Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/FAs first

WP1.0 editorial team discussions – Core topics discussions – Wiki sort discussions – Work via WikiProjects discussions – Pushing to 1.0 discussions

I thought I'd try to something to encourage a review of FAs. What does everyone think of this? Tuf-Kat 03:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs

I'm interested in helping. I'll start with putting in the diffs, unless someone objects. Superm401 | Talk 05:41, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For the ones that go back to brilliant prose, I'm choosing the day the text on the talk page was changed to "featured". The featured tag may not have been added that day. Superm401 | Talk 05:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please help! Adding the diffs is rather time-consuming and tedious, so the more people helping the better. I've been using the same standard for choosing a date, so that works well. Tuf-Kat 05:58, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm going to go back and put in diff=current instead of diff= "whatever oldid people put here". That will tell the engine to compare the version as first featured with the most current version; that makes more sense than the latest version as of when someone did the diffs. Superm401 | Talk 06:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: I should put the date of the latest version as of when it was featured, not the date it was featured, right? Do you understand the distinction? Superm401 | Talk 06:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand. If the article is promoted on April 16, but no one edited it between April 12 and April 19, the April 12th version and date should be used (or at least, that's what I've been doing). Tuf-Kat 06:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job with the template! I've created template:FAF for talk pages of reviewed articles. Tuf-Kat 08:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a separate template for articles currently under review. Is there a way to force the timestamps to stay on one line? It looks messy as is, and would be better if the article title wrapped onto two lines instead of the timestamp. Tuf-Kat

Thanks. I like {{CurrentFAR}}. I was planning to make something like that but didn't get around to it. I managed to fix the wrapping just by moving the tools box(blocking the right of the table) up. Can I ask how you changed all the rows to use the template? I couldn't figure out a simple way to do it automatically(though I didn't spend that much time on it, and was a bit tired). Superm401 | Talk 21:11, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just put the whole thing in AppleWorks and did some creative finding/replacing. Messed up a couple times, but eventually I got there. Tuf-Kat 21:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is painful. Can someone write a bot to automate this process? deeptrivia (talk) 22:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in a bot request, so we'll have to see. Tuf-Kat 06:07, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea. I did two diffs before I knew this page exists, I'll add them now. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Featured lists etc

What about the featured lists, featured pictures etc? Will they be part of V1.0? Sorry if this question is answered somewhere already and I missed it, I haven't encountered this project before. Soo 14:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete list?

This list is quite a bit out of date, as articles that have been de-featured still appear here, as well as articles that have been featured in the last 6 months. Perhaps getting a bot to help out would be a good idea? Tito xd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a bot to help out IS a good idea. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 19:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Status

Is this project still active? It could be good to put an update at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Thanks. Maurreen 19:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAs for Wikipedia 0.5

I'm putting together the list of articles for Wikipedia 0.5, the test release for Wikipedia 1.0. I have so far set up a rough draft nominations page (the review process needs fixing there). Can you let me know which FAs should not be included, on the grounds of POV disputes, etc? Thanks, Walkerma 07:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main project page looks very odd

I was just reviewing the page, and noticed that the {{FAR}} template keeps appearing lots of times, with virtually no readable information. I assume this is a change to a template that no one noticed here. Could someone fix it? Thanks, Walkerma 04:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]