Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 515: Line 515:


Knock-Knock, anyone there? What's going on with 0.7?? [[User:Lwoodyiii|Lwoodyiii]] ([[User talk:Lwoodyiii|talk]]) 04:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Knock-Knock, anyone there? What's going on with 0.7?? [[User:Lwoodyiii|Lwoodyiii]] ([[User talk:Lwoodyiii|talk]]) 04:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

:Sorry, I was very busy when this came in, and then away when the knock-knock came, so both slipped through my watchlist. There is no one single list on-wiki, but you can see the selection in static form [http://tmp.kiwix.org/wp1en-0.7/articles/k/n/o/Knowledge.html here]. The index took longer than expected to assemble (I had to assign categories to 11,500 keywords by hand!), but it is close to ready now; once it is, that would be the best place to see the final list.
:What I can say is that everything on this page was carefully reviewed, and I think every project got feedback on what was excluded or included. [[User:Walkerma|Walkerma]] ([[User talk:Walkerma|talk]]) 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


== A question about nominations ==
== A question about nominations ==

Revision as of 22:13, 2 February 2009

Wikipedia 1.0 — (talk)
FAQ — To do
Release version tools
Guide — (talk) — (stats)
Article selection process
(talk)
Version 0.8 bot selection
Version 0.8 feedback
IRC channel (IRC)
Release criteria
Review team (FAQ)
Version 0.8 release
(manual selection) (t)
"Selection" project (Talk)

schools selection
Offline WP for Indian Schools

CORE TOPICS
CORE SUPPLEMENT
Core topics - 1,000
(Talk) (COTF) (bot)
TORRENT (Talk)
"Selection" project for kids ((t))
WORK VIA WIKI
PROJECTS (talk)
Pushing to 1.0 (talk)
Static content subcom.

Please give feedback here on the articles selected for Version 0.7 from your WikiProject's lists.  Please indicate the project, the article that should be removed, and why.  Please also sign your posting.  Thanks! Walkerma (talk) 22:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject North East England assessment

Hi, the [list seems like a fair selection, although I would hazzard that Alastair Reynolds's importance to the project was "overrated" and probably shouldn't be included. Also, rather than Michael Carrick, I would suggest that Alan Shearer would be the better bet as far as "famous Northern footballers" go. I have also noted some omisions, mainly our fault due to the lack of talk page tags - I think Durham Cathedral and Durham University would also be pretty important to include, as well as George Stephenson. Bob talk 21:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely concur with these, great suggestions. Since Version 0.7 has a Geordie coordinating it, you can be sure that we'll also include all Newcastle United players since the club began. And of course, no Sunderland players! Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 01:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I checked up on these suggestions, and all are already selected by other projects.
  • Durham University - already included under WikiProject Universities (total score 1296).
  • Durham Cathedral - already included under WP:Anglicanism (total score 1309).
  • Alan Shearer - already included under English Footballers, total score 1564 (one of the highest ranked English footballers!). Carrick makes it onto the same list, much lower down.

We'll note that Reynolds should be removed from the NE England selection. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Nintendo: Seattle Mariners

I am quite boggled as to why Seattle Mariners was chosen for WikiProject Nintendo. The only relation it has is that it was owned by former Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi. As such they have very little relation or impact on Nintendo or video gaming for that matter.  bibliomaniac15 22:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're owned by Nintendo now, if I remember correctly. Pagrashtak 16:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox on the Seattle Mariners page confirms that, Nintendo are the current owners. But we'll try to make sure that the article doesn't get indexed as a video game! Walkerma (talk) 02:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Italy task force selection

Hi, just to let you know the list seems to be influenced by too much of WP:RECENTISM, including players who did not actually mark any particular success during their stay in Italy (or still did not), such as Savo Milošević, Jon Dahl Tomasson, Mark Bresciano and Nwankwo Kanu. The absence of people like Giovanni Trapattoni, Roberto Mancini and Walter Zenga, as well as the Italian Football Federation article, is instead somewhat surprising. Thank you. --Angelo (talk) 22:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's an ongoing problem on WP, and our selection is affected by that.  The main way to overcome it is if the project assesses the older important topics higher than the newer ones, and by working to improve the quality of the older ones.  I'll treat your comments as a nomination for Trapattoni, Mancini and Zenga. Walkerma (talk) 07:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I checked up on these. These articles were selected for the Football project in general, not for their importance to Italy, but they are listed under Italy too because of the task force tag. The four articles you suggest are all important, but unfortunately the three footballers are only Start-Class and the IFF article is only a Stub, and that means that they are not really suitable for a nomination. I think perhaps the Trapattoni article could rate as C-Class, would you agree with that? If so, we could pass that one, at least. I think that the project should try to get the others up to B-Class, at least, and that would make them easy choices for the next release. Walkerma (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject The Simpsons

According to this list of articles selected for the release, seven (seemlingly random) of 20 seasons of The Simpsons have been selected. It would make more sense to either include all 20, or just stick to the master list (which I would prefer, because half of the seasons are in very poor quality). It also wouldn't hurt to remove Hans Zimmer from the project there, because he really hasn't done anything for the show (other than score the movie). -- Scorpion0422 23:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we can do that - we'll include the master list, but exclude the seven random seasons. Zimmer makes it into the selection also through WP:Biography, so that article will be on the DVD anyway. Do you want it indexed under Simpsons, or not? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Equine

My recommendations for the list: 

That's all I have for now.  Montanabw(talk) 23:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping in my opinion as another WP:Equine member that I agree with all of Montana's points! Dana boomer (talk) 20:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. I'll treat the "add" suggestions as nominations, but everything looks very reasonable to me. For the 1.0 team, Walkerma (talk) 01:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScoutingWikiProject

Suggest removing, at least as as Scouting WP is concerned:

OK, thanks! I checked and all these make it into V0.7 through more appropriate selections (Sweden, Biography and Songs). The project listings will be used for making indexes - do you want these four de-listed from WP:Scouting? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 01:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: WikiProject Blackadder assessment

Hi, I realise that Douglas Haig, 1st Earl Haig and Richard III of England aren't there for the "Blackadder" element, but if any articles were to be included from the Blackadder project, I imagine the main series article (Blackadder) and perhaps some of the individual season articles (The Black Adder, Blackadder II, Blackadder the Third and Blackadder Goes Forth) would be the most relevant. Of these, the final series is probably the most important for inclusion. Bob talk 00:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO we should definitely have Blackadder, but I'm unconvinced about having the other four. I regard Blackadder as my all-time favourite comedy show, except perhaps Red Dwarf, so I'm definitely biased in favour, but I think the main series article should suffice here. Walkerma (talk) 02:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree in terms of importance, considering the limited number of articles for the CD. The only problem is that the main Blackadder page is pretty awful at the moment, because it's trying to talk about what are essentially four completely different series and a bunch of specials, and as a result ends up being quite original-researchy. In addition there are so many lists of different episodes and characters it just looks a mess, plus it desperately needs referencing. Bob talk 07:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if the project can clean up the main flagship article, because it would be hard to make the case for having five articles on Blackadder, even though it is a superb series! At least this is only a trial release, the large-scale 1.0 release isn't planned for at least a year. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that a bit of cleanup has been done, so I think we'll go with the main article for now. Walkerma (talk) 06:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia assessment

Hi, Banksia brownii is an obscure plant that never should have been rated "mid" for Australia. I have demoted it to "low", and I recommend you remove it from your list of selections. Hesperian 00:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennessee assessment

I was surprised to see Middle Tennessee State University on the list, particularly as the only state educational institution on the list. This is a public university that is not the state's "flagship public university" (that would be University of Tennessee). Its rating as "High" in importance must be the act of a loyal alumnus, not an objective judgment of its significance to the state's story. IMO, it should be removed from the list -- and possibly replaced by University of Tennessee. --Orlady (talk) 01:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this proposal was based on a false assumption; in fact, both Vanderbilt and U-Tenn are included. As the largest undergrad institution in the state, a very large school, with a B-Class article, I see no reason to exclude the article. Walkerma (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Firearms assessment

Pretty good list, although Ballistic missile should not have been selected from our project, as that was a mistag. Ballistic missiles are not firearms. I would suggest Webley Revolver (a featured article) or M4 Carbine (the second most popular firearm article in Wikipedia according to this list) in its place.--LWF (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC) OK. The M4 is already selected under Military History, and I'll nominate the Webley for you. Walkerma (talk) 03:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject District of Columbia

Hi. I wanted to comment on a number of changes that need to be made to selected articles for Wikipedia Version 0.7 from Wikipedia:WikiProject District of Columbia.

The following articles were mistakenly tagged as belonging in the DC Wikiproject:

The article on Pete Sampras should probably be removed from this list of selected articles because although he born in DC, Sampras moved to California as a child and has had no further connection with the city.

Thanks for your work. Best, epicAdam(talk) 03:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do. Walkerma (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Led Zeppelin assessment

Hi, I am a member of this wikiproject and I feel that none of the articles should be included. Despite many attempts to try and clean-up to improve quality and balance, the articles are still far from being anywhere near encyclopaedic (all of the articles listed for inclusion have already been judged B class or lower during classification - nowhere near good enough). To include them for selection would be a grave injustice. There are also a number of bogus/libellous claims that are defamatory and despite numerous attempts to remove them, a small clique of editors has been continually reinstating these claims. It is therefore with much regret, I am opposed to any inclusion of articles from the Led Zeppelin wikiproject as it stands. MegX (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned on your project's talk page, I don't think we can omit such a major article as Led Zeppelin, but we will otherwise accept the concerns of you and others in the project. I hope that the project will be able to get usable versions of the main articles ready in time for the next release. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even when there is a clear majority against it? Obviously consensus doesn't mean anything. The only person wanting to add it is you. There are at least 5 other editors opposed to it. MegX (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Alaska assessment

The Hudson Bay Company article doesn't appear to be particularly relevant to Alaska. In fact, the word "Alaska" does not appear within that article. I have removed the article from WP Alaska, and the article should probably also be removed from the selection of articles for v.0.7. -- Shunpiker (talk) 04:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Larry Sanger. This is another example of a well linked-to article that was added to the project, but which has only a tenuous claim to the scope of the project. -- Shunpiker (talk) 13:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, noted. The HBC article will be included under WP:Canada, and Sanger under WP:Wikipedia, so both will be on the DVD, but we'll exclude it from Alaska in the index. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hungary assessment

Remove:

  • Bratislava (though important in Hungarian history, it is in Slovakia since the Treaty of Trianon)
  • Axis powers (not important enough, not representative of Hungarian history)
  • Mátyás Rákosi (a number of historical figures are way more important than this Communist politician)
  • MALÉV (not important, not Hungarian-owned anymore)

Should add:

Squash Racket (talk) 05:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done as requested - though I do note that Hungary is classed as an Axis power. Walkerma (talk) 02:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon and Acacia are tangential; they figure into Freemasonry, but there's not more than a sentence that can be said about each in a Masonic context.  The other two are fine, and I'm sure that after further review some other articles can be found. MSJapan (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only three articles from this project were selected (Texas A&M, George H. W. Bush, and Robert Gates). While these are certainly noteworthy, they do not present a complete picture of the University. For expansion, I would recommend:

— BQZip01 — talk 06:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This request is excessive. This is a project to create an encyclopedia for the world, not an encyclopedia of Texas A&M lore. --Orlady (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of major universities from around the world that have no article on them, so this case is hard to make, though I suspect the band and bonfire, as FAs, might make it into a larger selection. Thanks for the noms, Walkerma (talk) 06:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sydney assessment 

It's a pity that two rugby league teams (Sydney Roosters, South Sydney Rabbitohs) are included but no other football codes. Is it possible to tweak the numbers so that Sydney Swans is included; they are just below the present cutoff [1]. WWGB (talk) 06:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a compelling reason to add the Swans, sorry! Walkerma (talk) 02:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WikiProject Celts assessment

One glaring omission from the list is Irish language, which for some reason never got tagged as being part of WikiProject Celts, even though the articles of all other modern Celtic languages were tagged. I've added the tag now, but the article should definitely be considered. It's certainly more important to the topic of the WikiProject than Galicia (Spain) is. —Angr 07:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was selected (with a very high score) for WP:Languages - we'll try to see if we can get a Celtic tag on it in the index if possible. Walkerma (talk) 06:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian music articles to remove

From User:SelectionBot/0.7/A-6#Australian music, the following should be removed;

Thank you. Giggy (talk) 07:51, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FILMS article selection question

Our project is planning on working to find reliable revisions for our selected list. Recently, we had a drive to reassess our B-class articles and the list was reduced from 1,000 to about 250 (the majority were downgraded to start/stub class). The current list does not reflect the assessment changes. Should we remove the articles from the list that are Start class? Also, our project does not use the importance parameter, but should we just include all of the 250 B-class articles (each one of the articles went through a checklist of determining their quality)? I figured I should leave a message here to determine if this impacts the number of articles from our project that can be included in the release. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I was away at a conference last week.  I believe that Films doesn't use C-Class, is that correct?  I think for this release, which is only a test release still, the best thing would be to review the list of demoted articles and indicate if any of these are (a) particularly bad or (b) relatively obscure.  Importance plays a major part in the selection, and that's why quite a few Start-Class film articles have been included.  Going from B to Start is equivalent to subtracting 150 points from the score - so you could also use that to judge.  Does that answer your question OK?  Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that another problem is that while we don't have an importance parameter in our banner anymore, we do have a core film topics list. It's understandable that something non-standardized like this would be missed in an initial run, but perhaps this can somehow be factored into a revised score? Our core list is much less plagued by recentism bias, additionally. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really nice list, I think we'll have to consider how to handle it. We only have a handful of people trying to coordinate V0.7 - write code for bots, procedure, fix errors, review articles, etc - so a big list like that is difficult for us to focus too much attention on. I think we could easily agree to take all articles from that list that are C-Class or above - the Start-Class ones are a bit trickier.
If you want to get this list into the 1.0 system for future releases, there are several approaches. WP:Biography doesn't use the importance parameter - with good reason - but they have a core list (put together in consultation with 1.0 people for V0.5), and that simply has all 200 articles tagged as Top-importance. These are mostly names that no one would disagree are important - Napoleon, Einstein, etc. Meanwhile WP:Chem has a core list (which was in fact the original inspiration for the 1.0 assessment system), but these aren't necessarily the most important, they are designed to provide a representative selection of chemicals from all areas; with that list, the 1.0 bot picks up a core=yes tag and generates a completely separate list. You can see both lists over at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index; see if either of these methods would work for WP:Films. Till then, we'll do our best to handle it manually. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what I was aiming at was giving the equivalent of Top-importance points to anything in the core list, instead of solely relying on hit-counts, which seems to have plagued the current crop of 0.7 selections. But if you guys have your hands full already, I suppose that's something that we might be able to factor in on our own. How many articles should we be aiming at, though? Nehrams points out that the original selection picked out about 600 articles, whereas your suggestion would only vet about 40, and this is quite a difference. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I want to check what you mean by "would only vet about 40"? Do you mean the ones that are C-Class or above? I think to go beyond that, we'd need to review the articles one by one. I would propose that we get 2 or 3 reviewers from WP:FILMS, who could sign up for the WP1.0 Review Team then manually review all of the Start-Class articles - that way we could perhaps get through the main ones by October 20th, and ideally note the VersionIDs as well. Is this feasible? Walkerma (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you view the Core list, all of the articles that are B-class or above are ~40 articles. We would probably be able to get a few people from the project to assist in reviewing the start-class articles, but what criteria would be used? If we were still to include the FA/GAs that aren't on the core list but in the list that the bot presented, that would add a couple hundred articles for our project. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might be easier to go back to the CSV file, re-adjust the importance scores back by multiplying them all by 3/4, and then add the Top-importance-level 400 points to only the core articles. (Which is what I plan on doing today.) Then we'll look at what articles would exceed the selection points threshold. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like it would work pretty well. Nice job. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 20:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as long as you're OK with that, that is certainly an efficient way. I would suggest doing a "reality check", though, to make sure that these Start-Class articles are ones that you're comfortable including. WP:Films has a pretty high ranking, so that Top-importance tag will bring in a lot of Start-Class (more than most projects), so you will want to be sure that they're not going to embarrass the project! If you need help with the CSV processing, let us know, but if you know how to do this yourself (I don't!) then I would do so. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so I've got a list here (WARNING - page exceeds 1 MB) which has the re-adjustments I was able to work out via spreadsheet, to derive a selection equivalent to having an importance parameter. (All of the core articles were valued at 400 pts, equivalent to a Top-importance selection.) The table includes a complete points breakdown, if anyone wants to check. I also cut off the results below 400 points total, so as to have a page within the acceptable byte-limit for the wiki.

This new list has 201 entries (between Film and Picnic at Hanging Rock) which meet the 1250-point threshold, which is about a third of the original selection, but - IMHO - more historically balanced that the original selection. There are still some entries that undoubtedly don't have any real place here, such as X-Men 3 or Indiana Jones 4, as well as more justifiable but still questionable ones such as Iron Man or Zodiac, but this is all essentially the problem of over-reliance on transitory hit-counts resulting in picks for recent blockbusters. It seems fair to say that were the hit-count normalized by averaging it out over a more considerable period of time, then this particular recentism-bias would be somewhat smoothed out. Oh well.

On the other hand, I have no interest in exerting my particular aesthetic mores upon the list and cherry-picking other entries - if the 0.7 project feels that more articles are warranted for selection, then they can of course continue to admit further entries from the top of this adjusted list. I believe, however, that any deficiencies within the selected group will simply have to remain furnished as evidence that the Bot formulae continue to need tweaking, although I must say that on the whole, the overall selected list has yielded a strong collection, for the most part. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think this list looks pretty reasonable - and someone has to choose what is Top and what is High or Mid! I think that as long as other WP:Film people consider this to be reasonable, then we at 1.0 should consider these for inclusion. After all, the only reason they weren't on before is because the project doesn't use importance tags, not because the films are non-notable, and I recognised most of the films as very significant. The hit-counts thing is an issue, and we wanted to use a longer timeframe, but the data are apparently both hard to get and hard to work with, though CBM (a mathematician) has included some smoothing to offset sudden spikes. I think that by the next release we should have averages over longer periods to work with, and they will avoid problems caused by box office releases, appearing on the front page, etc. In the meantime, I'll ask some other 1.0 people to look over the new film selection. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Football assessment

I echo the sentiment above about recentism - some players such as Kenwyne Jones really don't belong on merit from my POV, and articles about recent individual matches or tournaments (e.g. 2007 UEFA Champions League Final) are recentist too. From a UK point of view, I would like to see William McGregor, C. W. Alcock, Arthur Wharton, Leigh Richmond Roose, Alex James (footballer), Cliff Bastin, Walter Winterbottom, Billy Wright (footballer) & Bob Paisley all in there.

Also Niels Bohr did play football but is better known for his achievements as a physicist, ditto Rod Stewart, Paul Allen, Liam Neeson & Drew Carey are all more famous for things other than football - they should all be definitely removed from this list (obviously nothing against inclusion in more relevant Wikiprojects, though). Qwghlm (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. A lot of the recentism tends to be due to the quality of older articles (or the fact that they haven't been assessed properly), and hit count. I counter this with the fact that a fairly recent featured article is obviously going to get a lot of hits, especially if it has had a peer review and/or failed an FAC. I think hit count should have a slightly lower weighting in future; it's important, but I'm not sure the balance is quite right.
My main reason for coming to this page was to say that UEFA Euro 2016 and 2018 FIFA World Cup bids is going too far into the future. Up to and possibly including the 2014 World Cup is understandable (I disagree, but understand) but going beyond that seems silly. BeL1EveR (talk) 16:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite writing most of the content in both articles, I don't think Macclesfield Town F.C. or Paul Dickov are significant enough for inclusion. Croke Park is significant for Gaelic football, but not so much for association football. Julio Iglesias is another off-topic one. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK: William McGregor has been included, but the other suggestions in the first paragraph are mostly Start-Class articles. If you can bring these up to GA or FA standards, we can probably make a case to include them on the next release. The footballing celebrities are duly noted, along with the 2016 and 2018 articles and Oldelpaso's proposed removals. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Buddhism

The main Buddhism article is in a mess. we're trying to reconstruct it, but that's likely to take a long time. The massive Western bias is gradually decreasing. i don't know what you can do about this. Peter jackson (talk) 10:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can omit such a major topic as this. Can you at least recommend the best VersionID for us? Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hinduism/Vaishnavism

Articles like Satsvarupa dasa Goswami and Bhishma are not core articles for Vaishnaivism. George Harrison was wrongly labeled high for Hinduism.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both have been regraded but otherwise are suitable for the 0.7 release. Wikidās ॐ 11:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Walkerma (talk) 03:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ones that were regraded will still make it in, but I've suggested not listing Harrison under Hinduism. Bhishna was not regraded, so I've left it in the collection. Walkerma (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queens of the Stone Age task force articles

The 3 articles automatically selected are Queens of the Stone Age, Mark Lanegan and Era Vulgaris (album). Lanegan is only a guest member of the band, and far less important than the only permanent member, Josh Homme. Similarly, while Era Vulgaris was critically and commercially mediocre, Songs for the Deaf was critically acclaimed and best-selling. As the Homme and SFTD articles are the 4th and 5th highest scoring articles identified by the bot, I would suggest selecting them in place of the Lanegan and EV articles. Respectfully, the skomorokh 14:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Walkerma (talk) 03:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at Josh Homme, and I see that it is only C-Class and carries an OR tag - that pretty much rules out including it, when it gets a lower importance score as well. If it can be brought up to B-Class and the OR removed, it should pass just fine. I will therefore leave in the Era Vulgaris article, since it is a GA. Walkerma (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Irish Republicanism

A note on some of the articles selected [2]:

  • Easter Rising is currently undergoing a major re-write.  This may take six to eight weeks, and will hopefully result in a GA.  You can take it the job is complete when the lead is re-written.  Please do not add it before it is ready.
  • Sinn Féin is the subject of lively discussion at the moment.  It might be wise to await the outcome of that before adding the article.
  • I have added a {{cleanup}} tag to Provisional Irish Republican Army.

Thanks.  Scolaire (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits on Easter Rising seem to have stopped, so I have to assume that it is as ready as it will be. The Troubles at Sinn Féin seem to have been resolved, as have the cleanup tag at the Provisional IRA, so I assume we can use these two as is. All three are ranked very high, so we don't want to omit them unless there is something major involving libel or copyvios. Walkerma (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway assessment

A few comments:

--Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We will remove any Norway listing for the military things, except the K-J. Likewise with the Americans and the Congress. The Bodø article has been swapped for Narvik (they both seem fairly similar in quality despite different ratings), and I have added Alesund (as well as Molde, which is perfectly OK). I didn't swap Alta, Norway for Hammerfest, because the former is a much weaker article. I've swapped FC Lyn Oslo for Vålerenga IF Fotball, and tagged the latter for WP:Norway. The region articles are in pretty poor shape, and so I don't want to use those at all - but I agree, if these were B-Class, we'd love to have them. Finnmark is picked also for WP:Arctic, so it'll be in the collection anyway. Walkerma (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology assessment

Removals
  • The articles on microscope and microscopy are largely redundant. I'd suggest removing microscope from the list since it is the lower-quality article.
  • Remove coccus from the list, this isn't a particularly vital topic and was mis-assigned on the importance scale.
  • Remove Chlamydia infection from the list, this is more of a medical topic than a microbiology one.
  • Secretion is a MCB topic, not restricted to microbes and is a feature of life in general. I'd suggest removing this from the Micro list.
Additions
  • Algae is an important topic in microbiology, this article should be included.
  • Microbial metabolism is an important topic in microbiology, this article should be included.

--Tim Vickers (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done except for the last one - it's simply not major enough to go onto the DVD, though if it were a GA or FA I think I'd make a case for it to be included. Walkerma (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject MCB assessment

Removals
Additions

--Tim Vickers (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree, though I'd have thought essential amino acids were important in molecular biology - everything done as requested. Walkerma (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities assessment

I suggest adding the following to the selection list:

Additionally, I am puzzled by the inclusion of Amherst College, Bates College, Ohio Wesleyan University, and Wesleyan University, alone among Liberal arts colleges in the United States. It seems to me that it is merely serendipitous that these particular schools scored in the selection range, while other highly regarded and/or historically important schools of this type (for example, Williams College, Swarthmore College, Mount Holyoke College, Carleton College, Vassar College, and Smith College) did not. (Ohio Wesleyan is not even all that highly regarded.) Rather than including just four schools from this group, either expand the selection or include the blanket article about this type of school. --Orlady (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I teach at a liberal arts college myself, and I think I'd agree, though Bates and Amherst are appropriate schools IMHO. I'll treat your suggestions as nominations. We have a 1.0 team member teaching at U-WA, I'm sure he'd support that nomination! Walkerma (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I looked at everything closely. From the noms list I added three, but held three - the Helsinki, CUNY and UWA entries are too weak in quality for articles of this level of importance. We are clearly not going to have all major liberal arts colleges, but it seems OK for us to have a few representative example. Even if we removed these, some others will pop up under other projects; for example many colleges are listed under their home state (and some have been selected). It looks as if the main reason Ohio Wesleyan was selected was because it's an FA; if Smith or Vassar were FA they would surely be listed too - but Smith is only Start-Class. So I'm proposing to leave those as they are. Walkerma (talk) 04:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Furry assessment

Furry fandom itself is a good choice, but I would like to withdraw anthropomorphism. I don't think it is of the quality required, nor will it reach it anytime soon.

In its place, I suggest furry convention and fursuit. Both are high-importance furry articles, illustrated, heavily referenced, and stable. They are key articles for our topic; elements of furry fandom most likely to be referenced by the average person.

I understand space is limited; if these have to be held for a later revision, we can adjust the main furry fandom article to include more details in these areas. GreenReaper (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan assessment

Frankly, the selection was pretty awful, leaving out all but one of Gilbert and Sullivan's operas, including two featured articles. Although it may have run into problems with the slightly eccentric rating scheme used - in short, pretty much everything above "Low" importance is the core material on the subject - the selection is bizarre and should be redone. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is there are only about 30,000 article slots in this release. When there are over 2,500,000 topics in Wikipedia, that means only 1.2% of articles will get in. Considering the size of the WikiProject (~280 articles), a fair share would be about three, so the four that have been selected is already "more than it deserves". The external popularity of Gilbert and Sullivan would have been used to determine the score scaling factor for your WikiProject. Compared to, say, The Simpsons, that factor is not high. The priority is on topics that are considered core - or, failing that, which people are likely to look up - and these may not be the "best" ones, but the most popular ones (e.g. FA Creatures of Impulse scores lower than the C-class Major-General's Song because the latter has thirty times the hits). It's been suggested that featured articles do matter, but you might have to nominate them. Personally, if there was room to add any I'd choose H.M.S. Pinafore and The Pirates of Penzance, although it would be a shame to exclude Trial by Jury and Thespis which have clearly had a lot of work done on them. But there may not be room. On a positive note, the main article contains significant amounts of information from these four articles, and several others. GreenReaper (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Creatures of Impulse was always going to be questionable, but I would seriously ask what the goal is for this release, and whether using an algorithm, then presenting the results as a fait accompli was really a good way to go about it. You must have known that springing such things on Wikipedia was going to set you up for criticism, particularly when a little liasing with the WikiProjects beforehand, etc, would have made people much more ready to accept the results.  Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who's "you"? I came here for the same reason. :-) The project's stated goal is to "start with a core of quality articles on key subjects and expand from there." This is probably the first release in which topics such as Gilbert and Sullivan are being considered at all; the main purpose appears to be getting as broad coverage as possible for one DVD - not necessarily the highest quality articles, but those covering the most topics. In many projects, only the very topmost "summary articles" may be strictly necessary to achieve this goal. I agree the schedule is a little optimistic, given the tenfold increase in size (and perhaps an even greater increase in project participation). The message sent to WikiProjects could also have explained the purpose and methods in a better way. Still, from an outsider's perspective, the automated process does appear to have correctly ranked of the "most important" articles - the article on Gilbert, Sullivan, the summary of their collaboration, and their most frequently performed opera. If you could only choose four articles from the project, which ones would you have picked instead, and why? GreenReaper (talk) 21:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably switch the Mikado for H.M.S. Pinafore - it's a stronger article, quality-wise, as it's the subject of a major FA push (slightly slowed by illness and the Gilbert and Sullivan festival). Also, Trial by Jury and Thespis (opera) *are* featured, The Mikado is a weakish B-class.
H.M.S. Pinafore, Trial by Jury, and The Pirates of Penzance were, at most, a few points short. I don't know, had I not been faced with insistence on how perfect the algorhithms were, or if it had not been presented as an unchangable fait accompli, I'd have probably accepted it already. As it is, I have a featured article, Trial by Jury, I spent months working on left out because our bottom-heavy rating scheme had labelled it "High" importance instead of "Top".  Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago assessment

Hi, I am very impressed with the automated selections at http://toolserver.org/~cbm/release-data/2008-9-13/HTML/Chicago.s0.html .  I am amazed that pages like Cloud Gate, Crown Fountain, and Jay Pritzker Pavilion did not make your list, but I consider your list pretty fair.  Considering the first ten to miss the cutoff, (Charles_G._Dawes, Susan_Sontag, Zach_Braff, Chicago_Fire_(soccer), Gloria_Swanson, Wachowski_brothers, Dwight_L._Moody, Georg_Solti, Mike_Ditka, and Leo_Strauss), I am not going to complain too much. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I looked at the first three you mention- these look like nice articles, but it seems that they are not quite prominent enough topics to be included. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 05:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket assessment

There are five articles in the cricket selection which are unsuitable. Samuel Beckett and Arthur Conan Doyle had only tenuous connections with cricket and are not representative. 2007 Cricket World Cup is a controversial subject and I would argue that the article needs much more work to achieve a balanced view: there are several other articles rated B-class that are more appropriate than this one. The Ashes is a former featured article that has been demoted and is still being reviewed by WP:CRIC so I would say that is not ready. Batting average is really a baseball article and its cricket content is highly questionable (and, according to the cleanup tag, so is its baseball content).

The selection is heavily biased in favour of modern players and the number of these needs to be reduced. I would exclude Adam Gilchrist, Harbhajan Singh, Ian_Chappell, Michael_Vaughan, Paul_Collingwood, Ricky_Ponting, Sachin_Tendulkar, Shane_Warne as superfluous. The other players are from each of the main countries except South Africa and New Zealand so you need to include a South African and a New Zealander. I would use Richard Hadlee and Morne Morkel which are both rated B-class.

Given that 2007 Cricket World Cup adds to the modern bias as well as being a dubious topic, I would replace it with a historical competition to compensate. There are several of these rated B-class and the oldest in historical terms is History of cricket to 1725, currently a GAN.

Apart from MCC, which is not a typical club, there are no clubs in the selection and I would include B-class Lancashire County Cricket Club as a modern example and Hambledon Club as a historic one.

There should be one article about someone who strongly influenced the sport as a patron or administrator rather than merely played it and a good choice for this would be John Sackville, 3rd Duke of Dorset (although he was a very good player too). And I think one of the sport's historic venues should be included so I would add Kennington Common, which is a substantial B-class article.

There should be a writer and the best article is Harry Altham, rated B-class.

Finally, I think there should be a flavour of cricket from outside its mainstream. There are several B-class articles about national teams that don't play Test cricket and Uganda national cricket team is as good as any. BlackJack | talk page 10:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This makes a lot of sense, this kind of guidance is very helpful. Can we get a second opinion from another project member, just to make sure we're on track? Walkerma (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, first three paragraphs of requests have been followed exactly. The Sackville, Kennington and Altham articles don't seem that great to me (or convincingly important) and were therefore omitted, but the Uganda one looks much better, and it's been added. Walkerma (talk) 05:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Correction - now I'm not so tired - I'd like to keep the Gilchrist and Chappell articles, because these are FAs that scored over 1350 - well over our threshold. They may be less important, but they are still notable, and as FAs they represent some of our best work. H Singh is selected for WP:India anyway. Also, in the second paragraph, Morkel is just way too low in importance. Walkerma (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see Bodyline listed on the project page - that would be a serious omission. Looks like the best fit for it would be in "Sports events". --Dweller (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hadlee's a good choice for a NZ-er. If we're short of a SA cricketer, we should rally the WikiProject to improve an article: off the top of my head, one of Mike Procter, Graeme Pollock, Ali Bacher or controversially Hansie Cronje, but perhaps he's too recent. I'll post to WT:CRIC. --Dweller (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the WikiProject has chosen Graeme Pollock to add to your DVD and done a lot of work in improving it. Could someone from the 0.7 team let us know how it's currently scoring, whether it's good enough and if not, what we can do to push its score higher. --Dweller (talk) 17:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 selected articles for Wikipedia:Wikiproject Neopaganism

I think the list of articles to be included (articles selected from this project) should definitely be reconsidered. It seems to be spotty and non-representative. For example, the only humans whose articles are included are Varg Vikernes, Heinrich Himmler, and Virginia Woolf. The first two may or may not have been Neopagan, certainly not part of mainstream Neopaganism, but they had nothing to do with the movement; that is, they were not shapers or contributors to the origins or development of the movement as would be Janet Farrar & Stewart Farrar, Gerald Gardner, Raymond Buckland, Starhawk, Gavin Frost & Yvonne Frost, or even Aleister Crowley. I don't really know what Virginia Woolf is doing in the list. On the other hand, there are several articles included like Nymph, Merlin and Deluge that seem to have nothing to do with Neopaganism.

IMO, someone should suggest a different list of articles to be included in this DVD that are characteristic of the discussions taking place in this project. Of course, I must admit I don't understand the criteria by which these were selected. Rosencomet (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The project itself defines what articles are tagged, and the quality & importance levels of those articles. The bot simply collects those data, and includes some obvious importance data. So if articles have been wrongly tagged or assessed, the project should fix those ASAP, or they will come up again next time. Walkerma (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've looked over everything. The criteria are a balance of importance and quality. Crowley is already included in the collection, and I think we can add Gardner, who is B and close to the threshold. The other names you mention are all very low scoring, both on quality and importance statistics, and so we can't really include them at this time. Walkerma (talk) 17:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons

Hi, I just nominated Forgotten Realms at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations for what I figure is a good reason; however, it looks like there's a months-old backlog on that list, so I hope it doesn't go overlooked.  I mean, did I see stuff on there from over 6 months ago? :) BOZ (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's in - and the backlog is clear! The 6 month old ones were held, not unreviewed, BTW. Thanks for the nom, Walkerma (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games assessment

OK, I've reviewed all of the above, and I'm removing all except the disputed one, Pokemon game mechanics . Walkerma (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree with all of this second group of suggestions; many thanks! I'm aware that assessments are constantly changing, but we'll just try to do the best we can with the information available. Thanks for pointing out some of the more significant problems, Walkerma (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENLANG  & WP:ETHNIC

  • No articles from WP:ENLANG?
  • Some of the articles from WP:ETHNIC may be controversial/POV. I will need to look at them closely, soon... and will probably ask that some be removed from your list. Off he top of my head, certainly X people in Y country articles like British Chinese should go right out. They are, in general, poorly sourced  POV/controversy magnets. The exception might be African Americans, which of course has a boatload of boatloads of source material to draw from. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 04:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Viruses

Comment

  • I have looked at the current selection of virus and virus-related articles and I don't think these are ready yet:

I think Hepatitis C should be included. Graham Colm Talk 12:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done all as requested except Reverse transcriptase, which is pretty important for the MCB project. Although quite short, it is rated B with no cleanup tags, and could be a page for people to find useful links to other longer articles. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MESO

I believe that the articles on Quetzalcoatl, Aztec mythology, Aztec, and Aztec calendar are not good enough to include. They contain misleading, inaccurate and outdated information. I suggest including Aztec religion instead of Aztec mythology since it is in much better shape and has a more encyclopedic scope. You also might consider adding Tezcatlipoca instead of Quetzalcoatl since the article on this Aztec deity is in better shape. The main article Aztec is about to undergo massive transformation into a disambiguation page following a decision on the article talk page and the current article is not representative of what aztec coverance should be like or what it will be like in the near future.·Maunus·ƛ· 05:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we'll remove Quetzalcoatl, Aztec mythology, and Aztec calendar, and add Aztec religion as you propose. I don't think we can realistically remove Aztec, which receives about 100,000 hits per month, as this would leave a huge hole in the selection; I note that in the last eight weeks no major edits have been done except to remove the cuisine section (which I think lacked sources, or should I say sauces?!). Tezcatlipoca is only listed as Start-Class, while Quetzalcoatl is B-Class and more important, so I would find it hard to replace the latter with the former. Thanks for your help, Walkerma (talk) 03:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject History

Done. Walkerma (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Croatia

I have noticed that Zagreb isn't included, although I recall seeing it on the list of articles that passed the nomination. Admiral Norton (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like there was a tagging problem for WP:CRO (now fixed) on that article, but it doesn't matter because (a) all capitals of sovereign nations are included (I think I manually reviewed it last year), and (b) the article has passed for WP:Cities with a score of 1937, almost 700 over the cutoff score! BTW, last night I reviewed the manual nominations, and so Osijek, Rijeka and Split are now also included, though I rated two of those articles as poorly sourced and therefore only C-Class. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Earthquakes

WP:YORKS

Unsure if this is the right place to ask the question but I was wondering why the list at articles selected from this project does not match the list in the Yorkshire list to put in the selected versions against? Keith D (talk) 12:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any difference at this point. I'm not sure if the main list was updated a little bit, but now it matches. I find it both amazing and amusing that Huddersfield gets a lower score than Huddersfield Town F.C. - even on interwiki links! BTW, it would be nice to see Wakefield brought up to B-Class, so that it could make it into a future release, that seems like a fairly important Yorkshire town that would be nice to have. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The differences have been corrected by a later upload - so the missing 10 are now there. Unsure how Leeds University got there but have not looked at it yet. Other towns would be Beverley which is the county town for the East Riding and Northallerton for North Yorkshire. Keith D (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If those two were B-Class I might support their nomination, but as Start-Class they're unlikely to make it. Leeds Uni is pretty major, I think, so it's not a bad one to have. I'm really surprised at the low score of Northallerton, even Dewsbury scored higher! I'd also suggest that besides Beverley, Harrogate and Yorkshire Dales would be other good articles to work on. BTW, in case you're wondering about my interest in Yorkshire, my mother grew up in "Doggy", and my father was from Redcar, and I used to work in the Tees estuary. Walkerma (talk) 03:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. Someone is currently working on Northallerton and has nominated it for GA a couple of days ago. The West Yorkshire articles are suffering from IP edits and POV pushing at the moment. Keith D (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see Northallerton is now a GA, so it's being included. Thanks for the suggestion, Walkerma (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Wikipedia:WikiProject Krishnaism 

A few pages to add to the list would be Radha Krishna, Krishnaism and Svayam Bhagavan. All other articles on the list should stay. Wikidās ॐ 13:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the first two, but Svayam Bhagavan is hard to justify when it is very low ranked and only assessed as Start-Class. Walkerma (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have few suggestion on the basis of Wikipedia:WikiProject Islam/Assessment. 

  1. I suggest substitute Fiqh(C-article) with Sources of Islamic law(GA).
  2. Sharia has too many problems. It has several tags and hasn't reached to acceptable level.
  3. I suggest removing all of the articles which have POV, OR or disputed tags.--Seyyed(t-c) 12:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 and 2 are now done. As for 3, I looked at lower quality, lower importance articles and based on your suggestion I removed Husayn ibn Ali, Wahhabism, Prophets of Islam and Jizya. Walkerma (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography

Pls rmv Aristotle Onassis from the list, per Not English, possible WP:BLP concerns, etc. Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 06:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotle Onassis is not a living person. And what do you mean by "Not English"? Can there suddenly not be articles about Greeks in 0.7? --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 08:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I was unclear. I wasn't talking about the subject being "not English"; I was referring to the grammar, which could use some copy editing. And even if WP:BLP is irrelevant, the article suffers from speculation that could be considered slanderous:
  • "which would explain the speed with which he made his first million dollars.."
  • "...and Onassis hospitality, what usually means good bribes"
Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 09:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, this article seems to have quite a POV problem, it's not written in an encyclopedic style, and it's only Start, so removed. Walkerma (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured topics assessment

Hmmm, this is interesting. The selection can be seen here. Firstly, the importance levels are completely arbitrary, in terms of what v0.7 is trying to achieve here. Secondly, I'm not really sure WP:FT should be involved in this at all, it only is because SelectionBot picked up on WP:FT's subscription to 1.0 bot, which is used to see if articles change class, not for rating article importance. Thirdly, if WP:FT IS going to be involved, then I guess any topics included should have the whole of their topics included, not part.

Potentially we could nominate every single article in a good and featured topic, as they are all good, featured or audited, so there would be no quality issues. Though some (such as the TV episodes) maybe aren't notable enough to be included. Thoughts? rst20xx (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the selection, it really is a fairly random selection of incomplete sets. I think these articles will either make it through their subject-based WikiProjects (and many will), not through a listing at WP:FT. For future releases we will have to work with you, and treat the sets as "all or nothing" nominations, but it's too late to organise something like that now. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment

Please remove Anthony Burgess from this version. At present, the article is in a state of dispute, with efforts to improve it from what were essentially large laundry lists of Burgess trivia with no context or sourcing whatsoever for the lists. It cannot be ready in time for the deadline and would really reflect less than stellar on Wikipedia to be included at this time. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Walkerma (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography

Please consider adding Jonestown and Peoples Temple articles as companions to the already included Jim Jones. These articles are necessary complements to the Jones article and delve into the events regarding Jones to a much greater degree. Both are in as good shape for inclusion as is Jones. All three will soon be candidates for at least WP:GA status on their way to WP:FA and contribute to the overall understanding of Peoples Temple events and history. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already handled via the noms page, thanks for putting them on there. Walkerma (talk) 05:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Australian law selection

Edmund Barton (overall score 1283) was automatically selected for Australian law; a fair selection, but his political career (he was the first Prime Minister of Australia) is far more important than his legal career, so it should probably have been selected for WikiProject Australian politics.

I would suggest that either High Court of Australia (overall score 1142) or Constitution of Australia (overall score 998) would be more representative selections for the Australian law project. --bainer (talk) 11:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barton is indeed one of the highest ranked articles in the Australian politics selection, but I've noted that we shouldn't list it under law. I've added both of the law articles you suggest - they may score lower than some Simpsons episodes, but they are clearly important. Their low interwiki score is more a reflection of the fact that we have the subject split into more parts than most other languages, rather than any lack of importance for the subject material. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 05:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Visual arts selection

After discussion, these should be removed:

Artist - scores hugely on links to it, but not much of an article
Satsvarupa dasa Goswami, American Hare Krishna leader - gotta go - 8k ghits, a pathetic 840 whits on your table; only scores because of being on far too many templates. Should not be included as part of any project.
Academic art
Graffitti
I want to ask the new graffiti project for their opinion on the last article. I'll remove the others, though it would be really nice (pretty please?) if the VA project (and other art projects) could turn Artist into a full-blown article. You'd clearly get lots of readers! As for Goswami, I was puzzled, but when I checked the interwikis, these seem to be dead ends - either a more general article, or a "doesn't exist". These were counted in our ranking, so you're right - thanks!

Not sufficiently important from the VA pov, but may be for other projects:

Victor Hugo
Museum??
Done Walkerma (talk) 06:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See further discussion here. Additions will be put on the other page.

Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • From the manual additions, these are too obscure:
Paul Kane,
Art competitions at the Olympic Games,
Theory of Colours (book by Goethe)

Johnbod (talk) 14:23, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At such a late stage, I'm reluctant to remove articles from the 0.5 selection without a discussion, and so I'd rather leave them in for 0.7. None of them gets a score in the "really obscure" range for importance, and indeed, Paul Kane scores 1246 for the Biography project, just below the 1250 cutoff.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music assessment

We don't have a list classification for our WikiProject, and since apparently lists have been purposefully excluded from Wikipedia 0.7, the following lists should be removed: Alice in Chains discography, Depeche Mode discography, Nine Inch Nails discography, Nirvana discography, Pearl Jam discography, Radiohead discography, Red Hot Chili Peppers discography, and Soundgarden discography.

After much discussion on the project talk page, we have decided that the following should not be included in Wikipedia 0.7, either due to their limited importance outside of the scope of alternative rock, lackluster article quality unsuitable for a physical Wikipedia release, or incorrect tagging as part of the project: Sunny Day Real Estate, Carl Barât, Thrice, The Presidents of the United States of America (band), AFI (band), Public Image Ltd., Massive Attack, The Living End, Era Vulgaris (album), Mark Lanegan, Breaking Benjamin, Independent music, Temple of the Dog, Adam Clayton, Feeder, Deftones, The Fray, Editors, Black Holes & Revelations, Indie rock, 30 Seconds to Mars, Achtung Baby, Babyshambles, Bloc Party, Diorama (album), Ghosts I–IV, Gorillaz, Kaiser Chiefs, Keane (band), One Hot Minute, Sufjan Stevens, and The Decemberists. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Walkerma (talk) 06:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Fashion requested removals

After some discussion at the talk page, the following should be removed as too peripheral: many actresses who once had a make-up line etc: Hilary Duff, 1950s , Gwen Stefani, Victoria Beckham, Acne vulgaris, Jennifer_Lopez, Paris Hilton, Milla_Jovovich, Chloë_Sevigny, Heidi_Klum, Tyra_Banks, Elizabeth Hurley, The Bold and the Beautiful. Additions will be nominated on the other page. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, duly noted, we'll try to get these unlisted when we compile the index. These people will all make it in under WP:BIO anyway. Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested removal.

Currently, both cannon and history of cannon are listed for inclusion; these two articles are, for all intents and purposes, identical. I suggest that history of cannon be removed, as it a "fragment" of the main article. · AndonicO Engage. 20:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Time

As far as I can tell all the months and days of the week are in 0.7 except for Tuesday and Wednesday. This seems odd and those two should be added for continuity. Zginder 2008-10-26T19:34Z (UTC)

Actually, those two days are in as well. Thanks for the checkup though - the bot doesn't understand such things, and we need a human to spot them. Walkerma (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very confused

As a newcomer to this concept, I really can't work out what is and isn't approved for v0.7. The project page here has so many confusing disclaimers about what may or may not be omitted and I couldn't make head or tail of the links. Now, I'm a simple soul, but I'm not totally thick. Could someone review what it says in the heading on the project page and make it a bit easier to follow? Thanks. --Dweller (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason - this page is very much in transition. Version 0.7 has officially closed for nominations, and there is a LOT of work going on behind the scenes tying up the loose ends from pages such as the above. Once this work has been completed - we had hoped last weekend, but it dragged into this weekend - you will be able to see a complete list. After that, you'll see a set of indexes and a description, and then an actual offline release. Walkerma (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Release?

When is this selection going to be released exactly? Will there be a book? Where could I purchase it? Or on which site could I read the chosen articles? Will it be this year, or not until 2009? 217.121.96.159 (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitive list of 0.7 articles

Where is the final, complete list of the articles selected for 0.7? --Dweller (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knock-Knock, anyone there? What's going on with 0.7?? Lwoodyiii (talk) 04:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was very busy when this came in, and then away when the knock-knock came, so both slipped through my watchlist. There is no one single list on-wiki, but you can see the selection in static form here. The index took longer than expected to assemble (I had to assign categories to 11,500 keywords by hand!), but it is close to ready now; once it is, that would be the best place to see the final list.
What I can say is that everything on this page was carefully reviewed, and I think every project got feedback on what was excluded or included. Walkerma (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A question about nominations

I'm curious about the nominations page. It has some articles, like Dungeons & Dragons and Gary Gygax crossed off, but they haven't been reviewed yet... will they still get reviewed? Thanks. -Drilnoth (talk) 00:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Version_0.7&oldid=268121224"