Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Nominations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WP1 0 Icon.svg
Wikipedia 1.0 — (talk)
FAQTo do
Release version tools
Guide(talk)(stats)
Article selection process
(talk)
Version 0.8 bot selection
Version 0.8 feedback
IRC channel (IRC)

Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Version 0.8 release
(manual selection) (t)
"Selection" project (Talk)

schools selection
Offline WP for Indian Schools


CORE TOPICS
CORE SUPPLEMENT

Core topics - 1,000
(Talk) (COTF) (bot)

TORRENT (Talk)
"Selection" project for kids ((t))
WORK VIA WIKI
PROJECTS
(talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)

Static content subcom.

/Archive 1

Going forward[edit]

As it seems that this is going to become live soon, how should it be advertised? If editors don't know about it, then this page will become useless. I think that advertising it on Wikipedia talk:Featured articles, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals), Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous), Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia talk:Peer review and Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates should do the job. Does someone think I'm missing anything?

Also, we need to decide how to actually carry out discussions. Subpages should scale properly, so should we use something similar to WP:FAC's format? If we do, then we would need to rename this page Wikipedia:Version 1.0 qualifying, as typing Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Version 1.0 Qualifying/2005 Atlantic hurricane season (as an example of a sub-sub-page) would be a handful. Thoughts? Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Format -- I like the FAC format, but don't quite understand how to set it up. The name change you suggest is good with me.
  • Publicity -- I agree that the page will be useless if people don't know about it. But I'm hoping to get things more set up before announcing it more widely. Other options for publicity include WP:FA, WP:FL, relevant geography pages, and templates on talk pages of appropriate articles.
  • For the sake of covering the bases, does anyone think this will need a "Proposal" tag? Maurreen 18:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I've changed the page, it just needs other eyes to fill out details I could have missed. I doubt that this will need a proposal tag, as Jimbo has already supported it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 19:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Can we coordinate publicity for V1.0Q with the V0.5Q page? I think we should send "press releases" to WP:SIGN and mention it on the community portal, etc. I will be making the V0.5 pages very similar to this one but with some different colors and a different icon. I hope to work on getting those pages up tomorrow night, I'm just too tired to work on it tonight (after my 3am last night!). I think we should also contact Jimbo on his talk page to let him know what we are planning, and I'd like to ask him also if we could make the children's CD an "official" release too. What should we say (if anything) about the Geography one? Cheers, Walkerma 01:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Tito, thanks for getting this started!
Publicity -- for one thing, the setup for 1.0 needs some work before it is ready. If the 0.5 setup is ready first, go for it.
For at least the time being, the geography project as a free-standing item is dead. Maurreen 16:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Rough to-do list[edit]

If anyone is interested, please add to or update this list as you like. Maurreen 18:59, 30 April 2006 (UTC)



Started (thanks to Tito), needs some adjustments and maybe additions.

  • Update shortcut.
  • Set up any needed material:
    • Criteria
    • Instructions
    • Space to list entries found qualified
    • Subpages?
    • Relevant material from and links with related pages
    • Handling entries with factual errors after they have been designated as qualified
    • Other?


Done

  • Changed name

FA stuff[edit]

OK, maybe I'm blind or you guys are more technical than I am. I don't see how to remove the following from the main V1Q page.

  • Featured content:
  • Featured articles
  • Featured pictures
  • Featured lists
  • Featured portals
  • Featured article tools:
  • What is a featured article?
  • Featured article candidates
  • Featured article removal candidates
  • Featured article log
  • Featured article statistics
  • Featured article review
  • Main Page FAs
  • Former featured articles
Maurreen 17:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Now done. It was mostly in a template like our WP1.0 nav-box. If you want to remove the right hand section that can be done too, but I think it would be good to put in related stuff as in FAC. Also, we will want to put the WP1.0 Navigation box somewhere. Walkerma 18:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Maurreen 17:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Nomination page vs. qualified page - please clarify[edit]

I notice this page is being set up as a nomination page, equivalent to WP:FAC and WP:GAN. I had understood that the page called "qualifying" would list the articles that had qualified for inclusion in WP1.0, i.e., that this page would be equivalent to WP:FA or WP:GA. Am I wrong? I had assumed that the nominations would be done on a separate page (as with FAC/GAN), and that we were going to call it something like "Version 1.0 Nomination." Can we clarify this before I go setting up parallel pages for WP0.5? I'm not too bothered what we call things, as long as the names are clear, though I think using words like "nomination" that are used in similar ways at GA/FA is a good idea. Walkerma 18:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I believed the same thing, with the exception that the page where the nominations were held was this one, and the page where the articles were listed was a different one. I don't mind moving it. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 18:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I had planned the same as Tito. That is, this page is roughly parallel to WP:FAC; this page is for the process of qualifying.
The entries that pass would be listed on a different page.
I haven't figured out the name of that other page yet. I considered "Version 1.0 QualifiED" but that name would probably be too similar.
Maybe "Version 1.0 Entries"? (I say "entries" and not "articles" to allow for lists.)
I am open to changing the name of this page, such as to "Version 1.0 Candidates" or "Version 1.0 Nominations" Maurreen 02:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder if "Version 1.0 Nominations" would be best? At GA the main listing of approved pages is at Good articles, the Good articles/nominations. I think "Version 1.0 Candidates" sounds very good as well, it doesn't matter - either seems much clearer that "Qualifying." To me, I had considered this to be "articles that are qualifying for inclusion on the CD", though I could also see how you meant "page that are in the process of qualifying for inclusion on the CD." Maybe I'm just dumb, but maybe also I'm not the only dumb one! I think for the main listing page you could call it Wikipedia:Version 1.0 or Wikipedia:Wikipedia Version 1.0. Alternatively you could be bold and call it Wikipedia:Wikipedia 1.0 (currently a redirect). That will create a lot of interest, but might be confusing for people during the first month or two. ALternatively it could be something like I would see the overall "project" of compiling the articles for the 1.0 release as still being called Version 1.0 Qualifying. What do you think? I'm open to other ideas too. Walkerma 04:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. I do like the ring of Wikipedia:Wikipedia 1.0, as it would cause quite an impact. But yes, the name is ambiguous until we decide to name the other page. Also, please check that I did in fact put everything on this page, as I'm not 100% sure I did. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I like it too! However, we do need to consider what we call the global project (Core topics, WVWP, FAs first, etc.) After all, using the name WP1.0 for this once we are on to WP1.1 may seem rather silly! I'm happy for the team to be called the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team for the time being, though. Ideas, anyone? Walkerma 05:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, perhaps having Version 1.0 nominations and Version 1.0, and getting rid of Qualifying as a page due to its ambiguity may be a good idea. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, sounds fine to me. I'm off to bed now, if Maurreen likes those names I'll use the equivalent names for the 0.5 project pages. Thanks a lot! Walkerma 07:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed the name to "Nominations." Also please see related note. Maurreen 17:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.5 nomination page[edit]

I have set up Wikipedia:Wikipedia 0.5 Nominations. It still needs some cleanup, the approval process still needs fixing (it partly reads for GAs and is contradictory). I would like to call the main list of approved articles Wikipedia:Wikipedia 0.5. Comments are welcome. Walkerma 07:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I decided to stick with these names, even if we have to roll stuff over into WP0.8 or something. I have (hopefully) fixed the review process, which will only be by one person (it's only a test release), but I am requiring that the reviewer be a member of the team. I decided for simpicity to follow the GAN procedure of simply removing any failed-on-quality articles to an archive, with reasons left on the talk page. However, I have set up a different procedure for "importance" - I am creating a "held nominations" page for articles of good quality but on less important topics. An extreme example would be something like Missing Doctor Who episodes, which is an FA. This page will serve two purposes

  1. As we expand the scope of the release (as we go to later releases) we can use that list and automatically re-nominate any suitable ones.
  2. People will have their feelings much less hurt when they are told that their pet article will get in, just not yet. Such things do matter!

I am using a yellow "traffic light" icon to indicate the "not just yet" nature of this "fail on importance" (cf the red light for those failing on quality).

On the subject of hurt feelings, I'm wondering if we should use a less inflammatory term, like "scope"? I think it's much less hurtful to be told, "This topic is outside the scope of the V0.5 release" rather than "This topic isn't important enough for the V0.5 release." Do you mind if I word some things that way? The word importance will still be present, and still used in the assessment tables. Walkerma 04:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're just asking about 0.5 or you want all the same stuff to apply to that and 1.0. I have no serious objections to any of the above for 0.5, but I'm not sure how much 0.5 and 1.0 need to be parallel.
Regardless of the reason an entry doesn't pass, it would still need to be renominated and re-reviewed if it were to be included later. I expect 1.0 would have a list of those that are nominated but don't make it.
The "scope" comments are thoughtful. But I expect the scope of 1.0 will gradually widen. So it could be better for us here to say something different (I don't know what just yet). Maurreen 18:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There should at least some degree of similarity between the two processes, to not confuse editors and reviewers, IMO. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 20:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Stability[edit]

One thing mentioned earlier, but not discussed, is stability. I believe entries more likely to need updating ought not be a priority. And serious dispute usually signal that the people working on a page can't agree on the quality of at least part of it. Maurreen 18:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI - Oleg's bot is now saving the version it found when the assessment was done. If you look at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Chemistry articles by quality, for example, click on the article name to go to the current version, or click on the number ref. next to the name to go to the "assessed" version. This feature will make life easier with unstable articles.

Joint page on criteria for article approval[edit]

I'd like to suggest we develop one single page that explains what criteria need to be met in order for a given article to be included in each version. I imagine a preamble, then a section on V0.5, then a section on V1.0, and maybe a section for the Geography project too if that progresses. We can add more sections if we create more versions, and once V0.5 is history we can remove those criteria from the page. The idea is that someone can look in one single place and see, "Hmm, my article may not be strong enough for V1.0 but is OK for V0.5" and that sort of thing. Should I go ahead and start this article, perhaps at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Approval or Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Criteria for approval? Walkerma 16:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Release Version Criteria or Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria?
By the way, I've been missing in action because I've had a little overtime at work. Maurreen 03:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think I prefer the latter. I'll try and put together the V0.5 criteria tonight. I want to revisit the core topics also, and check over Vir's and Silence's suggestions some more. Thanks, Walkerma 03:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I've created the page and am starting to rough things out. Maurreen 03:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! You read my mind - I was going to copy over the "proposed quality standards" too! I'll add some 0.5 stuff. Walkerma 05:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Status and options[edit]

I've been debating with myself whether I should pick this up again now or soon and whether the current plan is the best option.

Life intruded and I had little involvement with WP for a while. I still have some other things in real life I should be spending more time on.

And it looks like Version 0.5 has fewer reviewers and is making less progress than various people expected. So I feel like if I get this going according to the previous discussion, either it will get little activity, it will dilute activity at 0.5, or both.

Any which way, I think topic selection is important for at least 1.0. That is, the topics included should reflect what people traditionally expect to find in an encyclopedia of similar size.

Here are a few things I'm considering (which conceivably could be done in some combination), whether for 1.0 or maybe something between 0.5 and 1.0:

  1. Wait until at least all continents have earned GA status and work toward that.
  2. Wait until 0.5 is at least halfway done.
  3. Start from a set of all FAs, FLs, and maybe GAs, and only those. We could avoid reviewing articles for quality by using the article version that passed for FA, FL or GA. Maybe the group would set a number for the total that would be included or a goal date. A couple of possibilities:
    1. Items would be nominated and discussed for exclusion. The default is to be included. FAs, FLs, and maybe GAs would be included unless decided otherwise. They would not need to be individually nominated for inclusion.
    2. Build off Nifboy's idea at the set nominations page. Consider only sets. Each set would need to be determined to be at least as important as any set already included (or possibly only one step down).

-Maurreen 15:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I like number 3 and support the principle of starting from FAs, FLs and GAs. This would apply to the continents as well, and I believe we should push to get them all to GA status so as to be included. Sunray 20:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Toward that end, Africa has been nominated at WP:AID and North America at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. I've also started User:Maurreen/Sandbox/GA log to identify which version of articles became WP:GA. Maurreen 21:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
We're in a situation where many of these ideas have been implemented, and reviewing at V0.5 has picked up as a direct result. My original goal for the project was around 2000 articles, but that began to look unlikely, and I envisaged 1000 articles as a minimum. My secret goal for V0.5 as of July 1 was for us to reach 500 articles by month's end, and we passed that goal a week ahead of time - so we're doing better. Thanks to all who have helped with that! I think the 1000 articles is attainable, especially bearing in mind that we can keep reviewing after nominations close.
However, the new system has one down side - most articles are passing on quality rather than importance. Thus we have an article on Ann Arbor, Michigan - a notable place, but surely much less notable than many US cities we don't have such as Philadelphia, (B-Class). If we simply carry on our current track we will be quite productive, but our test release will be quite unbalanced. That isn't a disaster - we can point out that it is a test release - but I would like also to test out systems for achieving balance. Some of those systems are already in place - the new Core Topics Review page, for example, where we can assume importance is OK and we only need review for quality. Another thing we can all do is to nominate more of the important topics - particularly sets of important topics (like capital cities in Asia, or the 30 most important chemical elements). I would like us to consider having a realignment period after August 31st, where we would focus on the question, "What still needs to be in V0.5?" We can perhaps set up a list - sort of "Vital articles plus" and work through that list. We aim to edit/review that by September 30th, or later if it looks really long. Meanwhile we can leave the general nominations page open - we don't have a torrent of nominations! Once that realignment list is all checked off, we go to press. Thoughts? Ideas? Walkerma 16:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree overall. I have been concerned about the balance of 0.5. On later releases, or editions, I would suggest using importance as the primary factor, or baseline list to work from, over quality. Maurreen 16:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your comment on importance over quality - but we will need to have standards of importance in place in order to avoid the sorts of hurt feelings and heated debates we have seen. The FA Review importance debates and the WikiProject importance rankings could both help in that regard. Walkerma 17:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, more about the first sentence than the last. :) I'd like us to talk more about that after 0.5 is more or less over the hump. Maurreen 18:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)