Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8/archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

FEEDBACK HERE IS NOW CLOSED FOR VERSION 0.8. Thank you for giving us a lot of useful comments! If you missed the deadline, please contact us on the main Version 1.0 Team talk page.

Please leave feedback here regarding the Version 0.8 offline selection. If you are representing the views of a WikiProject, please mention that, and add a link back to the relevant discussion.

We will review all comments here and usually follow the advice of the WikiProjects. Occasionally, of course, there may be conflicting views, in which case members of the 1.0 team will use their judgement. Walkerma (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be travelling until Monday October 11th, but comments below will be responded to during the week following that. Walkerma (talk) 04:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)


Potential addition: Aviation

I'll start out by state that I am not a representative of WP: Aviation, and thus my feedback is not of the project's overall generation but of my own personal views. I noticed an announcement by your selection bot asking for feedback, and after reviewing the list of aircraft, there are a few choice items that you may wish to add to the 0.8 Version within this subject. I believe it would be expressly important to include aircraft of a famed and unique nature: the already selected Concorde being the most obvious example that comes to mind. Two articles show promise in my opinion, the British Aerospace Sea Harrier (The famed 'Harrier jump-jet' in its most well known form, one of very few mainstream V/STOL jets and the most successful) and the Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey (the first mainstream tilt-rotor aircraft, crossing the line between helicopter and plane). Including these unique aircraft could help broaden the horizon of possibilities for those with an interest in the field yet with limited resources available, they're both articles of a high quality and are of GA class as of current revisions. In my opinion, they're worthy inclusions. Kyteto (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

On a slightly different note, I found it odd that the Gloster Gladiator was included, but the Hawker Hurricane was not; the latter being a far more common and useful WW2 aircraft (though overshadowed by the Supermarine Spitfire, it is argueably more effective in the Battle of Britain and less fussy on rapair work, and was of more use across the Empire as opposed to the Home Front). As I am not sure of the reasons why it was not included, it may have bee discounted for valid reasons. Kyteto (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

For consideration:- BOAC Flight 712 (GA) and Jane Harrison (GC) (Start). The accident led to the only George Cross directly awarded to a woman in peacetime. Mjroots (talk) 10:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the Osprey and the Hurricane are included (the latter scores very highly), as is the Hawker Siddeley Harrier. You have so many great aviation articles (almost 1000 selected for V0.8), you need to change the default to 500 to see them. However, it looks to be a minor bug in the bot coding that missed the British Aerospace Sea Harrier - I think this was given a low score because it was recently renamed, and under the new name it had close to zero page views. Based on the hits in the last few days, this is a definite "Include". Thanks for catching that! As for the Gladiator, my late father might have disagreed - he was in convoys during the Siege of Malta (World War II), and the Gladiators were about the only thing between him and the Stukas! We can include the Gladiator too, fortunately.
Regarding BOAC Flight 712 and Jane Harrison (GC), she's clearly a courageous woman and it was clearly a tragedy, but these alone doesn't merit inclusion. I'll check into the statistics more - there may be a page-move problem here like the Harrier, which may cause hits to be undercounted - but on the face of it, the scores are well below our threshold (BOAC Flight 712 scores 776, the threshold is 1240 from at least one project). Walkerma (talk) 21:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know the scoring system, and will leave that to those involved with this project. As I said, the articles were suggested for consideration. The Jane Harrison page was moved recently, and I trust that my suggestions will be properly evaluated. If the articles are not chosen after due consideration, then I'm happy with that. Mjroots2 (talk) 05:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I looked into the stats some more, and it does look like BOAC Flight 712 and Jane Harrison (GC) both fall well below the threshold. For both articles, there are no versions in other languages, and there are only a few readers per day, so it's hard to make the case that they are more important than, say, Air France Flight 358 (300 hits per day, 14 other languages), which it might have to replace. Thanks for your input, anyway! Walkerma (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've added British Aerospace Sea Harrier manually, but left out the flight 712 and Harrison articles. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative music revisions

Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music will post revision IDs we want to replace the selected versions here as we come upon them:

- WesleyDodds (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Great - thanks! I'll hold off processing these until October, since you're still adding stuff. Walkerma (talk) 03:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception

I had tagged this article Immaculate Conception for clean up and citation but an editor has removed the tags without any substantial improvement. The content is factored with WP:OR and needs quite a bit of clean up.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

On Henrik's site it states: "This article ranked 2217 in traffic on". Bearing in mind that its getting hits as a "scholarly" subject (vs pop culture or sex-related) means it is an article we would really like to have. Would it be possible for WikiProject Christianity (or a sub-project) to try and resolve this problem ASAP, so we can have an NPOV version for 0.8? Otherwise it will look like we have a gaping hole in our coverage in this area. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 21:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is with an editor there who is loading up the page with original research. He then uses Google books as citations but they don't support the claims. The article is a mess and is loaded with fallacies. The editor there won't allow any changes to be made. He's removed the tags I've placed. The page needs to be locked and edited without him.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Could you perhaps suggest an older revisionID - even a year ago if you like - from before this controversy began? Walkerma (talk) 02:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I will go look now, but the problem is, this dominate editor, edits obsessively and the older pages are probably lost by now. But I will look right now.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
No, sorry to say there's no version currently accessible by going into the earliest history. It's loaded with errors and false sources. It needs a complete rewrite. I would do it but this editor turns every page into a battlefield. It would take me several days to do a complete rewrite using reliable sources. Is there a way to lock the page so that can be accomplished?Malke 2010 (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not an admin, but I think you'd need to get several other people from WP:Christianity and WP:Catholicism to support your proposal - and preferably to help with the writing, too. History2007 has been editing the article actively since early 2008, so I think you'd need to make a very strong case, otherwise he/she could argue "There is a newer editor to the page who is trying to trash large, well-established parts of the article that are well-referenced, just to push his/her POV." BTW, older versions of the article don't get "lost" - you can go right back to 2001; perhaps that version is uncontroversial?! Please let us know how you get on. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I can leave a message on the WikiProject Catholicism. I'm a member of that Project. How do I go back and look through all the versions? Also, just because History2007 has been obsessively editing there doesn't mean he's been doing a good job. He's a belligerent editor who drives other editors away. I can show you diffs from several pages, all with the same uncivil, straw man arguments. Please tell me how I can go through all the history. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I see how to do that now, thanks. I'll go through the versions and let you know which one might be best. I'll give you several good reliable sources that can be used if the editors on your project want to fix it.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Updated ids

Must be that time of year - another release to keep us on our toes, here's a couple of updated id's - by the way is there any particularly useful format you would like these in? Lee∴V (talkcontribs) 23:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Genetic testing oldid=385440044 (current version - removes test edit)

That format is fine! This part of the process is all done by hand, so I mainly need to copy & paste. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Christianity articles

In my view, articles that have scored too high are:

  • Jehovah's Witnesses: This is not part of the main theme of Christianity by any measure. Way too high on the list. I would even exclude it in favor of other articles. Protestants, Lutherans, Catholics, etc. etc. are more representative.
All of these were tagged by WP:Christianity - this doesn't mean that they are Christian, merely that they are relevant to the project - just as Piltdown_Man is tagged by WP:Archaeology). Also, many of these comments relate to your perspective; Christian metal is a GA getting around a quarter of a million hits a year, with 14 other language versions. We'd be crazy to omit it. I'd concede that Christian hardcore is probably a more important topic to the younger Christians I know, but that article is in poor shape. As for ranking - Salvation is tagged by the WikiProject as Top-importance and gets a score of 1452, whereas the List of Archbishops is rated as High-importance and scores 1307, so I'm baffled by that comment. I would presume that the article is important to Anglicans, so I don't understand why is off topic. I tend to agree that the Gospel of Mary should be omitted on grounds of low importance - why was it assessed by the WikiProject as High importance? Did someone mistake the g for a k? Walkerma (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Missing KEY articles about Christianity: (Comments and corrections to status added in parentheses by Walkerma)

As well as may, many others. I think many of the articles about "specific individuals", specially almost living ones, should take a backseat to doctrinal issues like the Trinity. Overall, I think the ratings are random at best and the addition of Christian metal over doctrinal articles reflects that. History2007 (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Not going to argue about the scoring, but I do think that the JW's are significant enough to be included. I'm not sure entirely about the scoring, but the fact that they are the subject of so many websites and books disparaging them may well have played a role. Regarding some of the articles proposed for addition, Mary (mother of Jesus), Crucifixion of Jesus and Trinity definitely belong. Some of the others named above are largely related to Catholicism, and as a Catholic I'm not trying to denigrate their importance, but I'm not sure that Mariology, for instance, is necessarily more important than some of the main articles or first-degree child articles (like maybe some of the "History of" articles) of some other groups. I would argue that Jesus, considering he is a figure in several religious groups that aren't clearly "Christian", like Islam and some of the New religious movements, as well as one of the most important figures in The 100, probably does belong. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
I think some of the proposed additions here are very good suggestions - but there is no way we are going to exclude the Jesus article (ranked 140th in traffic, and I think one of the top 3 biographies in popularity) from the collection! If some of the scoring is wrong for these, this may come from the WikiProject importance rankings, which put Jehovah's Witnesses as "Top" and Miracles of Jesus as "Mid". "Not Christian" doesn't mean it should be excluded from V0.8. Also, many of the lower scoring articles were included because of a high score in another WikiProject. In general if the general concept is not relevant to Christianity, then the WikiProject shouldn't tag it as such - but in cases like these it should represent the consensus of the WikiProject, which may contain a variety of viewpoints. I will look at the stats on each of the proposed additions, and reply here. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the articles selected, I fail to see why there are a number of start-class articles included. I would suggest removing them unless arguments are made for particular articles to be maintained. I agree with History2007's assessment except for the following: I would maintain Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus, and C. S. Lewis. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 14:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, definitely keep Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus, and C.S. Lewis. Also, please look at any page where there seems to be a certain dominate editor, lock it, edit it, and then release it. This editor has loaded these articles with original research to which he appends a Google book as a citation, but the citation does not in any way support the claims he makes in the article content. Or he will cite a Gospel but then he doesn't link to it, although there are websites out there with Catholic bibles. He also uses the NIV bible on Catholic articles which is a dynamic translation that Catholics don't use. Especially stay away from Blessed Virgin Mary (Roman Catholic), Immaculate Conception, and Mariology These articles are a mess. But editors can't change them because he turns the page into a battlefield.Malke 2010 (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Note that many "specific individuals" may be tagged with a WP:Christianity tag who are unimportant to Christianity - assuming these are given "Low importance" by the project, these people have made it into the collection based on other attributes. My favourite example of this sort of thing: Albert Einstein is tagged by WP:New Jersey (he worked at Princeton), but he's included because of his contributions to physics, not his contributions to New Jersey.
We've struck a compromise in our policy on Start-Class articles. We score them low - that's why articles like Mariology, Four Marks of the Church, and Parables of Jesus got omitted. However, if they are on really important topics, we feel there would be an obvious gap in our coverage if we omitted them. I would ask the project to focus their energy on improving these Start-Class/High or Top importance topics.
I've looked over the list and related statistics carefully, and I note that most of the "missing" articles were already included - it's just that there are so many Christianity articles included you have to go to the next page (I suggest viewing 500 at a time, and sort by Score). I would propose we include Christian meditation, but still leave out the Four Marks and Mariology articles on grounds of poor quality/incompleteness. I'd like to solicit more comments on Parables of Jesus - is this good enough to include? It's rated as Start, but if you think it could be C-Class I agree it's probably important enough for us to consider. Also, I'd like to propose removing Gospel of Mary - not on grounds of being noncanonical (I don't dispute that!), but simply because the High-importance rating seems too high to me, and even the B-Class seems a bit optimistic. If the people from the WikiProject agree with that, I will remove it from the selection. Many thanks! Walkerma (talk) 06:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, by all means delete Gospel of Mary. And please delete the Marian/Mariology articles as they are of very poor quality. And may I suggest this version of the Catholic Church article:

[1]. It's very well written and with reliable sources. I'd shorten the lead a bit, deleting out the mission bit, but otherwise the article reads very well. It could stand a few more pictures which I could recommend. If you want to include Immaculate Conception I'm working on a complete rewrite with another editor. Thanks.20:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Scouting article selections


for international diversity (things besides US/UK which your selections focused on):


Please post on my talk if you have questions, or that of User:Gadget850, tks. RlevseTalk 00:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Review comments: Many of these are ranked quite low, but seem to reflect a consensus from the WikiProject; I appreciate the aim of getting a more worldwide viewpoint.

  • Coker is much too low in general importance - only 28 page views per day is very low, and zero articles in other languages. NOT ADDED.
  • Hillcourt also scores quite low, but is significantly higher than Coker. ADDED.
  • The Hong Kong, Australia, South Africa and Japan articles have been added, but the Germany one is weaker and has low external interest.
  • Olave is definitely OK.
  • I agree with you about Merz, who appears to have only made it in because of a recent viral video, but I will have to get the views of the Swiss WikiProject, for which the article is ranked High importance. It is assessed as C-Class now. Thanks. Walkerma (talk) 00:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Riverina - List of articles

Having reviewed the list of articles provided here for Wikipedia:WikiProject Riverina, can I highly recommend adding the article on Wagga Wagga. It is the largest city in the Riverina region, larger than both Albury, New South Wales and Griffith, New South Wales which have been included. It is also at "GA-class" standard, whereas Griffith and Albury are only "B-class" articles. Wagga Wagga is more historically significant than Albury and Griffith and clearly more economically significant than Griffith.

Other than Wagga Wagga, I don't see any standout omissions. I consider that the list is a reasonable selection and all are worthy of inclusion. However, if one article must be removed from the list to see Wagga Wagga included, I would recommend removing Griffith, New South Wales. Please let me know if you require further information. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! Even I (a Pom) know that Wagga Wagga deserves to be included. I think this omission was caused by the recent page move - the stats were compiled based on a new article name, which naturally had very few hits under the yet-to-be-created name - we had the same issue at WP:Aviation with the British Aerospace Sea Harrier article. Thanks for catching this! Walkerma (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Military fiction articles

I am not sure if I agree with the list at the article list. First the choice of Horatio Hornblower. Though he may be more popular as a page, Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series is largely considered to be a better representation of a historical novel by naval historians and literary critics, when they become familiar with him, immediately place much greater praise on those books. Also, I think the quality of the Aubrey-Maturin series article is much better quality than the Horatio Hornblower article, with far less lists of trivia and more important Real World information with scholarly background.

Also, A Farewell to Arms is not in very good shape. That article needs some serious overhaul and definitely should be co.Catch-22, Slaughterhouse-Five and Gone with the Wind have some serious OR issues, even though, from a quick glance, they seem to be well within standard literary practice for original research.

Ones that I think should be released:

Article that probably needs some work before release:

Articles that definitely shouldn't be released in the state they are in now:

Sadads (talk) 00:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your helpful feedback - I've looked over these. I'm happy to replace Hornblower with the Aubrey-Maturin series; the former was probably selected because there was no WikiProject importance assessment, so it was based on other things like page hits alone. Meanwhile the Aubrey-Maturin series score fairly high anyway. The only question I have is about Catch-22, which is your highest-scoring article; if it really deserves the B-Class assessment, then it should be included; I'll await your followup comments. If some of the assessments (quality or importance) are wrong, then please can you update them accordingly? We'll probably be doing another release in just a few months. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 16:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Trucks

These good and featured articles should be added:

--ErgoSumtalktrib 00:37, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do. Walkerma (talk) 01:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject popular culture

These good articles should be added:

--ErgoSumtalktrib 00:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Many of these seem to be of quite low importance - they score low on all of the external interest metrics. The only one that comes close is the spiders one, though even that is well below the threshold. We don't just include all GAs & FAs - the articles also have to be on a major topic. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Better version of Greenwich Mean Time

I request you use this version of Greenwich Mean Time because one of two contradictory claims is removed in the later version, and the other claim is softened. In short, the Interpretation Act 1978 that determines the legal meaning of certain words in the UK states that "whenever an expression of time occurs in an Act, the time referred to shall, unless it is otherwise specifically stated, be held to be Greenwich mean time." No one knows if this is the same as Coordinated Universal Time. If leap seconds are eliminated, as is currently proposed, the difference between UTC and the actual mean time at Greenwich will gradually become more and more noticeable to the "man on the street". Considering the controversy surrounding the leap second proposal, the article should not make any statement either way about what GMT means.

The claim that has been softened is "It is arguably the same as Coordinated Universal Time (UTC)" with the change from the proposed V 0.8 version underlined. Also, a claim that Greenwich mean time is the legal time in the UK has been deleted. This is appropriate in case the UK authorities eventually decide that UTC is what was really meant in the Interpretation Act.

To confirm there is indeed uncertainty, see the paper "The Debate over UTC and Leap Seconds" by David Finkleman, John H. Seago & P. Kenneth Seidelmann, presented at AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference, 2 - 5 August 2010, Toronto, Ontario Canada. The paper states in section F2 "In other countries where UTC is the explicit legal basis, there may be political obstacles or questions about changing UTC. The very title 'Coordinated Universal Time' expresses the requirement to track Earth rotation: nations adopting UTC broadcasts as their statutory or regulatory standard understood UTC to be a realization of Universal Time in title and purpose upon official adoption, and the obligation to keep pace with Earth rotation has never been repealed." Jc3s5h (talk) 00:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Added as recommended. Walkerma (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Better version of Philippines article

Better version of Philippines article is the more recent Revision 385376960 by ElockidAlternate 16:01, 17 September 2010 – Removes dubiously related original research. Should replace Revision 383673037 by Chipmunkdavis 17:01, 8 September 2010. —Lambanog (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Walkerma (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject New Zealand

Hi all - first a quick thank you for doing this task, and a comment that overall the NZ list looks a good one. There are a couplke of articles which seem to be glaring ommissions, though:

I also think it's a little odd that three of the country's regions have listed articles (Waikato, Manawatu-Wanganui, and West Coast), whereas none of the others do. This may be a problem with the assessment by WPNZ, however - to my untrained eye the articles on Canterbury Region and Otago Region (both classed as "Start") look better than the one on West Coast Region (classed as "B").

I realise everyoine from every WikiProject's going to have suggestions on what could and could not go into v0.8, but I'd suggest trimming out the three Regions and just keeping the Regions of New Zealand article, and adding in the three others I named. Grutness...wha? 01:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Numerous other WP:NZ editors have made comments and suggestions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand, most of wwhich sounds like reasonable changes. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, this is a very helpful discussion- exactly what we're looking for. I'll reply in more detail over at the WikiProject when I get a chance, including on articles like Māori Party. Right now the toolserver is slow, so I'll try later. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
BEGIN text copied from WikiProject page, with my comments (Walkerma) added in


I'd like to include this, but not until cleanup tags are removed, and it reaches at least C-Class. Walkerma (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


Adabow (talk · contribs) 00:34, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do.
I'd also suggest the following:
Zeeland and Trieste aren't that important for our subject, but I imagine they are worth including for other reasons. --Avenue (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I now see Wikipedia:Release_Version_Nominations#Everyday_Life here that New Zealand wine has already been rejected as not important enough. --Avenue (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm adding all except the articles on wine, Geology, List of earthquakes, Volcanism (but I am adding the Canterbury one). Some of those I'm omitting are nice articles, and I wish I could include them, but the external interest rating is just too low.

I've responded on the v0.8 talk page, but I'll bite here, too.


I'd also be tempted to add New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament, and Arms Control Act 1987 (surprisingly, only 518 pts). Other than that, I agree pretty much with Avenue's and Adabow's comments above. Grutness...wha? 04:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

One thing uniquely Kiwi are Māori electorates. That article isn't very comprehensive, though. I've recently written First Māori elections, which goes a lot more into the historical context of that issue. It's quite new and I don't know where the score that the toolserver lists show comes from. Both have a relatively low score of 225, so are way below the cut off for articles that have been chosen (>1050). Ok, I'm probably biased, but one of those articles should be added. Schwede66 06:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The score is based on class, importance, and how long the article has had the assessments (I think). Therefore a relatively new article will probably have a pretty low score.
Māori Party might be more worthwhile as a v0.8 article... Grutness...wha? 09:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but then would we need New Zealand foreshore and seabed controversy? Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'm adding Goff and Clutha River, but excluding Kowhai and the Gold Rush articles as being just too low. I will omit the regions as requested, and add Māori Party, but not the foreshore controversy. Walkerma (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Indigenous peoples of Australia - my suggestions

Suggest you add:

  • Neville Bonner (had not been tagged by the project - this now fixed) - first Indigenous elected parliamentarian, member of Constitutional Convention, Order of Australia recipient etc etc. Quality of content looks OK, refs not so good.
  • Albert Namatjira (had not been tagged by the project - this now fixed) - along with Bonner, probably the only Indigenous Australians to be household names prior to the 1980s. Quality of content looks OK, refs not so good.
  • If the welter of citation tags could be addressed, would suggest Cathy Freeman (had not been tagged by the project - this now fixed).
  • Contemporary Indigenous Australian art - I have a bit of a COI as this article's creator and main editor, but this art is widely quoted as "the last great art movement of the 20th century" and is of great cultural importance to Australia generally, not to mention to Indigenous Australians.

White there are some quality problems with some of the other articles, I think they are a good list in terms of importance. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:40, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I notice that all of these articles - other than your art article - are very weak on references. The Bonner article could be included if it were a much stronger article, but its scoring on other parameters is also low. Namatjira does rather better, so I think we can include that as well as the art article. Freeman was autoselected. Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan suggestions

I reviewed this list. I would suggest deleting Charles Mackerras, which is not a very good article and also not an important article to our project. Instead, I would add D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, Trial by Jury and The Pirates of Penzance. You might also want to include George Grossmith. Looking at other projects, I see that you are pretty much including all the FA and GA articles. You might want to include all of our FA and GA articles? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

All added as suggested, including Grossmith. I daren't remove Mackerras - he wasn't picked for the G&S project, but for one or more other projects, for which he is ranked more highly. BTW, we give a higher score to FAs and GAs, but there are many of these that have been excluded, even after further review - they have to be on an important topic to be included. Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes

I've browsed over the titles (haven't looked at the articles to check their quality), but seeing as how my choice use for the software would be to allow children to browse with the comfort that they are not online, I'd expect to find both an array of well-known fishes as well as a couple lesser-known amazing ones.

Angelfish - Extremely well-known.

Bass - Anyone who goes fishing would appreciate this one.

Chinese algae eater - Popular in aquariums, this is a weird fish that sticks to the side of a tank with its mouth, keeping the rocks and glass clean.

Clownfish - Very well-known fish, a favorite among kids. I'm surprised it's not on the list.

Manta Ray - Gigantic thing that hardly looks like a fish, and it can jump out of the water to look around. Kids love this one, too.

Oarfish - The longest fish there is, and it's pretty spiffy-looking, too.

Psychedelic Frogfish - Not particularly well-known, but a very notable fish for being so weird. Kids would love reading about a fish that can inflate and deflate its face, swim like a bouncing beachball or by using jet propulsion, blend in with pinstripe pajama camouflage, and crawl into tiny holes with its armlike fins.

Sawfish - Seriously, what kid doesn't love a shark with a gigantic serrated blade on its snout?

Since Northern Pike is already included, I'm not sure Esox is necessary, but that's just me.

And, that's my two cents. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 01:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing you meant Pterophyllum, since Angelfish is a disambig page. We can include that - it's pretty extensive for a Start-Class. Walkerma (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, I think we can add all of these; all except the frogfish get good importance rankings. The Bass (fish) one really is a disambig page, but we certainly need a basic entry on bass. I'll add them tomorrow. Walkerma (talk) 06:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm no fisherman, but I think the Largemouth bass is the classic favorite. Thanks for your hard work in reviewing all these candidates, not just in WP Fishes, but in the entire Wikipedia! Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 19:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks - after a little cleanup, I added the largemouth bass article to represent bass. The sawfish article was badly crippled by some old vandalism - now restored; you may want to watch that one. Thanks for your input. Walkerma (talk) 04:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Added it to my watchlist. Smart thinking! So long, and thanks for all the fish! Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 07:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Musicals Project

The musicals project doesn't cover musical films, so any of those are incorrectly tagged. Why are you including C-class and start-class articles? I wouldn't include those? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for mentioning this; unfortunately, there is little we can do, though it won't affect the overall selection much. At some point, someone will have to re-tag those for WP:Films (do they have a musicals task force?) It looks like a job for a film buff with AutoWikiBrowser.
We do bias the selection process heavily towards better quality articles already. However, we made a policy decision back in 2006 to include lower quality articles if they were important enough topics; otherwise we would have done our initial release with several countries of the world omitted. The situation today is no different, although the collection is much bigger; the collection should not be simply FA/GA/A/B-class articles - we'd end up with articles on obscure South American reptiles but we'd omit the articles that people actually want and need, such as physical chemistry or Phil Goff. The latter is one of many that were proposed by the WikiProjects on this page - see #WikiProject_New_Zealand just above.

Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Botswana

I think you should use a new version of the Gaborone page. The information on the old revision is outdated, and the newer one has a lot more references and correct information. ethansmith | talk to me. 01:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm proposing to use this version. Please let me know if there are any problems with that. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 03:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


Suggest you use this version, in which I have reverted some vandalism. hamiltonstone (talk) 02:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! That's definitely one to show to the WikiTrust people - it will be useful to find how that slipped through! Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Baseball

Every article in Baseball Category, the 50 we selected should be on the list. Along with our FAs and GAs. Secret account 02:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me which ones specifically should be added or removed? As you can see from this page, I have a lot to check! Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia

A newer version of the Kevin Rudd article should be used, since if I am reading the list correctly, the selected version of that article shows that he is still Prime Minister of Australia, which is emphatically not the case now. Perhaps a newer version of Julia Gillard should be added as well, since her situation has changed dramatically since she became the Prime Minister on 24 June. Graham87 03:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! You've just shown the value of human checking - the bot checks for the most trustworthy version, and it doesn't know about current events. I've updated Kevin Rudd to RevID 389983974, and Gillard to RevID 390821154. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs

I propose List of dinosaurs be removed from the selection as it claims to be a complete list but is rather controversial and never completely up-to-date.

In its place, I nominate Gideon Mantell, the first paleontologist to work with dinosaurs (with the exception of his wife, who, unfortunately, has no article at all on Wikipedia?!?). Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 03:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Mills

May I suggest a few individual mill articles for consideration for inclusion?

Thanks for your time. Mjroots (talk) 04:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a total lack of modern textile mills (post 1850) {{Lancashire Cotton}} {{Lancashire Cotton Corporation}} refer. As the driving force of the industrial revolution- and the economic development of nineteenth and twentieth century: this omission seems strange.

--ClemRutter (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Unfortunately, most of these articles are getting very few hits/day, and very few foreign language versions too, so they score extremely low. I checked some of the list articles mentioned in the templates, and these also have typically less than ten hits per day; the norm for an article in this selection is several hundred/day. I think we can include Thelnetham Windmill, which can provide a good example of a mill and showcase the work of this project. Thanks again, Walkerma (talk) 05:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Color

For the most part I think the selection chosen is fine (though sadly many of these crucially important articles are pretty shoddy), but I have a few comments on the list:

Cheers, jacobolus (t) 04:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm removing the following, as proposed above:
I'm adding the following, as recommended:
I'm proposing to leave out:
  • Opponent process = only a Start, and much too low on the external interest scores (e.g., only one other language has the article), and covered in the Color Vision article.
  • Color printing = only a C, and scores fairly low on external interest scores; if this were improved to a B, I'd include it.
Many thanks! (More work later...) Walkerma (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Now completed. These were great suggestions, thanks! Walkerma (talk) 02:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest using the following versions of Red, Yellow, Green, and Blue since we in the Color Project just added greatly expanded definitions of these colors in the four major color systems--RGB, CMYK, NCS, and Munsell, so they contain a lot more information about the colors:

I would suggest using the following version of Purple because it now includes the Munsell color purple which is important to include because Munsell is one of the major color systems:

I think that Cyan and Magenta should DEFINITELY be included because it is important to include all of the three primary colors used in printing--yellow, cyan and magenta.

I also think that web colors and the list of colors, as well as Gold (color) should DEFINITELY be included. A lot of people use the web colors and everyone has a strong interest in the list of colors. The list of colors article gets an average of about 7,500 views per day, which is a large amount for a Wikipedia article.

The article on the color gold has a lot of interesting information about the color gold in the "gold in human culture" section.

Jacobolus writes most of the content of the articles on color theory and since 2006 I have written most of the content of the articles on the colors themselves. It is mostly us two who edit and add most of the content to the color articles. Another person named Pale Aqua creates the templates that are used to display the colors; she is a highly skilled computer programmer from England. Another person named VMS Mosaic does a lot of work patrolling the articles against vandalism. A person named Dicklyon checks for scientific accuracy. So it is mostly just we five people in the Color Project.

Anyway, I hope you will go with my suggestions.

Best wishes, Keraunos (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've followed your suggestions completely; the only one removed was the black and white. Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Three Kingdoms's feedback

That's all, I think. Thanks _dk (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Now done - thanks! Walkerma (talk) 21:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry

Re the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poetry recommendations, I think these articles are in too rough a state to submit - they haven't been seriously edited or had substantive content added edited for years.

I would suggest instead:

Most of the class assessments are very out of date. This is just an individual take, I'm not speaking on behalf of anyone else. Thanks Spanglej (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Neruda is just as important for Chileans as Seamus Heaney is today, not sure if that would be the best omission, Sadads (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Sure, I'm just commenting on the state of the article, not global or local importance. Heaney has had a recent clean up, Neruda hasn't, as far as I know. Span (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, we can't really exclude these as they are just too important, and they are on lists for several WikiProjects. If we missed out the Brownings, a lot of poetry lovers would complain, I'm sure! The four suggested adds were already selected; I think maybe you didn't see the full list (you may have to see "next 100 entries"). Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Project Namibia

Further nominating, in their version as of 07:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC):

  • Twyfelfontein (GA, Mid) -- Namibia's only World Heritage Site,
  • Caprivi treason trial (C, High) -- Possibly interesting in regards to current politics and Human rights,
  • Dorsland Trek (Start, Mid) -- Possibly interesting how the Whites came to settle in inland Africa.

And an info: Walvis Bay and Lüderitz have been downgraded to "High". --Pgallert (talk) 07:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

PS1: I'm one of the two active members of this project.
PS2: Bushmen, an article selected to make it into 0.8, is a derogatory term and an offense towards the San, as they are properly called. I can make an effort to get consensus to move the article before the deadline, or is that too late? --Pgallert (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I think I may have contacted you via your talk page, but never formally recorded my reply here. I have added Twyfelfontein, but the other two are much too specialised for this release. I see that the San article still hasn't been moved. I hope you can get that moved by the time we produce Version 1.0 - probably early next year. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Breast cancer

Work in progress, have done some streamlining in introduction and will do more work on risk factors/epidemiology RSN. Will let you know about progress. Richiez (talk) 08:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Avatar: The Last Airbender

For the most part, the selection chosen seems to be fine. However, I would take a more recent revision of the main Avatar: The Last Airbender article, as some of the content has significantly changed since the revision currently selected for Version 0.8. — Parent5446 (msg email) 08:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


Selected version has a little formatting issue in "FDA approved indications" section, possibly more. Richiez (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject South Africa

Article assessment for WikiProject South Africa is still very poor, but I believe the following articles could be considered for inclusion in Release version 0.8

--NJR_ZA (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Both articles are a bit low - the telescope one is a bit borderline, but there is no compelling reason to add. The WikiProject didn't respond to my post, so I'm leaving them out for now. If the telescope one can be raised to GA, we could add it. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Ships

The articles chosen seem to be biased towards military ships. We need some merchant ships, the glamorous and the not-so-glamorous. Therefore I submit for consideration

These should address the balance a bit. Mjroots (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment (my Dad was in the Merchant Navy in WW2), but these articles score very low, unfortunately. For example, most articles in the collection get several hundred hits a day, not per month. However, the Resolution article didn't get considered because it wasn't tagged by the project until recently; I checked the stats by hand and for a new article these are pretty good, and the article also covers a new and potentially important type of vessel. It is also lots of fun- important for a collection to be potentially used a lot in schools (see the Fish posting above!) - so I'll stick my neck out and include it. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject UK Railways

Done, thanks a lot! Walkerma (talk) 04:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Richard Wagner

Houston Stewart Chamberlain seems significantly overscored. The article is of very low importance as regards Richard Wagner, and of virtually nil importance as regards Opera (of which WP Wagner is an offshoot) or music. He is a pretty obscure figure (regardless of one's views of his opnions) and certainly doesn't deserve to be in Wikipedia 0.8!! --Smerus (talk) 12:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

On a separate manner, I note that three of the four Ring operas are included. This makes the selection look very haphazard. Siegfried (opera) should be handled in the same way as Das Rheingold, Die Walküre and Götterdämmerung - all in, or all out. If they are to be included, then they need a quick going over. All four rely entirely on the two composition of the Ring articles for details of the individual works' composition. I'll have a quick hack at them to include some info and then let you know which version to use.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Further to this we at WP:Wagner have decided that the four articles mentioned above are not suitable for inclusion and should and therefore Das Rheingold, Die Walküre and Götterdämmerung should be removed and Siegfried (opera) should remain left out. The consensus as the project is that the four articles were rated too highly in the last assessments and I have downgraded them. Also the version of Die Walküre selected contains a dirty great copyvio which has since been fixed.

On the other hand, Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg has improved since it was last assessed. I have now upgraded it to a B and it should be included in the build.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:26, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The project also supports the inclusion of Cosima Wagner, the BP of Wagner's second wife who presided over the Bayreuth Festival for many years after his death.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

All the above reflects conversations at the project talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Richard Wagner#Richard Wagner articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release--Peter cohen (talk) 00:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

OK thanks, this is very helpful! I would have expected us to be including all four parts of the ring cycle (the bot doesn't know they are linked!), but it seems as if we'll have to wait for the next release for you to knock those into shape. At least we have Der Ring des Nibelungen. I agree with your suggestions of Cosima Wagner and Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg, these look to be an excellent choice. Regarding Houston Stewart Chamberlain, I think I'll leave him in; it's hard to remove an article that is of interest to several diverse WikiProjects, because one may say "that doesn't matter" while another may disagree strongly (though it's true that no one rates it as very important). Also, the stats are very clear and consistent, with a steady 4-5000 people a month reading the article even going back to 2008. There are articles on him in Latvian, Bulgarian, Farsi, Japanese and many more, suggesting a worldwide importance. So I think I'm going to play safe and leave that one in. Many thanks for your great feedback. Walkerma (talk) 04:14, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Cuba

I can suggest:

Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but the external interest scores for these are just too low, and I don't see a compelling argument for completeness, etc that can be made. If they make it to FA, they may well make it into the next selection. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject U2

As our project determines any updated article revisions that should be included for release, they will be posted here:

Many thanks! Walkerma (talk) 04:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Venezuela

Most of the articles I'm not that familiar with (not being core Venezuela topics), but

  • using a version of Economy of Venezuela from Feb 2010 is not great - it's had quite a bit of cleanup since then: compare then and now. Still far from great, but better.
  • same applies to Hugo Chavez. It remains a disaster, but a more recent version of the disaster would be better.
  • United Socialist Party of Venezuela is an important subject, but the article is fairly useless. Maybe include it anyway.
  • Venezuela is important but only OKish; if we have a couple of weeks, WPVEN might try and improve it a bit.
  • Apart from Caracas (which is OK as an article) and List of Presidents of Venezuela (Featured List, but boring), and Venezuela national football team (adequate I suppose) that's actually it from the list [2] for topics which are really Venezuela, rather than regional or tangential.

So, suggestions for inclusion:

Rd232 talk 16:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: following major revision of the lead (previous was quite appallingly inadequate) and body, please use at least this revision of Venezuela. Rd232 talk 23:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Indiana

Hello, a bot recently asked our project to review articles for inclusion in the next release of wikipedia. There are three omissions from our project that I feel should be included. Most importantly, the article Indiana should be included (thats kind of a no brainer). Secondly History of Indiana, Indiana General Assembly, and Battle of Corydon deserve inclusion over some of the other picks. At minimum Indiana is a must have topic. Thanks —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 17:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed all the articles in question. Many articles listed are not of particularly important value or quality.

There are a lot of Indiana articles selected; I think you must not have clicked on "More" to see the full selection. Clearly articles like Indiana were included (it scored >1100 external interest, so it would've been included even if just a Stub!). Generally we're reluctant to remove articles on places because these often provide important context (look at a copy of World Book or Britannica). I have added my comments in italics after each one.

The following articles may be removed from the list, unless they are they for another project:

These article I think are not of sufficient quality to merit inclusion, in addition to some not being notable enough. Please remove them from the list as well

I looked at all the others, and none of these are included because of their Indiana connection. I would have to have the physics project advise against including the Purcell article, for example. Walkerma (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

There are a few articles not included in the list should be, some are pretty obvious

Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 14:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time. Walkerma (talk) 03:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I will ask around the project for third opinions. I am happy with your decisions, and you certainly don't have to remove anything. If there are more deserving topics out there, Jeffersonville, Harison County, and and Columbus would be my first cuts. Jeffersonville and Harrison County are most important for their historical value; I am not sure what real value Columbus has? Its one of dozens of other medium sized cities. —Charles Edward (Talk | Contribs) 13:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Metalworking

Thanks a lot for the detailed input - this is very helpful! I'll update the revisionIDs as you suggest. Regarding the article suggestions, I'll add List of screw drives, die casting (GAN!), brazing, drilling, turning, plating, screw thread. However, Threading (manufacturing) is too low on the External Interest scores, sand casting is a bit low and also lacks refs, so I'm omitting those two. Many thanks! Walkerma (talk) 04:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Somerset

Thank you for the message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Somerset#Somerset articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release. I clicked on the link for project articles requiring cleanup, however this didn't seem to have anything related to Somerset. Is this a bug in the process or am I doing something wrong?— Rod talk 17:21, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Greater Manchester

I was interested to read the selections for Greater Manchester articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release and while I appreciate it is done to a formula, consider it to be unduly weighted toward football articles, particularly related to Manchester United. I like football but think, considering the scope of FA and GA articles written by WikiProject Greater Manchester participants and other editors, the selection is flawed. In fact I would replace any C class article in the list with any GA or Fa article from the project.

Perhaps you might initially consider these:

River Mersey could be replaced by River Irwell reason, better quality article which is more relevant to several boroughs in Greater Manchester. Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy could be replaced with Belle Vue Zoological Gardens reason too many Manchester United articles, this one is short and mostly lists. Phil Neville could be swapped for Scout Moor Wind Farm, a FA quality article. Gary Neville could be replaced by Manchester Ship Canal or Trafford Park.

I appreciate the football lobby won't agree, but really Greater Manchester is a much bigger topic. This is my view, not the project view.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree that Manchester Ship Canal and Trafford Park should be included. They are significant subjects, not just in a Manchester context. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
It's difficult for me to remove these articles, since their importance is more relevant to Liverpool or Football than it is to Gtr Manchester. I don't want to get lynched by the "football lobby" - and believe me, even here in northern New York most people have heard of Man U (an American friend watches all of their games). However, you make some great suggestions:
  • River Irwell is a lovely article, with an almost perfect rating in WikiTrust, and it only comes in a hair below the threshold. This is an easy approval.
  • Scout Moor Wind Farm and Belle Vue Zoological Gardens are nice articles on interesting (IMHO) topics, but they're both just way too low on external interest to qualify, unfortunately.
  • Trafford Park is also a high-interest, high quality article that will be added.
  • Manchester Ship Canal - I agree, it's a very significant topic, and the article looks decent. To be added.
Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dallas

Considerable work has been done on Denton, Texas since the October 2009 version that was selected.

Please use this revision (385032628) for Denton, Texas in the WikiProject Dallas and WikiProject Texas groups. --Mahanga (Talk) 21:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Did this, but I forgot to log it here. Thanks Mahanga - long time no chat! Remember Antarctica?!Walkerma (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Spiders

Please include the article Spider anatomy (which is a sub-article of Spider) in Wikipedia Version 0.8. Otherwise your selections are fine. Ryan Kaldari (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Please add recluse spider, Latrodectus mactans, Hobo spider, Australian funnel-web spider, and wolf spider to the CD release of Wikipedia. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 00:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I've added the anatomy article, and also Latrodectus mactans, Hobo spider and wolf spider. The other two were a bit too low-scoring on quality and importance; if improved to B I could probably add them. Can you check to see that this version of the wolf spider article is good? WikiTrust shows a lot of "untrustworthy" editing, but that could just be edits by a newbie. Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I've left a note at the project page asking for a review of that revision of wolf spider. Also, someone has expressed that spider anatomy would make a good inclusion. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 22:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Furry

Like last time, it would probably be better to use Symbol support vote.svg furry convention and/or Symbol support vote.svg fursuit rather than anthropomorphism, which is well-linked, but still not a very good article. Furry fandom (which was also selected) contains sufficient information to understand anthropomorphism in the context of the fandom. GreenReaper (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Bristol

I would like to suggest Bristol Old Vic and Bristol Bus Boycott, 1963 as worthy candidates. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions. The bus boycott article is too specialised for such a general release, but the Old Vic may just be warranted. I asked for a second opinion at the project - I always do this in borderline cases where the proposer also worked on the article. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Systems

I have taken a look at this list an noticed some article which assessment didn't add up:

Their assessment wasn't right and I think they should not be in the listing

I apologise - for some reason I missed this project when I worked through this page! I'm doing a final cleanup of loose ends and just saw that I'd neglected to respond or even check the articles - sorry! The reason for the apparent mis-assessment is because these articles were selected because of another project, but they show up on the Systems list because they are tagged for your WikiProject. For example, Configuration management scores only 972 for WP:Systems, but 1165 (as of today) for WP:Computing. It gets a whopping 842 hits per day, so it would be hard to exclude an article like that!

Articles missing in the listing are:

Good luck -- Mdd (talk) 23:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

We can add Ludwig von Bertalanffy and Russell L. Ackoff (both tagged as Top-importance), but the others are not well-known enough for a very general selection like 0.8. Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I just noticed the Information Technology Infrastructure Library ranked 3658 in traffic on with 4.2k hits a day. So I guess this shouldn't be excluded as well. Good luck. -- Mdd (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Opera

The following articles are not of sufficient interest to WP:WPO to be included in Version 0.8: Andrea Bocelli, Her Majesty's Theatre, Jay Pritzker Pavilion and Falsetto. In addition, Die Walküre has been erroneously tagged with the WPO banner as well as the banner of our Richard Wagner sub-project. We are currently discussing suitable replacements for these and other fringe articles listed in our table. --GuillaumeTell 23:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

These articles are included for other reasons than just the opera connection, so we need to leave them in - unless there is some very strong reason to remove them. If an article has been tagged erroneously, just remove the WP:WPO tag from the talk page, and it will disappear from your listing in a day or two. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Prem Rawat Articles

I am surprised Prem Rawat articles are being considered for inclusion on V. 0.8. Although Prem Rawat was notable as a young guru in the 70s and early 80s, for many years now, in spite of tremendous efforts by his remaining supporters, he has not been included in any reliable sources. Activity on the articles is very quiet except when current supporters try to edit the articles to present their guru in a better light.--John Brauns (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I cannot for the life of me figure out why the Prem Rawat series of articles has been selected for inclusion on V. 0.8. For years now, the editing of the Prem Rawat articles has been one of the most contentious in the Biography of Living Persons category and these articles are not good examples of cooperative, accurate, informational Wikipedia writing. The only reason the articles were placed in the WikiProject section was because pro-Rawat editors have been unable and unwilling to cooperate with uninvolved editors through two lengthy ARBCOMs, and many attempts at mediation that were fruitless. Moreover, there are plenty of other biographies that would serve to educate the general public other than information about a New Religious Movement/cult leader. I'm interested in knowing what criteria has been used to make this dubious choice and an explanation would be most appreciated. Sylviecyn (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

So would I. Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for flagging this, I've checked into it carefully. There are two issues here - importance and quality.
  • Regarding importance, the topic is important enough; it gets 100-200 hits per day (and has done since 2007, with a spike on the day he died); also there are nine other languages that have this topic. That's pretty clear to me, based on impartial measures.
  • As for quality, I can see that the article has been a subject for very heated controversy. However, it is assessed as B-Class by several WikiProjects, and it does not carry any cleanup tags. I also ran a WikiTrust check, and the current version looks very "clean" - meaning that the editors who wrote nearly all the article are editors whose work is normally kept. I've updated things to make sure we use that current version.
I've never heard of this person, and I didn't follow the Arbcom, but by every objective measure we have, this article deserves to be included. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Maya stelae

Hi, you may want to consider Maya stelae for the release, it's a new article but already fairly complete and of high importance within WikiProject Mesoamerica. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 12:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's definitely one to watch, but at present it doesn't look to be major enough to qualify. We should be seeing an equivalent article in Spanish and other languages, for example. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Darts

Hi, i'm representing WikiProject Darts and have a suggestion regarding our project.

  • Phil Taylor is a very known sportsman across the world and should be included in the version, it is also a well-written and well-referenced article.

Thanks. Mr.Kennedy1 talk guestbook 15:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Certainly - will do. It looks like you and others improved the article a lot recently - I think it was tagged as only C-Class when the selection was made, and now it's a B or potentially an A. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject atheism

I cannot get the "list of articles" to show up on any of my computers (maybe the toolserver is over-loaded at the moment)? Could someone on the v0.8 team check to ensure that the Criticism of religion article is in the list? I think it is "B" rated and High priority. It is also within the Religion project, and is highly rated there, also. --Noleander (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the article was auto-selected. The toolserver is quite often slow due to load or doing backups etc, but if you try an hour or two later it's better. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject African diaspora

I tried to use the tool server, and I don't see any articles listed yet from this project. It is still in work? --Noleander (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

TM articles

I think the articles on Transcendental Meditation movement and Transcendental Meditation technique are probably the two most important articles not included in the release version, although I don't know the subject so well as to say whether they are more important, as separate articles, than other topics also not included. John Carter (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The scoring on these articles is very low - well below the threshold, and much lower than Transcendental Meditation, which is included. So I think we should leave them out for this selection. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 08:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Gliding

Clicking on the link to give the list of articles produces no list. The link gives a toolkit with no information whether the Glifing project has to generate its own list or whether no article merits inclusion. Since Gliding is a featured article, the second interpretation seems unlikely. Puzzled. JMcC (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The list can be found here, and six articles are included - Gliding, Wind shear, Glider_(sailplane), Paragliding, [List of X-planes]], Sea breeze. Not sure if there was a bug, or whether it was just a temporary problem with toolserver. Look at the previous two posts, it's possible. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 08:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Locking in the source

I'm not sure how this is done but I was once embarrassed by a typo in a article I was "watching" and discovered that just before it hit "featured article" someone had changed a BC date to an AD date which was mortifying to insiders.

At some close delta to "publish" the article(s) should be fully protected with only a single editor/admin able to make changes. Edit "suggestions" which s/he should take lightly, can be made on the discussion page. No reason it can't go out with "simple" errors. They all do. But the gross ones (vandalism sometimes) can be eliminated in this fashion. If you haven't made plans to do this already. Student7 (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That might work. But what is being suggested here is that a specific stored version of the article be the one used in the release edition. If someone thinks one version of the article is better than another one, they are free to nominate that version. But, by doing it this way, the articles selected are, effectively, vandal-proof, because no one can change after the fact the specific stored version of the article used. John Carter (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but some of the Catholic articles have problems with citations and original research. I'm hoping that before these versions are published, those sources are checked. Afterall, readers in the wider world will be seeing them and checking those sources. Don't want Wikipedia to come up short.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
No disagreement there. If you can point out which of the selected articles you have in mind, that would help a lot. When I tried using the bot earlier today, unfortunately, it was down, so my own ability to check things was limited. Drop me a note and I'll see what I can do. John Carter (talk) 00:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
It should be back up now, see below. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Please add more Energy GAs

I think this Wikipedia 0.8 offline release is a great idea, but it would seem that most of the WP:Energy recognised content is not being included. For example, apparently only 12 of our 45 GAs are to be included, see [3]. I therefore propose that an additional 12 energy GAs be added to the 0.8 release, all with a selection score above 740: My comments are added after the article names, with my general response below the list. Walkerma (talk)

-- Johnfos (talk) 02:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

When I glanced over the list, I expected only to add two or three, because I thought most would turn out to be too specialized, but in fact there are fairly compelling reasons for including quite a few of these. When I review these lists, not only do I try to listen to the subject-experts, I also consider our main "market" for this collection - schools in developing countries. Many of these topics are great for such schools, and they are very current. I think the main reason for the low scores on many of these is that many other languages haven't got their act together to write on these subjects - some of which have only recently risen in importance. I'd guess that the Germans, the Swedes, the French etc would love to have articles on things like Sustainable biofuel, but this content is currently inside the main biofuel article. Interesting selection, thanks!

Temporary outage 2010-9-21, should be fixed now

There was a temporary outage of the web tool this afternoon. The system admins disabled a key feature of the Wikipedia API that the WP 1.0 system uses, because of performance problems of unknown origin. This feature loaded information from Wikipedia to format the table cells with appropriate colors and links.

I hacked the tool to not load this data, so the table cells are now very plain. I plan to restore the old functionality in the web tool when the issue with the API is sorted. Until then, the limited functionality is the best that can be done on short notice.

This issue may cause other odd displays. For example, the main page will not display properly. But the article lists and manual selection tools should work again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The "tables" tool will not work on toolserver, either, but you should be able to view the summary tables on Wikipedia as usual. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Textile Arts

  • Please use the [4]] of Sewing - someone has fixed a word inversion in the version you selected. - PKM (talk) 04:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Please use this version of leather; the one you have flagged has a number of grammatical infelicities. - PKM (talk) 01:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Please use this version of silk; uncited info has been removed and problems fixed. - PKM (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Please use this version of felt; it's good to include the reference to the phrase "mad as a hatter".

Suggested additions

- PKM (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! I've updated to the versions you suggested (felt goes to the current version), and added both the suggested additions. Both are indeed decent articles on significant topics with good scores; Tyrian purple happens to be a particular favourite of mine! (As an organic chemist, I've tried doing a synthesis of it - I've always been fascinated by this compound, which is chemically related to indigo.) Walkerma (talk) 03:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nevada suggested adds

I think that vast areas of Nevada culture have been left out. How can we not have included the Welcome to Las Vegas sign in past releases or the loneliest highway in the US? Here is a random list of some articles that cover some of the missing topics.

Vegaswikian (talk) 01:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to put together quite a large selection. I can't add many, or I'd be accused of gross bias; anyway, many of these are poor quality (no one has even nominated a Stub for inclusion before!) or unimportant for a global release (several are listed as Low-Importance even for the Nevada WikiProject!). Pinus longaeva, Old Spanish Trail and Paiute people are the types of topics that would go down well in this collection (which will mainly be used in schools in developing countries) but the articles need to be improved first. There are a few nice things in there, which I've added, viz. CityCenter, Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, U.S. Route 50 in Nevada. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Bhutan

Im from WikiProject Bhutan and here is what i think should change for our articles



Thats what i think should change Spongie555 (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well well. Nepali language tells its readers that In Bhutan those who speak Nepali (known as Lhotshampa) are estimated at between 40 percent and 50 percent of the population, or about 1 million people. -- Hoary (talk) 00:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes but the main and offical language is Dzongkha. Spongie555 (talk) 03:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
The first three were tagged for this project - if they don't belong, the talk page tags should be removed. They will be included in the selection because of their importance to other topics. I see that the university has architecture modeled after that of Bhutan - but it is included in this selection only because of its importance to US education.
The flag can definitely be added. The other three all score extremely low on things like no. of page views; however, in the interests of comprehensiveness, we do want to include some Bhutan content. I think we should include Dzongkha, as it is the official language, even though the article still needs more work. We can also include Punakha Dzong, which scores very low but it WAS the seat of govt for many centuries and it is still an important historic building, and the article is GA. The palace article, however, is not such good quality, and scores very low on external interest, so I think we'll have to omit this. If it makes it to GA, we can include it next time. Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject NASCAR



If you have any questions, please feel free to leave a note at WT:NASCAR. Thanks. ~NerdyScienceDude 13:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I responded at WT:NASCAR. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Jazz

User:AllyD had identified some rather puzzling inclusions in the WP:JAZZ list (e.g. Bhumibol Adulyadej), and/or questioned their importance ratings (Etta James, Jill Scott). I think part of this may have had to do with the rating from one project getting grandfathered into another. I'm not sure who can go through the entire list, or when. Is there a plan to generate the list again, or do you prefer that the Project provide you with a revised list? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:57, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest adding the following articles for the 0.8 release (they were not on the 0.8 jazz article list). I based these purely on importance of the articles, and not on article quality (which may not be so helpful). At any rate, here they are:
-- Gyrofrog (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
I replied at WT:JAZZ. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 06:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Squash

As the main contributor to the squash project, I Arteyu would like to propose some important squash articles to be part of Version 0.8. The articles are as per listed below:

Arteyu ? Blame it on me ! 19:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see a stronger quality for these, but I understand the problems for a small project. I think we can include World Open and Jahangir Khan, but the others are a bit too specialised. Thanks Walkerma (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject History of photography

You have several nominees whose significance to photography is minimal or zero, but who I suppose are worthwhile in other ways.

You also list this version of Manuel Rivera-Ortiz. This has several long and rather adulatory quotations about him, all unsourced. Its list of exhibitions is also completely unsourced. Rivera-Ortiz appears to be doing very worthwhile work and to be a good photographer, but he's not (yet) regarded as particularly eminent. Compare the article on him with, say, that on Chris Steele-Perkins, who's in Magnum Photos and whose article is fastidiously sourced and not adulatory. (However, the latter article is unillustrated, boring, and my own.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Manuel Rivera-Ortiz article gets worse. See Talk:Manuel Rivera-Ortiz#Credibility problem. -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I advise against Manuel Rivera-Ortiz, but if you want it then this version (current) is better than the version you chose (diff). -- Hoary (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I've discovered yet more problems with the article since then. (The "sourcing" for at least one claim that his work is in a permanent collection actually says no such thing.) But fixing the puffery endemic in this article exhausts me. For now I'll just say that the article merits more citation needed and similar flags than it already has. -- Hoary (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I warmly recommend Ueno Hikoma, and specifically this version of it. This is a fine, scrupulously sourced and well illustrated article about a photographer of great importance in Japan. (And no, it's not mine.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I notice that the Rivera-Ortiz article scores poorly with WikiTrust as well (imperfect, but can be useful for checking cases like this, it uses author reputation within WP). The external interest scores for all of these is quite low; however, I notice that these same authors (SwissLawyer, KissMeKate) have created versions of this article in many different languages, too - that boosts the scoring in our system. I will include the Hikoma article, because although it's a bit lower in external interest scoring, it provides a scholarly article on a non-Western photographer - the kind of thing we like to include. Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


I might add Parshva. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The article is well illustrated, but otherwise seems quite weak. I could add it if it were B or above, but not as it is. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Buddhism articles

I think it's truly silly to include Courtney Love among the Buddhism articles (listed HERE). The article about her doesn't even mention Buddhism except to put her in a red-linked category for "Buddhist Women". The article about her until recently didn't even mention Buddhism. Now essentially it only mentions that she feels Buddhism saved her. There are dozens of troubled pop stars, and the fact that one may turn to one religion while another may turn to another religion for help doesn't shed much light about the religions themselves. Including this article risks giving the wrong impression that Wikipedia is lightweight. Health Researcher (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the articles are selected based on the placement of the banner on the article's talk page. There are a lot of articles which I have found to be in what some might consider amusing lists, evidently based on that fact. The list is just a list of all those articles which have been deemed at all relevant to the project, generally by whoever placed the banner. We really don't have the time or people to go through and mark the lists based on any other criteria. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details (bold added).
Hmmm. I'm not sure what the bottom line of your remarks is. The request, quoted above, that was put on the Buddhism project page did invite suggestions for exclusion. And I notice that elsewhere on this page (e.g., Christianity subheader, above), various editors are suggesting that particular articles should be excluded because of their noncentrality. If feedback about exclusion is not wanted, perhaps the notice should be reworded. Health Researcher (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the notices were made to ask whether the articles should be excluded from the release version altogether; it wasn't necessarily operating on the assumption that the articles were in fact going to be in any sort of "section" of the release version. So, yeah, a lot of the articles aren't necessarily particularly relevant to all the lists they might appear in, particularly regarding religious and regional projects; the lists are basically there to ask opinion about the importance and quality of the articles listed in the broader sense, not necessarily about their importance to the individual project, I think anyway. I would be interested though in whether you have any opinions about any individuals, schools, books, or other material which isn't on the list which you think should be. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
John is right here - I would propose removing the Buddhism tag from the talk page. That article is included in Version 0.8 because of her fame as a pop star, not because of her impact on Buddhism! Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject London Transport

You might also want to include:

--DavidCane (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest Metropolitan line as well. It's not in a great state, but as the original underground line (and the one which gave its name to every other Metro system in the world), it's such a key topic. I'd also suggest dropping the rather undistinguished Battersea Bridge from the list and replacing it with either Albert Bridge, London or Richmond Bridge, London, both of which are more architecturally significant. – iridescent 01:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to go ahead and add all five from the first five suggestions. The Timeline article scores low not because it's not a useful article, but simply because other languages don't have it. The second one almost makes it in, and looks like a good article. The next two are decent articles on significant topics. The Metropolitan line is also major, and although classed as Start, it looks better than some B-Class I've reviewed!
Regarding the bridges, I don't want to remove Battersea Bridge as it's included in several WikiProject lists. At your suggestion I will add the Albert Bridge, though, which is close to inclusion anyway, and is a nice FA. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 23:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Chess

First, thanks for all the work you do. As a member of the WikiProject Chess, I suggest you should add the following articles, based on their quality (all are GA or higher):

I also suggest you may consider removing the followings, based on their low quality:

SyG (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. However, importance also plays a big part in what we choose. I looked at all of them, but unfortunately they are all much too specialised for a general release such as this one. Regarding Board game - if we removed that there would be an obvious gap in our encyclopedia; the article isn't perfect, but it's better than most of the Starts that have been nominated on this page. It also receives almost 1000 times the number of page views that Budapest Gambit receives.
If there is a large cluster of high quality chess articles, we should instead look into producing a more specialised offline release just of chess articles. Contact me if you think this would be appropriate. Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Abortion

Your list for inclusion on the USB key includes a "pro life" article but not the Pro-choice article. I would argue for including both the pro and con arguments of this issue. Either that or omit both. The pro choice article does not, as of this date, have any cleanup tags; so, I see no reason it could not be included.

I question the inclusion of Madonna's "Papa Don't Preach" article, as it is nothing but propaganda for the "keep your baby" argument. It should be balanced by depictions of negative outcomes of teenage pregnancy, i. e. girls whose parents kicked them out of the house, beat them or worse, who had to drop out of school and ended up on welfare. This was a courageous song in its day, but teenage pregnancy is much more acceptable in modern society than it was in 1985.Ermadog (talk) 23:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the article on the song was probably included on the basis of general significance and notability, in this case primarily as a prominent song, rather than specifically because of how it relates to the abortion issue. I think that is true of a lot of articles, which are primarily important on one basis, but tagged and of a lesser importance to other groups as well. No particular objections here to the inclusion of the pro-choice article, though. John Carter (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I still think the song should be balanced. Maybe If These Walls Could Talk? Ermadog (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Responded on the WikiProject talk page. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


If any other article is to be included for the above group, I would think it would probably best be Ayya Vaikundar, and with a number of practicioners between .7 and 8 million I think maybe it deserves inclusion. Unfortunately, I don't really know the subject in general all that well. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Really? For a long time that article has started by saying This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Within that, may is an understatement. -- Hoary (talk) 23:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, it is in need of cleanup. I was thinking more of the importance, not of the quality. And, unfortunately, as per something I just posted at WP:RSN, there seems to be bloody little sourcing available on the subject. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)


Worcester has been cleaned up [5]. However it still has dead links and citations needed, back to January. Rich Farmbrough, 06:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

User Kudpung has fixed the dead links! Rich Farmbrough, 17:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC).
I'm proposing to use this version from 10th November - is that OK? Many thanks for the cleanup. Walkerma (talk) 19:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Project Tennis

Can you please use this version of Juan Martin del Potro as the version you have chosen has incorrect doubles ranking. This version now has additional pictures and announcement of his return. Thanks KnowIG (talk) 09:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that you (and others) did more work on the article after that version, so I've selected this version for the release, and I informed the WikiProject. Please let me know if there's a problem. Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Ancient Egypt articles

The bot's notice gave a link which doesn't work. I hope we were the only one, but could someone please fix it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Now working again. I note that the current version] of Great Pyramid of Giza has had some fringe 'numerology' either removed or made more balanced/accurate, could that be used instead? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Done. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Michigan

Seems the selections are weak on history. Why not the 1967 Detroit riot, Flint Sit-Down Strike, Siege of Detroit, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan for examples? User:Rmhermen —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added Sault Ste. Marie, since even I know that's an important border town. The problem with the other articles is that they are a bit too specialized. If the 1967 riot article was better than Start-Class, and didn't have cleanup tags on it, I could add that, but until then I'm reluctant. However, I've taken your suggestion for history, and "been bold" and added History of Detroit to the collection. This is B-Class, fairly highly ranked, and it is the sort of overview article that works well in a small selection like this. Please let me know if you see any problems. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


I suggest that the following articles be added to your project:

And that the following articles be removed because they seem quite random and not important enough:

— Cheers, JackLee talk 15:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but we can't possibly add even half of these! I looked through the list carefully, and looked over the stats for the most important/high quality articles for the project. I've added Coat of arms of Singapore, which is highly ranked and should have been assessed as Start, not Stub; with the correct assessment it might have been selected. For the others, they seem specialised, and I can't see a pressing need to add any of them. However, I have a good Wikipedian friend who is from Singapore, I'll ask for him to look over the list as well in case I missed any important ones. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 23:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
I also added History of the Republic of Singapore, since this is a B-Class article covering an important topic, and it was scored excessively low because of lack of other language versions; that isn't because the topic is obscure, but simply because other languages include that content in History of Singapore. Walkerma (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


Seems very weak. Rich Farmbrough, 17:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC).

But I did improve it before I got lynched. Rich Farmbrough, 08:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC).
Thank you! The problem with these articles is that we either need all or none of them - and for the sake of completeness, we'd like to have them all. If we just miss out the 80s but kept the 70s and 90s, I'd get lynched by a bunch of people with bad haircuts. Thanks for your improvements. Walkerma (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Cervical cancer article had vandalism in it

The selected version of [cervical cancer] had some vandalism in it and some major factual errors. Suggest you update to either [this version], which remains close to the originally selected version, but fixes the major errors; or you could use the version that is [current at the moment] which has some more polishing (more references, updated vaccine section, etc.) Thank you. Zodon (talk) 05:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I used the later one. Walkerma (talk) 00:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Gastropods

As a member of project Gastropods, I'd like to suggest the following changes in the list:


  • John Edward Gray because the article was overrated and isn't very helpful to understand gastropods in general.
  • Pearl because this subject is mainly related to Bivalve molluscs, not Gastropods.
  • Seashell article was overrated, and isn't very helpful to understand gastropods in general as well.
I've removed Gray, but the other two are much too popular - they will be autoselected for other WikiProjects, too.


  • Biomphalaria glabrata because it is a B quality Top importance article, which discusses a very well studied and medically important species.
  • Freshwater snail because it is another Top importance article, with considerable ammount of relevant information about gastropods.
  • Land snail yet another Top importance article (and a very well illustrated one at that).
  • List of gastropods described in the 2000s is a very important, useful and very well referenced list.

These would be my suggestions. Best regards, Daniel Cavallari (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Daniel. I also might be inclined to add:
Love dart because it gives some solid insight into the anatomy, physiology and behavior of many groups of land snails, also is a GA quality article of high importance.
Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, I'll add in the Freshwater and Land snails, also Love dart. I notice that other languages refer to terms like this in their articles, they just don't have a separate article (e.g., escargot terrestre occurs a lot in the escargot article on WP:fr). The Biomphalaria glabrata article gets a very low score - no other Wikipedias have bothered to write an article on this species. The list gets an extremely low score, and only averages eight hits a day (vs 2151 hits a day on Pearl, or >100 for some other species) - it must be considered too specialised for a general release. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Optimally there should be added all top importance species from Portal:Gastropods/Topics. But some of them have not enough article quality, so some are crossed out.

TOP invasive land gastropods:
  1. OK Achatina fulica YES
  2. OK Euglandina rosea NO
  3. OK Arion vulgaris NO
TOP invasive freshwater gastropods:
  1. OK Pomacea canaliculata NO
  2. OK Potamopyrgus antipodarum NO
TOP invasive marine gastropods:
  1. Batillaria attramentaria
  2. Boonea bisuturalis
  3. Ceratostoma inornatum
  4. OK Crepidula fornicata NO
  5. maybe OK? Ilyanassa obsoleta NO
  6. OK Littorina littorea YES
  7. OK Rapana venosa
  8. Urosalpinx cinerea
TOP human medical importance gastropods:
  1. OK Biomphalaria glabrata NO
  2. OK Oncomelania hupensis NO
  3. Bulinus truncatus

--Snek01 (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I checked all of these. The only one that comes even close to the external interest score we need is the periwinkle one; the achatina fulica might also be considered, so I'm going to add those two. The others would have to be considered much too specialised. There are a couple that we could include if they were FAs, but articles that get less than fifty page views a day are normally considered outside the scope of this release, which can only include the top 1-2% of the entire Wikipedia. Thanks for the feedback, Walkerma (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom


I'll leave this list open so other members of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom can add to it. Thanks Zangar (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely! Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dominican Republic

List of articles to add

Could you look over your importance assessments? Some of them seem a bit off to me - admittedly, I'm not too familiar with the subject area. Thanks for your suggestions, Walkerma (talk) 08:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject The Clash

The articles and their revisionIDs you have chosen are perfect. We suggest you may consider adding the following articles (all are C-class):

Result Article – Note – RevisionID Importance Quality Article Alert(s)
1 Paul Simonon
  • Note: Top member of the band;
  • RevisionID: 387884274
Top C BLP article lacking reliable references from March 2009.
2 Topper Headon
  • Note: Top member of the band;
  • RevisionID: 387887419
Top C
3 London Calling (song)
  • Note: This is one of their most popular and well known songs, and the anthem of an era. #15 in Rolling Stone's list of the 500 Greatest Songs of All Time (2004).
  • RevisionID: 387888526
Top C It may contain original research and needs cleanup. A couple of sections need to be turned into prose.
4 Rock the Casbah
  • Note: the band's highest charting single worldwide.
  • RevisionID: 387889684
Top C
5 Should I Stay or Should I Go
  • Note: #228 on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time (2004), and #42nd on VH1's program 100 Greatest Hard Rock Songs (2009). #1 on the UK Singles Chart in 1991.
  • RevisionID: 387892590
Top C
6 Mikey Dread
  • Note: Jamaican singer, producer, and broadcaster. He was one of the most influential performers and innovators in reggae music.
  • RevisionID: 381079376
High C
7 Give 'Em Enough Rope
  • Note: 2nd studio album by The Clash. #2 in the UK Albums Chart (1978), and #128 in the Billboard 200 (1979).
  • RevisionID: 387893178
High C
8 The Guns of Brixton
  • Note: well known song that has been covered by numerous bands
  • RevisionID: 387894503
High C
9 The Magnificent Seven (song)
  • Note: #34 in the UK and #21 in the U.S.. First attempt by a rock band to write and perform original rap music, and one of the earliest examples of hip hop records with political and social content.
  • RevisionID: 349978757
High C
10 Train in Vain
  • Note: #4 on the UK Singles Chart and #23 on the U.S. Billboard Hot 100 (1st Clash song to crack the United States Top 30 charts.) #292 on Rolling Stone magazine's list of The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time (2004).
  • RevisionID: 387895545
High C
11 Bernard Rhodes
  • Note: former manager of The Clash. He claimed to have "invented punk". It is more Start than C-class.
  • RevisionID: 387190179
High C Article lacking reliable references, needing cleanup, and that may contain original research from February 2008
12 Rock Against Racism
  • Note: campaign set up in the UK as a response to an increase in racial conflict and the growth of white nationalist groups such as the National Front. The campaign involved pop, rock and reggae musicians staging concerts with an anti-racist theme. It is more Start than C-class.
  • RevisionID: 387894134
Mid C Article with unsourced statements from December 2007 and April 2008

Thanks! –pjoef (talkcontribs) 11:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for putting together such a beautiful table for us to review, with revisionIDs! I particularly appreciate you highlighting the issues with each one. We can realistically only consider adding a handful (I wish it could be more, since I love some of these songs!). I think we will be able to include Simonon and Headon, so that all of the key members of the band are included; we can also include London Calling, which you have now assessed as B-Class. I'll request more recent revisionIDs from you directly. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses

The Jehovah's Witnesses article undergoes frequent editing, reflecting the tensions between editors who who have varying levels of involvement in, and emotional attachment to, the religion. It has stablized for the moment and I suggest this version [6] is a good deal better than the one currently listed for inclusion in Version 0.8. Other related articles that may be worthwhile for inclusion are Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs and Jehovah's Witnesses practices. --BlackCab (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I fully understand, and appreciate your insights. Walkerma (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Excellent! Thank you for the suggestions. The beliefs article appears to be a new spinoff article. It therefore registers as getting zero hits per day, but in fact the article currently gets around 150/day, a very respectable number for a new article! The practices article likewise got renamed right after our scoring was done, and therefore it deserves a much higher score than it got. I will add both of these. I'll contact the project for revisionIDs, since I know it's a tough call for a non-expert like myself. Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Urban studies and planning

Please consider including following articles:

thanks --Elekhh (talk) 01:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Great suggestions - I've added them both. Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Architecture

Please consider including following articles:

thanks --Elekhh (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'm adding all except Antonin Raymond, which scores quite low both on other language versions and on page hits. The "Architecture of (Country)" articles are great overview articles - we like these in a limited-sized selection, and with them both being GAs they will be an excellent addition. They score poorly on our system because of zero other language versions, but that is not because of the low importance of the subject; instead, it's because other languages haven't got around to writing SEPARATE articles on these topics. Many thanks! Walkerma (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks too! --Elekhh (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Latin

Please Consider Adding:

The above comments by me (written after the article name) are based on looking at the article, as well as the metadata for the article. Walkerma (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Consider Deleting:

Gx872op (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you don't give your reasoning for why these should be deleted. Can you elaborate on any of them? Until then, I don't want to go removing any, because many may be important for other projects such as Law or Saxon England. Walkerma (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your help! Walkerma (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism problem at culture

Please use a very recent version of the culture article that does not contain this vandalism from September 2008 that I've just discovered and removed. Graham87 12:41, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 04:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medieval Scotland - List of articles

James I of Scotland oldID = 381510476 This article was snapshot in a early stage of its history. It is now as complete as I can get it. Would someone care to re-examine and perhaps use the final version? -- Bill Reid | (talk) 09:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks for all the hard work on an important figure in Scottish history. Our readers will appreciate it if we take the current version, I'm sure. Walkerma (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Anime and manga

Sorry if its a double post, I'm not sure if anyone from the wikiproject posted these yet. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 23:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Done, including adding Weekly Shōnen Sunday, though I left Shogakukan in - I felt awkward removing a Top-importance article on ground of importance without a second vote from the WikiProject. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 08:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Wp Ancient Near East

Some of the selected articles now have newer improved revisions

  • NIMRUD 11/Aug
  • NINEVEH 7/Oct
  • SIPPAR 9/Sep
  • UR 7/Oct
  • BABYLON 3/Oct
  • URUK 7/Oct
  • ERIDU 5/Oct

Ploversegg (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

fixPloversegg (talk) 02:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
All done. Sorry I didn't reply earlier, it looks like I skipped past. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 09:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

Thanks, ​​​​​​​​Niagara ​​Don't give up the ship 23:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the articles to be removed, I'd need to know a specific reason (e.g., there is a large copyright violation, or something like that). Most of those articles appear on the lists for several WikiProjects, so we'd have to get approval from those others before we could remove them.
As for the articles to add, the current scoring system is heavily weighted in favor of FAs already. For an FA to be omitted from the selection means that it probably has a low number of page views, other-language versions, etc. - an indication that the topic is too specialized for a limited-size release such as this one. Even the highest ranked article mentioned here gets only 36 page hits per day; we normally expect articles to get over 100 hits per day. If there are specific content reasons for adding any of them (for example, adding this completes a set of all national parks in the West) or specific technical reasons (e.g., the page got renamed during our selection process, so it got missed), then please let us know. Thanks for your time - we do appreciate your feedback, even though I can't add any of the list this time around! All the best, Walkerma (talk) 05:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Niagara for commenting and Walkerma for following up. I think Niagara's removal suggestions have to do with most of those articles not being primarily about NRHP-listed places, and their not representing the best of WikiProject NRHP's work, but i agree that's a different point than saying the articles should not be included or not in Version 0.8 for other reasons. I see further that Niagara has now removed the WikiProject NRHP banner from at least some of those. Removing the banner from Talk:Daily News (New York) seems good as Daily News Building was long ago split out and is included in WikiProject NRHP. Removing WikiProject NRHP from Talk:List of Chicago Landmarks is not as clear to me because that list-article does include NRHP and NHL information. When the Chicago landmarks list became a FL there had not yet been the development of Chicago NRHPs information now in National Register of Historic Places listings in Chicago and its 4 sublist articles. One could argue that those Chicago NRHP list articles covers places of greater historic importance or site integrity than many of the Chicago city landmarks, but the city landmarks list is a FA in one article and does include all the NHLs (which are the "best" NRHP listings), so i think it is better for inclusion in the Version 0.8 release. --doncram (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks like a tough job sorting all these out. Your efforts are appreciated. I do think that Liberty Bell (number 15 above) was overlooked, perhaps because it became FA only on August 31, 2010. It gets about 1,000 hits per day and has 22 different language versions. Hope this helps. Smallbones (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I neglected to mention that Liberty Bell was already included! WHen I said the highest-ranked, I meant out of the ones not already autoselected (with a whopping score of 1470). Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 08:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Saints

I see that you have included Blessed Mother Teresa in your selection, but she is not yet a saint, and should be removed from the list. - S Masters (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

She is included because of her importance, not because she is a saint; she only appeared on that list because the article was tagged for WP:Saints. If this is an error, be sure to remove the tag. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Virginia

I realize this is a bit late, but here is a list of Changes to content and revision IDs for articles under the WikiProject's scope.

Change of Revision IDs

Many thanks for this information! This will also be used to tweak our program for RevisionID seleciton. I'll look at the rest of your post tomorrow. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Please consider adding

Please consider removing

Thank you from WikiProject Virginia --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 03:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, all of those changes were made exactly as requested. Once again, many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

School bus

The revision of School bus that you chose includes a section that is very poorly written, messy, and completely unreferenced. It was substantially improved in a later revision. I would strongly recommend that you use this revision instead. Thank you. –A frequent contributor to that article, BMRR (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I can imagine that article gets some vandalism! Walkerma (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Greece



Constantine 19:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Vangjel Meksi is very important to WikiProject Albania, please don't remove. --Sulmuesi (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Newsflash: The title of this section is WikiProject Greece, not Albania. Vangjel Meksi is not important to WP:GREECE. Athenean (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, we won't remove articles because of low importance to one project, if it is crosslisted on another. Otherwise we'll be lynched by the other WikiProject! Likewise with the football players - they are presumably important to the world of football, if only of minor importance to Greece itself. Walkerma (talk) 20:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I second all of Constantine's suggestions. I would also make the following suggestions:


More suggestions to come. As a general remark, I think any Mid importance (and above) articles rated GA and above should be automatically included Athenean (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think we can add all of your suggestions, with the exception of Aris BC (only ranked as Start-Class and Low importance by the WikiProject) and Vikos-Aoos National Park. The latter article is very new, and I'd like to see how the article traffic etc develops - based on current scoring it would stand no chance of being included, but that is probably because it's too new. The others all pretty much have broad significance, decent quality and decent traffic, etc. I can see that in some cases the score is lower than the article "deserves" simply because they are spinoff articles from major articles, where other languages haven't done such a spinoff. I won't be removing any, because these are important for Bulgaria/Albania/Lebanon/Football etc. Many thanks for your suggestions, Walkerma (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Addendum. I forgot to mention that the Minorities in Greece article also came up very low in external interest score, suggesting that it's too specialised for this collection. Also, Epirus (region) was already included. Walkerma (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Primates

Though I can only speak for the lemur side of things, and not to toot my own horn, but there are a couple high-quality articles that could be added to the list: Subfossil lemur and Silky Sifaka. In the case of the former, these "giant lemurs" are a fascinating topic that really draws people in when they learn about them. (It is also linked to from the Lemur article.) As for the latter, with the recent upswing in illegal logging in Madagascar, the Silky Sifaka is one species that is frequently mentioned when these environmental problems are discussed in the news. But that's just my opinion. Sorry the other primate articles aren't in better shape. If only I could ditch my job and work on Wiki article full-time. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Heh, if only it paid...I'd be doing it, too! Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 03:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to note that new images from Madagascar have been added to the Ring-tailed Lemur article to replace image from captivity. Also, a section of text was too technical for the average reader, and it has now been adjusted. Therefore if it's not too late, the latest revision, oldid=398080997 should probably be used. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we can add the Silky Sifaka, but the Subfossil lemur is a bit too obscure for this collection. I'll also update the Ring-tailed lemur revision. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:01, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


You are kidding, right? You selected articles that are unfit for mainspace to include in Wikipedia 0.8? Does anyone even review these things? Gigs (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we were kidding! There were in fact no articles actually selected (which means our algorithm is working, thankfully!) - but next time we'll ask the bot to ignore all the project's articles (unless you tell us otherwise). Many thanks for flagging this. Walkerma (talk) 04:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, a blanket ignore would be appropriate. Thanks. Gigs (talk) 04:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Mammals

I'd like to see Lion, Tiger, Squirrel, Mouse, Dog, Cat, Gray wolf, Porcupine, Least Weasel, Stoat, Skunk, Leopard, Koala, Monkey, Hominidae, Ape, Orangutan, Gorilla, Chimpanzee, Elephant seal, Guinea pig, Hamster, Gerbil, and Thermoregulation included. Camelid doesn't seem important enough to be included. European Beaver ought to be Beaver instead. Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 02:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, interesting! Those I've crossed out are already included - usually under another WikiProject, such as Rodents or Primates. On our very first run of the selection bot in 2008, we missed some of these very same articles, and we used that to locate a serious bug in the original code. So I'm relieved that things are working better this time around. I added the five mussing ones. However, I'd recommend a thorough review of how Mammals are tagged - often you will find one species tagged only by WP:Rodents, then another closely related species tagged by Mammals also (e.g. the Beaver/European Beaver case). Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 07:11, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

wp:WikiProject Albania

In addition to the existing articles that fall under WP Albania already included ([8]), please consider adding the following articles that recently made it to GA:

You might also want to consider Berat County

Thank you! --Sulmuesi (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We could add Berat County; however, the others all appear to be nice articles, but too specialised for a limited-size English language release. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 00:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Human spaceflight

Hi, there are many articles in WikiProject Human spaceflight that have been tagged for inclusion in version 0.8 which probably shouldn't be included. This includes many Start-class articles. At first I thought reducing the importance ratings would fix this, but it didn't. For example, Soyuz TM-3 is start class, has an importance rating no higher than mid on all WikiProjects, and it averages 15 views a day. Yet it's tagged for inclusion? I see two possible explanations: 1) It's a member of 6 different wikiprojects, and 2) It's included in a few templates and is therefore linked to by 188 other articles. As I understand it, the wikiproject banners and wikilinks have (artificially?) raised the importance of these articles to being included. But maybe I've misunderstood? Mlm42 (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I found out why. It was tagged as Top-Importance for WP:Russia, and since Russia is an important WikiProject, that what pushed it over the threshold. However, this was clearly inappropriate - Top for Russia should be articles like Peter the Great or Moscow, not this - it would clearly be higher quality here if it were so important. Reassessing won't "deselect" an article from the selection, otherwise the list we sent every project would be constantly changing; I can, however, deselect things manually. BTW: The number of project templates has no effect, but the number of linksin does. The logarithmic algorithm we use is such that a highish score on linksin won't get it in (usually) unless it scores high on hits or other languages. Now it's importance is rated more reasonably, it falls well below the threshold. Thanks for catching this!
I've looked at the other Start-Class articles, and the problem is similar - there are lots of Soyuz flights tagged as top-Class importance. They can't ALL be Top-importance! Occasionally people try to "game" the 1.0 system to get more of their articles in, but the WikiProject then just gets a poor reputation. (One WikiProject on the French WP rated all of their articles as Top, that should made them look silly!) Can you review this list (I sorted it so Top-Start articles show at the top), and please let me know which ones should be removed? Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, there are lots to be removed; I'm in the middle of reassessing many of the articles.. in particular the ones which were incorrectly tagged as Top importance. As a very crude estimate, it might just be best to deselect all Soyux [X], Soyux T-[X], Soyuz TM-[X], Soyuz TMA-[X] (where [X] is some number), with the possible exception of Soyuz 1.
If I understand correctly, the "score" threshold is 1240; I'd say if you remove articles that are now under this threshold, that's probably about right. But I'm still doing more reassessing, which will probably lower more scores.
I have to say, I'm quite interested in the scoring method being used here, and I'd like to better understand it. In particular, what happens when an article is a part of multiple WikiProjects, each with a different importance rating.. are they combined in some kind of weighted average? Also, are we allowed to know the Wikiproject scope points for specific wikiprojects? (for example, compare the four WikiProjects: Space, Spaceflight, Human spaceflight, and Russia) thanks, Mlm42 (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The article selection process is described here; if multiple WikiProjects tag the article, they will often have the same quality assessment, and identical "external interest" but different WikiProject-based importance assessments. For example, see Talk:Cape_Canaveral_Air_Force_Station where the article is Low importance for Florida but High for Spaceflight. We gave a ranking for each WikiProject, based on the importance score for the "key article" of the project (e.g., Spaceflight, to help adjust the importance assessments to allow for importance of the WikiProject itself. So it's possible for an article to fail to qualify in one project, but pass in another. Complicated, but the bot does the calculations, and I think it comes out pretty fair overall. Thanks for your work on this. Walkerma (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain, but I haven't been able to verify these calculations (unless the scope points are so small, as in the case of Spaceflight, that the 4/3 formula takes over). For example, let's compare the scores for Soyuz 5 and Soyuz 6 as they are calculated for WikiProject Space. They are both Mid-importance, and Start-class. So the WikiProject Space scope should be Scope = Score - EI - 200 - 150. In particular, it should be the same number for both articles. But the two values are: (Soyuz 5) 1042 - 606 - 200 - 150 = 86, and (Soyuz 6) 1001 - 575 - 200 - 150 = 76. If the score is calculated as described on the page you linked to, then these values should be the same. Maybe I've misunderstood? Mlm42 (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I was slow to reply. I can't see an obvious reason, but it may be an effect of things being scaled by a % rather than simple addition/subtraction. Once I've finished the manual selection I should be able to look into it properly, and make sure it's not a bug. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 00:51, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Iowa

I would suggest the following articles be added to Iowa's articles:

  1. Chet Culver the current outgoing governor of Iowa
  2. Terry Branstad the incoming governor of Iowa - recently elected for his fifth term. Also former president of Des Moines University.
  3. Iowa General Assembly the legislature of Iowa.
  4. Iowa State University one of the public universities, a member of the Big 12. A major university in Iowa.
  5. Robert Lucas (governor) the first governor of the Iowa territory
  6. Iowa Territory the territory itself

Normally I would suggest that Ansel Briggs be added as first governor of Iowa, but his article is pretty much a content-free stub.

  1. Iowa Tests of Basic Skills used world-wide in education, especially in the United States. Again, the article isn't that good.

--Philosopher Let us reason together. 15:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Replied at the WikiProject. Culver and Branstad added as well as Iowa State U. Walkerma (talk) 09:16, 2 December 2010 (UTC)


(NOTE: I don't speak for WikiProject Video Games, and don't know if they plan to make any suggestions.)

The video games list presently includes the RuneScape article.

Can I ask that this revision be used? It has been restructured, has no dead links or {{citation needed}} tags, and has less cruft content. Thank you. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 19:47, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Korea Train Express

In your choice of Korea-related as well as Rail transport articles and revisionIDs, you have chosen a version from August 31. However, the high-speed system that is the subject of the article has been expanded on November 1, 2010; and the article was put through a major overhaul for the occasion (mostly by me), affecting all of the text, the maps, and diagrams. Work is still in progress on some minor details, but if you need a link to a specific version, the current version should be good enough. --Rontombontom (talk) 12:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: another Rail transport article, Taiwan High Speed Rail, is in your selection with an August 29 revisionID. But this article was expanded, updated and thoroughly re-written, too (mostly by me), including the correction of some major (and unsourced) technical and historical mistakes. Again I recommend the use of the most current version. --Rontombontom (talk) 10:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

AWB Reg-ex typo fixer

I started working on this pretty much when 0.8 selection was announced. However it was decided I had more important things to do with my time than improving articles so what would have taken me a day or two is still unfinished, and now needs to be handed over to someone else. Bearing in mind that this does not spot all typos, by any means, it is still a substantial list (I think I fixed about 1000).

I recommend skipping most RegexTypo hyphenation/dehyphenation changes as they seem EngVar (two-fold, right-handed, grand-daughter, step-sister). Also tv=>TV needs care and should often be "television", sometimes tv.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 01:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC).

I'd propose we use this for Version 1.0 (or whatever is our next release no.), which we expect to be released next year. Our problem is that we've already selected revisionIDs, and this would postpone the release by several weeks. This is only a test release, even though it will be widely distributed; part of the purpose of these test releases is things exactly like this. Once we've got 0.8 going to the ZIM format for release - probably next week - I'll try running my AWB through this. I may want a quick tutorial from you, though! Many thanks, Walkerma (talk) 04:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)