we should wait until Zeitgeist comes out if we nominate it, so the project doesn't seem dated)
• Frank Zappa (which is one of the best articles on the site and I have used it to show people the good aspects of open editing on Wikipedia, just added)

Any other popular artists? Doc Strange 13:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further more, i believe that John Peel should be added to the disc. Doc Strange 18:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Without actually checking out the articles, I would think:

- Led Zeppelin, Jimi Hendrix, Lynard Skynard, Black Sabbath, Rolling Stones, The Doors

- ZZ Top, Aerosmith, AC/DC, Metallica, Stone Temple Pilots, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Red Hot Chili Peppers, Tool

And +1 for Smashing Pumpkins and Frank Zappa --Crimson30 18:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's not forget Stone Roses, The Smiths and Oasis, all hugely influential Manchester bands. Walkerma 01:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um... why are the "fail" instructions struck out? I don't know if it is because they were outdated, or if there is something I'm missing... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And while we're at it, what importance criteria are we using? We need to be more relaxed than V0.5, so are we holding articles or not? If we hold them, where does the line reside? How many articles do we want in this release? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 17:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are quite a few things that were hastily copied over from Version 0.5 but which need reworking. I'm not totally sure what was meant by the strikeouts, but I'm guessing these are things that needed fixing - thanks for doing that. There are still some sub-pages that need this cleaning up. Regarding importance, good point, I think I'll have to put things in writing. I've been holding off, wondering whether MartinBotII is going to help us or not. Based on what I've heard today, I think we WILL have a bot helping us. That means we may get 10,000-50,000 articles, which means we CAN be a bit more relaxed about importance. Hence my comments on the Dinosaur set nomination. Walkerma 03:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speaking of which, there's no FA review page, so the instruction to "not nominate FAs here" is a bit troubling. What are we doing with FAs? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I chose not to do an FA review page, because these will definitely on the list to be checked by MartinBotII. That way we can focus our energies on other things like Set Nominations, where the bot is less useful. But if the bot fails for some reason, then we need to set one up. The Toolserver should stabilise this month, so hopefully we can test the bot soon. Walkerma 01:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some obvious military aircraft/vehicles:

• Messerschmitt Bf 109
• P-38 Lightning
• C-130
• F-15
• H-60
• M1 Abrams
• Humvee

Some key weapons:

• Springfield M1903
• M1 Garand
• M1911 Colt pistol
• M1918 Browning Automatic Rifle
• Thompson submachine gun
• Walther PPK
• V-2 rocket
• Fat man and Little boy
• AR-15
• M79 grenade launcher
• RPG-7
• M72 LAW
• Uzi submachine gun
• Heckler & Koch MP5

Key cartridges:

• .38 Special
• .357 Magnum
• .380 ACP
• .40 Smith & Wesson
• .45 ACP
• 9 mm Luger

• .22 Long Rifle
• 5.56 mm NATO
• .30-06 Springfield
• .308 Winchester
• .300 Winchester Magnum
• .338 Lapua Magnum
• .50 BMG

General:

• Firearm
• Handgun
• Rifle
• Machine gun
• Assault rifle
• Submarine

Add a good portion of those and it would certainly help flesh out that Weapons and military equipment section. --Crimson30 18:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please nominate them on the project page, not on the talk page. This will get archived, and the reviewers will not see them... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Roger that. Done deal. Crimson30 19:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How come there's no theatre&film section? Miskin 22:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is under Lang and Lit. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Got it, thanks. Miskin 23:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We now have quite a few set nominations, but very little feedback from the review team on these. Because of the layout of the page (transclusion), we don't get a watchlist reminder like we do for the main page, so you have to actually remember to check it. I want to make an appeal for our reviewers: Please take a look at any of these that take your fancy, and give your thoughts. I will probably want to promote soon a selection from the woodworking selection, dinosaurs and perhaps the writing systems, as these have all been around with comments for over a month. Note that these set noms can provide a large addition to our article numbers quickly, and provide a nice set where people can find blue links connecting to related articles - giving us a little extra depth in certain areas. Please take a few minutes to help! Walkerma 03:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a note on Template:WP1.0|v0.7=nom. The directions say that if you are nomating an article, you are to place this template on the article's talk page. However, the template reads as if the article had already been reviewed. Don't know if this is a mistake or intentional. Just a heads up. MrPrada 02:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point! There are one or two other things like this that need fixing. I'll raise these with the person who wrote the template for us. These "smart" templates can be hard to write. Thanks for pointing this out! Walkerma 05:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

has serious, serious problems. I believe the same could be said of many (if not most) of the articles about music in any one of the 50 states. I propose removing all of them, unless they happen to have reached GA or FA status. -- Rob C. alias Alarob 05:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• No disagreements here. I note that a total of 23 articles are at FA, A, or GA class in that set nomination. A few of them, including Music of Athens, Georgia and Music of Philadelphia, I can see not including on the basis of lack of importance. The same would hold for many of the Music of US state articles at those levels. I would agree to including the "national" music articles of that level, though. John Carter 14:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that we probably don't need separate music articles for every US State at this point, at least until the general standard improves. There are a few cities that deserve at least consideration because of a seminal influence on music worldwide - New Orleans, Nashville, Seattle, London (UK), Manchester (UK), places like that. With decent articles, Athens, GA and Philly are at least significant enough to be included (I've heard of the music scenes of both and their importance to pop music from documentaries on TV/radio, etc) - we need to get 30,000 articles total, which means that a GA, A or FA has to be pretty obscure (e.g., Foo, obscure Seinfeld episodes) to get rejected on importance. I'll leave further comments on the set noms page. Walkerma 15:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was discussed here before (Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations/Held nominations/Archive1) and was rejected. I almost rewrote the article and is now GA. So, I think it can be added for release. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This recently reached FA, but I must be honest - it is a pretty minor play (if by a major dramatist). I think we can agree that Gilbert and Sullivan is a major subject that should be covered (and we're in the middle of a drive to get all the major articles up to FA quality), but perhaps it might be best to hold off on including Creatures of Impulse - a very minor play of Gilbert's - until it can be part of a set of Gilbert's solo work, all at GA and FA. =)

I write this as one of the two people responsible for the FA. =) Trust me, when Gilbert's solo work become part of a featured topic (the long-term goal), you and everyone else will know, because I'll be shouting it from the rooftops. =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These articles should be listed as (a) one is now a GA, not a start-class, and the other is a FA (b) every other article that pertains to an Iowa-class battleship is there! (making it a featured topic...if not now, in a few days.) ^-talk- the_ed17 ^-contribs- 01:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The nomination procedure states that all FAs have been selected for inclusion, but at least two FAs on dinosaur genera, including Majungasaurus and Thescelosaurus were not selected, according to this. There are also a number of GAs also not selected which might qualify. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We do not select all FAs as a rule, but there was a dinosaur set nomination, and if I recall, all the FAs at the time were selected - but that was a long time ago now! If the FAs or GAs are on relatively obscure species, they may not make it in, since importance is a major factor. I'm away, but I'll look into it when I get home later this week. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, if that's NOT true, you should have told us. I've been happily presuming that all the FAs I worked on were in the list, and now you announce, no, they aren't, just as you're about to prepare things for publication. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The nomination procedure indicates that all FAs are automatically nominated - and all FAs are being reviewed. But that doesn't mean they will be selected. Still, we can request a manual nomination for these, and see what the reviewer thinks. Walkerma (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But were they actually nominated? Have people actually gone through them and evaluated them? If they have, where? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, thanks for the reply Walkerma. There were a great number of dinosaur FAs after the set nomination, but as far as I can see, only Majungasaurus and Thescelosaurus among the FAs were left out, and those were not the last two FAs. I fear they may have been left out due to the importance criterion. However, each of these FAs cite 30+ papers, so obscurity isn't really a factor here: there are hundreds of obscure dinosaur genera sitting on museum shelves collecting dust, many in need of study, or now completely lost, and others known from a single bone or even a bone fragment, so at least from a paleontological point of view, these two aren't obscure. For this reason, there are many articles on obscure dinosaur genera which can never become FAs, but there were plenty of studies on Majungasaurus and Thescelosaurus: enough for 30-50 citations. Something to consider. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How come the last king of the Frisians and greatest Frisian of all times has not been selected? The article is greatly written and broad in it's coverage and the man it is about is culturally highly important for the ethnic group of the Frisians and in piracy and guerilla tactics which he used in an era those where uncommon. Was signed,

Jouke Bersma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.172.170.26 (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has Vitamin C been evaluated? It looks like the template was just dropped in. nom / pass / fail. Oakwillow (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No.

The template is confusing as says it has been reviewed, when in fact the template has only been added and not filled out. In the Vitamin case, the editor said reduce talk page clutter.  !

However, don't worry, it made the automatic selection with over 1700 points.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that's a problem with using the same template for both nomination and selection. Probably a bad idea, but I was told it couldn't be fixed. For the next one, we'll make sure they're clearer! Walkerma (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are the nomination categories different from the template categories (Natsci)? Oakwillow (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that's simply because nominators have edited things to fit their own preferences. The ten template categories are our official categories, and these will be used in organising the index pages. Walkerma (talk) 03:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The review instructions say, egarding SelectionBot picks: "If these have been tagged with the WP1.0 template, these tags should be updated."

1. I have added a pass, importance, class and category. Is that correct?
2. If the article has been nominated but not tagged with the template, should the article talk page be left unchanged?

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, thanks for that! Yes, we need people to help in doing these. We don't use the importance tag now, but the other parameters do need to be added. If the article has not been tagged on its talk page, I don't think we need worry, we can just remove it from Nominations and add it to the manual listing. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 03:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not use the importance tag? If you are not using it how about deleting it or at least changing the instructions so that I don't waste and hour for nothing? Oakwillow (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed importance from the guidelines - thanks for pointing that out. I don't know how to remove it safely from the template - I'm not technically good enough to do that myself, though we should get consensus on that. I'm sorry if you've spent time trying to judge that.

Originally we had an importance parameter because it was hard to know how things would evolve. But the few uses of the importance assessment that I have seen at this level were so variable that the parameter became of little value. It's very hard for any of us to judge overall importance, for example between Bob Marley or Palladium, when we're not typically balanced experts in both reggae and chemistry. At the most general level - where this project has to work - the new bot importance number is far more reliable than any subjective assessment, IMHO. But I'm happy to listen to other opinions! Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 01:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What's up with all the FA nominations? The instructions say not to nominate them because they are automatically included. Should the instructions be changed - perhaps to if you see an FA article that does not have a template on the talk page add it? I see at least one discussion about not including an FA article (Kansas Turnpike) because of its low importance. Oakwillow (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It says that FAs are automatically nominated, but not necessarily selected - indeed, we have rejected some FAs as being too obscure. These instructions predate the bot - now, in fact, you could say that all articles are now automatically nominated! Is there an instruction conflict somewhere that I've missed, though? I know there are a lot of pages to watch! Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added an importance parameter to Template:Releaseversion. I am going to add instructions to the nominations page. Lots of articles will not have importance ratings, however. Does anybody have an objection? Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 23:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't really think one can evaluate the importance of a given article especially if it isn't his/her discipline. Also, this would be subjective (it is already enough for the WVWP) that maybe we should stay out of there. Also, some subject maybe needed and rated as important though they don't meet the simple criteria for being only stubs or they are plagued by NPOV issues or such. After having helped the people at WPBiography, IMHO, it is a pain to give an importance factor. Lincher 02:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interesting idea. I'm a big fan of importance data - in fact I proposed it - but I can see Lincher's point here. Unlike most WikiProjects, we are expected to review everything from computer games to Roman generals to quantum theory, and we can't easily do this - but maybe that's what eyu100 meant by "Lots of articles will not have importance ratings." How about if we simply use Top and High to tag things like Core topics, countries of the world, global cities, top 200 biographies, maybe Vital articles, that sort of thing? I think that could be very useful, because once we have that collection complete, we could use that as a "must have" core for ALL releases. Walkerma 05:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe just tagging top stuff would be good after all to create a progression of quality of articles (100-top importance → 1000-vital articles →10,000-needed articles → and so on). Anyhow, the way this would be managed shouldn't be decided solely by 1.0 members for some articles, for example on Sri Lanka, are top importance there but were never published outside the country. Lincher 13:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the team can probably just about agree on the top 1000, but I agree that beyond that we need the specialists involved. Walkerma 15:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think a major pronblem you'd hit is that the "Core" articles, e.g. Science, Language, Recreation, etc, are are overview articles that are expected to cover a wide range, and often do it surprisingly well, but in themselves they're probably not so important - or, at least, useful, as a level or two lower. Perhaps the sensible thing would be to add, say, an FA+ class, for some of the best short articles on a subject out there, to allow for more detailed ranking, and then rank by class. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How would we get specialists involved? The Wikiprojects' importance ratings are for their own project, not for this one. (i.e. WikiProject Former Countries would not find Music to be important at all). Although our importance ratings wouldn't be perfect, they would still be better that the Wikiprojects' ratings. Eyu100^{(t|fr|Version 1.0 Editorial Team)} 17:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In reply to Adam's point - yes, you're right - an article on chemical substance is typically less useful than hydrochloric acid, but unfortunately we need the former type to give context for the latter type. This explains why we want to get past the top-level broad articles into the second level of important but more nitty-gritty subjects. I think we'll get there in Version 0.7.

As for specialists judging importance on specialised topics, I think it's essential. Could a non-chemist judge the relative importance of copper(I) chloride vs. copper(II) chloride? Of course the chemistry project would rate these as more important than would the WP:1.0 team, but the key word here is relative importance. A chemical rated as "Top" importance by WP:Chem should almost certainly be in Version 0.7, one that is "High" would be useful in Version 0.7, but one that is "Mid" importance could probably be missed out unless it's a very nice article, or it's needed for a set (like the chemical elements). If the importance rating is produced by an {imaginary) Wikipedia:WikiProject Copper you would probably only include the "Top" importance articles, because clearly the project's scope is much narrower. This should all become clearer once I've written all of the algorithms for dealing with this for the MartinbotII work at WP:WVWP. Walkerma 20:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why was the "|importance =" removed from the template instructions at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations today? This saves time for editors who want to resolve the "This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale." message in the talk page banner. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was me, based on this just above. The discussion here took place in 2006 when we didn't have SelectionBot (or even a clear concept of such a thing), and we weren't sure if we would need to tag for importance. Now we have SelectionBot giving a much more reliaable importance rank, I think we should use that. I agree that we need to discuss this, but I removed the importance parameter from the guidelines as this reflects recent practice (over the last 12-18 months). If the consensus here is that we need this information and can use it usefully, then we should put it back. I will ask Titoxd to remove the "This has not been assessed for importance" part of the template, if we decide not to keep it. Walkerma (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject September 11, 2001 is a new project, so we never got notifications about 0.7 selections. But, I saw notices elsewhere. We went through the list of articles selected by the bot and found those that fall within scope of our project. See list. The sections were mostly okay, and we are working to clean up articles with deficiencies. But, there are a couple articles we recommend removing from the selection, and have replacements in mind (listed on the nominations page). I'm not sure if there is a place to recommend selection removals, so I'm noting this.

• Loose Change (film) was picked but the more general article on 9/11 conspiracy theories was not picked by the bot. I suggest including the general 9/11 conspiracy theories article, and not including Loose Change.
• World Trade Center (film) is only start class, and recommend removing it from the list of selections. There are some better choices, such as Construction of the World Trade Center (FA).
• Also, the bot picked American Airlines Flight 11, American Airlines Flight 77, and United Airlines Flight 93 (all FAs), but not United Airlines Flight 175. Though Flight 175 is not a FA, it would seem odd to omit it with the other three included.

--Aude (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see the dispute thing is struck out. How can someone nominate an article for further review if it is not worthy of WP 1.0 and somehow got through? Gigs (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Things are on hold until 0.7 comes out. We will probably have a redesigned system for 0.8. Can you tell me what is the problem article, and why it's a problem? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 14:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply. My query was regarding Michael Everson. If you have time, I'd appreciate your input as a neutral 3rd party, in addition to you looking into this for WP 1.0 purposes. This entry on the BLP noticeboard sums up the situation. The article itself has currently been locked by one of Everson's colleagues who also happens to be an administrator. Gigs (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page is currently set for nomination for 0.7, but it also says that nominations for 0.7 are closed. When will the manual nominations open for 0.8? I would like to nominate an article that is not in the selection bot list. --RelHistBuff (talk) 09:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not to be rude or anything, but some of the nominations here date back to 2008. The lack of maintenance of this page is somewhat of a disincentive to nominating high-quality and/or high-importance articles. Tezero (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems to be a defunct page. Stuff I put up a year and a half ago is still unreviewed, and there has been no activity on this Talk page since March 2009. Simon Burchell (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]