User talk:Walkerma/Archive8

Archive1 — Archive2 — Archive3 — Archive4 — Archive5 — Archive6 — Archive7 — Archive9 — Archive10

About WP:1.0

Hello, Walkerma. I'm glad to see the 1.0 project moving. I had already signed up as part of the Wikisort project, but lost track of it for a long time, so I'm not really useful there. However, I've found out through WikiProject Tropical cyclones that all a project needs is a group of very active users committed to a project. The project requires a "critical mass" for it to really take off, and that's what happened in the Cyclone project. The hurricanes last year caused significant interest, providing a set of knowledgeable editors that expanded Wikipedia's coverage and quality of cyclones tremendously.

The same thing needs to happen with the 1.0 project: there needs to be a small subset of users dedicated to it, but large enough for it to reach "critical mass". There is considerable interest in the project and Wikipedia in general after the Nature review. At this point, I think several projects have made considerable progress, but the progress is lost in all the talk pages [1] [2]. There's at least several redundant pages that should be merged or eliminated to avoid duplicate effort, and to help new users browse the project.

And finally, no, my name isn't derived from TiO₂, but rather from my real-life nickname... good guess, though. :) Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I keep forgetting. I agree with everything you and Gflores have said, and I look forward to moving onto the next stage. I will try to leave comments on the roadmap to publication tomorrow. As for using AWB, what I did was tell it to make a list from the links on the page, and I put Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/WPScience as the page name. Then I went to the "More options" tab and checked the "append message" box. Then I just typed in the message, including the header. Then I went to the start tab, changed the summary, and clicked on Start the process. I told AWB to ignore links that weren't Wikipedia talk links as it was going through the list, but I suppose you could also remove the other links from the list beforehand. There's probably a better way to do it but I wouldn't know how. --Shanel 07:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Core Topic Levels

Hi Martin, Here is some more work in grouping core topic articles (from most general to more specific): Core topic levels. (Some other organization schemes could be used, but this one seems simple and effective.) I'm going to sit on this a day or longer: I included suggestions for additional core topic articles by level. I think if we focused on completing something like these levels (or sub-groups) of core topic articles we could have a real sense of progress -- knowing that a stage of core topic work was complete after finishing off each level. If you get a chance to look this idea over, do you think it could be useful? Vir 21:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

PS. The Core topic levels page has changed a good bit today. It is yet more abstract at the top. So, it's applicability might not be directly obvious -- but I think this will help in organizing knowledge categories. Anyway, it'll settle for a bit now. Vir 04:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I been too active. After reassessing a bit, I have decided I have too much to do this year to volunteer in Wikipedia. So, I need to back out for awhile. Perhaps I can help in a year or two. Good luck with everything. Best wishes, Vir 22:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. We too have a young 'un to care for. And, though I do love and really care about participatory democratic media work (which is why I tend to dive in) and this project is wonderful -- I just have too much on plate. When time frees up in year or two, I hope I can help. Vir 22:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

One thing: Before I put my participation on hold and while mostly I must stop diving in now, there is one process I would like to finish or get more developed. I'll write up some of the notes I made about categorization schemes that I started on here -- maybe next week or this summer. The French front page scheme is a useful one and some ideas about that and how it could be used it might be helpful (or not). Tying such thoughts into other Wikipedia thinking on this, such as by Larry Sanger, and with the Propaedia system and theories of knowledge would be fun too. If and when time allows... OK, back to moving beyond procrastination... Vir 17:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Rather than you doing that, why don't WE at WP1.0 try to do that for you (not for a while, there is in important conference for me just over a week away), then you take a look at OUR summary in a month or so. I think I understand what you were suggesting, there's no need for you to start getting sucked in all over again! But please come back in a few weeks and check that we didn't get the wrong idea. Your family must always come first! Walkerma 18:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Core topics

I think the navigation box is good and the logo is spiffy. I will try to work on replies about all the other points and questions. I'm having a little technical trouble. And you guys all apparently manage your time better than I do; you seem to be getting much more done.

Tangentially, about Wikiproject involvement, I had started to ask at various groups about their relevant core topics (hoping to encourage the groups to work on the core topics, or at least review them). But I got little response.

Also, about the various levels, I had been working on a possible working draft type outline. I can't put it up yet, because of technical troubles. I hope to this weekend, if that works for the rest of you.

And thanks for asking, I expect to be around at least every other day for a while. Maurreen 08:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, glad you like the idea of a geography focus. I am very gratified by your response. Also, btw, I didn't mean to imply that anyone was neglecting anything. Oh, and thanks for fixing my sig. Maurreen 04:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on a map

Hi, Martin, you asked what I think of Titoxd's road map. Sorry, but not much. To me, it seems more process than substance. Only Step 3 is about actually improving articles. Maurreen 09:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Step 3 is the bulk of the work. All that happens before is to identify a list of articles to improve, and then to try to get the most opinions about those articles as possible, including outside Wikipedia if possible. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 03:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have to say, I really like it myself. I don't see a problem with "process" in this context, to me that's something a roadmap should include (how to get from A to B in our case is a process). I think Titoxd quite rightly puts a lot of emphasis of bringing in lots of help from interested groups (WikiProjects) and existing channels (AID and COTWs), and I think those are things we all agree are good (we will burn ourselves out trying to write even 150 FAs ourselves!). Our job at WP1.0 is (IMHO) to build the infrastructure to allow all of us (mainly others, we're only a few) to improve all of the important articles quickly and using expert help. For me it has "substance" because it tells us in specific ways, how to get from A to B, which a roadmap should do. Thanks a lot to both of you, Walkerma 04:58, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Toluene and SMILES

I'm not terribly familiar with SMILES, but I think that the modification to the SMILES structure of toluene that you reverted was in fact correct. The lower case letters indicate aromaticity. But ChemDraw does not recognize aromaticity and renders its SMILES output as a series of alternating double and single bonds, so you get a SMILES that is not technically correct (or at least less precise). --Ed (Edgar181) 16:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that- I did wonder if that was the case, I have never used SMILES in my life so I didn't know - but being an anon edit I was being rather careful (hence the Chemdraw check - my standard SMILES generator). If this is the case we will need to review benzene, naphthalene etc that all use the same C=C type notation. I'll rv my rv and post something on WP:Chem. Thanks, Walkerma 17:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

1.0 trees and levels

Hi, Martin. My home computer went on the fritz today, so I won't be able to show you the tree I had made. So don't wait up for me. But I am considering somehow organizing the current GAs, FAs, etc. into some type of tree. I might start with just the geography items. Maurreen 19:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

For reviving and leading WP:1.0. Sincerely, Maurreen 20:25, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

This basic tree might be useful or interesting. Maurreen 21:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, As mentioned in a recent post, for now, more or less solely, I am going to think about basic knowledge outlines or trees in Wikipedia. It occurs to me that listing a number of options of basic topic outlines and dialoguing about those is a way to go! So, in response to Maurreen's tree suggestion above: I think having a few simple starting points can be good. I don't prefer her particular wording for category choices above -- the reasons for this are sort of immanent in the outlines below.

Here are some variants of possible first levels of subject trees. (This is off top of my head--need to reflect on if these are balanced and inclusive).

• Alternate 1: mixed practical & disciplinary domains
  • geography
  • history
  • society & culture (which includes culture and social systems) -- if one or other term, I would suggest society as it is just a bit more inclusive than culture. but, two terms may be better for this and next cateogry.
  • science & technology

[I think it is good to make conceptual structure of categories explicit. In the following, I attempt to do so. This can be accomplished by footnotes to knowledge trees.]

• Alternate 2: headings with practical-theoretical mixed categories subtitles

(perhaps this is closest to Maureen's outline above - but more description brings things together)

• • the universal atlas: maps of the earth and the universe, natural and social
  • society: socio-cultural life and studies
  • sciences: techno-scientific practices and sciences

• Alternate 3: abstract categories
  • nature: time and space (that is, history and geography as subtopics, and not just social history) as subcategory & nature (contents of natural sciences) as subcategory
  • social (or inter-subjective) knowledge (social system/structures and culture as main subtopics)
  • objective knowledge (science and tech as subtopics)

Here are several more options that may be more in the direction of inclussiveness but perhaps are less useful for general reference in being yet more abstract: core topic levels and core topic quad (actually binary at start). The basic cateogories at these pages are:

• Alternate 4A: very abstract alternate
  • objective world
  • subjective world

• Alternate 4B: abstract, adding inter-subjective world to 4A, very similar to 3 above
  • Nature: objective world (and inter-objective world--ecology, natural systems, etc.)
  • Society: inter-subjective world
  • Mind: subjective world

• Alternate 4C: very abstract, sub-divided (4A topics subdivided into micro-macro topics)
  • Nature, large scale physical and organic world
  • Organismic-behavioral world
  • Socio-cultural world
  • Humans

Feel free to edit and copy the above over to the core topics pages.

In general, I would invite us to lean toward using phrases to describe basic 2, 3 and 4 category origin points -- it allows more to be accomplished. We can pick one or two world labels later.

Perhaps these efforts would benefit from generating more top level categories and choosing a few to develop further. What do you think? Generate more options? Pick options most attracted to? Vir 23:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm responding here for clarity. I think we need to pick a 2 or 3 choices from the selection and then put them to the vote. We can perhaps pick our favourite, then go to the main WP1.0 talk page to propose a structure. Personally I like "Alternate 1" and "Alternate 2". #2 has to be on the list because that corresponds with Maurreen's tree, and #1 is basically #2 with history added. I'm assuming that maths goes in with science & technology, is that what you planned? A third choice might be something with more at the top level, such as Vir's original set of eight as used on the core topics tree (I believe this was based loosely on the French top level cats). As for what we call these, we can decide onwce we pick one. I think it is good to make conceptual structure explicit (that's in effect one of the ideas of the tree structure, in effect). All of our descriptions should be straightforward and clear to "the man on the Clapham omnibus". If Vir and Maurreen are OK with this strategy we can take it to Core Topics.

As I've mentioned before I do think we can have alternative categories cutting across the main ones. On the main en page there is one such category, "Biography". So I think we could have one of the type 4 organisations as an alternative system, added later. For now I think simplicity is the best way, until we get WP 1.0 launched. Walkerma 04:12, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Maureen that simplicity at top (for general use) is good. I think picking a few options and refining those is a good idea. We may want to decide to go with around an 8-fold top level rather than 3 or 4 category top levels. This can cut down a little on need for extra verbiage to explain categories. I agree with Martin that it is good to make conceptual structures explicit. That sometimes involves discussion/critique and polishing (because there are various concepts involved. The top level descriptions can be straightforward but footnotes can include and point to more detailed explanations of conceptual structure. (Sorry that I listed so many options above -- I was in a rush yesterday afternoon and was trying get the text online.) Ive copied these options to a sandbox and added some more. A listing of all options is here: core topic trees Vir 15:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Note: Please see the latest option for top level topics which is listed on the Core topics talk page. This is Long Option 4A, which is based on the English Wikipedia lists of lists page main categories. (Other options are linked there.) I think comparing 2A and 4A and the originals of both of those is a good step to take now. I think this round of work on this may be nearing a constructive end point (feels so to me anyway). If you have time, please respond at the core topics page? Thx, Vir 17:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Martin, I wrote some background about myself and my research on Wikipedia on my talk page. I was unsure about whether to participate while researching Wikipedia. I decided participation is best (if complicated in several ways). I also put a new post on the core topics talk page. If you have time, what do you think about that? Oh, and, I might make it to Wikimania in August. So, I hope to see you there. -- Vir 23:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My apologies

Seems I have been inadvertently multi-linking topic in articles I have edited (Noticed frim your corretions) and also some things in the tables I have forgotten to replace - My mistakes!

Ryan Jones 19:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, I did exactly the same when I joined WP! Another thing, with major topics like water make sure you link to the appropriate page (such as water (molecule). Many of the links you've added have been helpful, and thank you for your hard work. Walkerma 20:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA

I was going to say something else, which is why I held off this thanks but I've forgotten what I was going to say! Anyway, thanks and enjoy your much deserved semi-wikibreak. :) Gflores ^Talk 02:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I apologise for not getting back to you regarding pooling ideas - I've not forgotten, I just was hoping to get something else finished first.. I noticed you commented on a version I worked on for the GA page. I'd really appreciate it if you take a quick look and post you feedback. TheGrappler also did sterling work on categorisations within the sections which I think will make it much easier to find articles for viewing, and easier for editors to include and remove articles. The proposed version is here, and I've put an announcement on the talk page. Cheers SeanMack 16:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Template:Good article

Template:Good article has been listed for deletion. Please vote to keep this template at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_25#Template:Good_article. —RJN 10:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

1.0 COTF

You showed support for Amazon rainforest at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration. Hope you can help.

Thanks

Enjoyed your talk on Wikipedia at ACS yesterday. Although I've contributed to Wikipedia from time to time, I have to confess it's been mostly on topics of personal interest, and I haven't delved too much into chemical topics. Thanks for the overview! Chuck 18:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I think our chemistry coverage was weak, but it's now getting to the point where it can be a useful resource, and it should get much better. I like your list of errors on your talk page - I guess I gave you a couple more examples! Cheers, Walkerma 20:18, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Hey, Martin! Please do tell: how did it go? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 21:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC).

I was a bit nervous as expected, but I think it went pretty well. The talk was titled "Wikipedia: Social Revolution or Information Disaster?" The first part explained what Wikipedia is, its Alexa ranking, I showed examples of the user's perspective and the perspective of a regular editor, and also mentioned some things about the Wikipedia community (I said that mostly the WikiChemists work well together in a friendly way, too!). I even included a picture of a handsome Dutch chemist at one point! The second part covered some of the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia, and I covered the Nature review as well as an academic study. To close (beginning to rush a bit, I was about a minute behind where I'd hoped to be) I looked to the future, and I gave a few conclusions to close. At that point it was 23-24 minutes in, so there was time for one question asking about how you cite Wikipedia. A podcast or webcast was made of the entire morning's talks, so in a few days you may be able to watch the talk and judge for yourself!

I was worried about how some in the audience might feel about open access, but because of the nature of the session (on Social Software) most seemed to be open access advocates. In discussions it was clear that some in the chemical information business are very interested in using wikis, and we may some new developments in the coming year. Walkerma 05:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note on CASREF in chemboxes. I will desist for now from adding any new ones. Jaraalbe 21:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

WP 1.0

Hey - Noticed you're working on the Version 1.0 project - would love to get involved since it's probably a whole lot more useful than my usual aimless editing and categorizing. If you could provide some guidance or a to-do list, I'd be thrilled to jump right into the project. Thanks, hope to hear from you! Paul 23:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for responding...I'm still not quite sure how I should start contributing to the project - i.e., are there particular articles I should work on, or are we selecting the articles we will work on, etc...all very exciting, any guidance is much appreciated. Paul 05:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

CAS links

Martin: sorry if I got carried away inserting the CAS links into the chemboxes of the articles that we work on. One of our articles got a "correction" that I interpreted to imply that we should be using this linking format. We are content-oriented, usually steering clear of the format stuff. Say the word, and I will revert them. BTW, you can see that we are about to undertake our final assault on stub-dom plus a few others gems.--Smokefoot 03:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

You're welcome. I'm glad you like it. Thanks fo ryour nice note. Maurreen 04:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It was overdue. The project was in a coma until you came along. Maurreen 06:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

AA, GA, FAC, 1.0

I know you have an interest in better co-ordination between GA, FAC, AA and 1.0. I wondered if you knew about the mechanism used on the Norwegian and the Swedish Wikipedias. They use the FAC page to pick the GAs as well. I've seen comments on FAC before like "this is a good article, but not yet a featured one". What would make a degree of sense is to formally allow FAC discussions to ratify GA status without FA status. Similary, AA could be allowed to award GA status if there is consensus there (although the fact that AA uses different criteria to GA is a bit of a problem). I would also suggest that people ratifying articles for 1.0 could nominate sufficiently high class articles they come across for GA status. Admittedly this is all "feeding in" to GA rather than a more helpful style of multi-level co-operation. Perhaps GA reviewers could be integrated into 1.0 in some way, but you have to remember that GA reviewers rarely tend to be experts in the fields they are reviewing (they are more concerned with e.g. basic reference checking than with fact checking) so it would make more sense to use the GA list as a resource within 1.0 (identifying articles that at least hit certain benchmarks). I don't know whether people at FAC or AA would like to become proxy GA reviewers too, and there is a risk it would invite more low quality candidates to be nominated for FA. Still, these are just a bunch of ideas and I wondered if any would spark with any of your thoughts?TheGrappler 20:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm answering here to keep the thread going. Thanks a lot, I think the a lot of your ideas are excellent, here are my thoughts:

• I really wish we could do the joint GA/FA thing on the English Wikipedia, but I think the anti-GA people would just get upset and we would have 100kB of heated comments that would waste everyone's time and could even jeapordise the GA proposal. I use the word proposal deliberately - I think most people consider it to be de facto policy, but until it is official policy and established like FA/FAC it would be hard to make the change easily. I think your point about encouraging poor FACs is valid too. I think a system is developing for article -> GAC -> GA -> fix things, poss PR -> FAC -> FA, this provides an easier progression than the old poss PR -> FAC -> FA. I think as long as things are working that way, let's leave things as they are at the moment, at least until GA is official policy and people are used to it as such.
• At 1.0 we are definitely aware of this issue - we are likely to approve a change in our assessment tables so as to tag all GAs as GAs. All of our A-Class articles from Core Topics were nominated for GA, and all but two became GAs. Meanwhile all of the A-Class articles from WP:Chem (whose assessment scheme we use at WP1.0) became GAs when the GA idea was new. We regard the A-Class standard now as an automatic candidate for GA. We need to finish listing the A-Class articles here and then we will nominate all of those for GA. At 1.0 we are often trying to assess a dozen articles in an hour, and we are not experts on those article subjects (as with GA reviewers), so our assessments are therefore bound to be rather superficial. Offering these as GACs gives the A-Class articles a similar but independent second review. I think we will begin to see a lot more articles feeding in from WP 1.0 into GAC in the next few months.
• The Work via WikiProjects part of 1.0 has now contacted all of the WikiProjects, and we have probably "discovered" 100 or so A-Class articles from that so far. This allows WikiProject -> WP1.0 A-Class -> GAC -> GA. From my perspective, though, the most exciting development has been the adoption by several groups of a worklist - see the list of these here. I am very happy with this because who better to assess an article on Buffy the Vampire Slayer than a member of WP:Buffy?! Worklists are (I believe) allowing the projects to find their own GACs more easily, and fix up their B-Class articles to make them GACs, so now we can get WikiProject -> GAC -> GA. The inclusion of subject expertise should make these GAs from the WikiProjects much stronger (IMHO) than the "I found this as a random article and liked it" type of GA nomination.
• As for AA, I think we will probably be able to find equivalents, a 9 or a 10 is a definite A-Class, 6-8 is probably B-Class. Once we have those equivalents become more clear, we can then go AA -> GAC -> GA. I notice that some recent 9s from AA are now GAs.
• I don't see any problem with these other things feeding into GA. I think GA was created to serve as a major clearing house for bringing together good articles. GA serves as a benchmark that is now pretty much accepted across Wikipedia.
• I like the idea of there being an independent review of the article at WP:GAN. As I see it, WP1.0, WikiProjects and WP:AA can provide the initial "This looks good" assessment that then generates candidates for GA. Most 1.0 and AA assessments are based on one person's view, so the second look by someone at GAN is useful.
• My initial idea was to produce a common navigation box template that could bring together all of the projects that are concerned with quality assessment and peer review, similar to the WP 1.0 navbox. I propose to make the box appear at the bottom of the page, rather like Template:Phenethylamines and similar templates in articles. I want to be sure it looks good before I upload it, though, because I'm sure some people will complain. I think it's a much more concise way to do a "See also" or "Related projects", and currently there are many relevant projects that are not linked, so people may be unaware of what related work is going on. Walkerma 05:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts! Have you seen {{WikiProjcetGATasks}} by the way? How about putting an extra line in the AA blurb saying "if you find an article that is well-written, stable, accurate, referenced, and contains appropriately tagged images, then you can nominate it for good article status at WP:GAN?" I think you're right about the advantages of an independent review at GA - it also helps keep the GA standards consistent, and serves as a "bonus" peer review, which can be helpful given the slow speed of WP:PR at the moment! TheGrappler 13:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Work via WikiProjects

I've gone through and updated the list of most science WikiProjects, most notably WikiProject Medicine, and I think we've had significant progress. However, WikiProjects are created every day, so we don't know if we've contacted all the active projects. However, Interiot ran a dynamic database query for us, which can help us weed out inactive WikiProjects. What do you think about this one? Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Your timezone is GMT-2?

These small hidden remarks, no idiot would normally notice unless he is obsessed with these things: As far as I know there is no timezone at GMT-2 in the US. As you wrote that you'll be busy in GMT-2, I wondered what that could be. So, it is easily found out you're on Greenland, or in Brazil. Either way nice trips. I wish you a pleasant vacation :-). Wim van Dorst (Talk) 15:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC).

Break

Martin, thanks much for your note. I sent you a couple pieces of e-mail. Maurreen 17:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

SCOTUS

I am sorry to hear you were ill; I am hopeful you are feeling better. I am glad you found the list useful - as I said, if you guys still need more notable cases, I would be happy to append the list I gave you with another 10-20 cases. I would be more than happy to help your team in any way I can with bringing the Supreme Court cases to the level of quality necessary for inclusion into the 1.0 version - please let me know if there is anything I can do to assist you in that regard. RidG Talk 20:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

1.0 process down the road

Thanks very much Martin for putting up those category set options. As you'll see on the 1.0 main talk page, I edited one category label (language-->communication) per the last version mentioned on the core topics talk page. If you disagree, I don't know what the step to revise is. I leave that up to you and AtionSong and whomever. Revert I guess.

I am moving for now to work on some things that I think are very important (which will actually serve the 1.0 project): collaborating in polishing the vital articles list and helping some how to improve some GA & FA articles and article review processes. I love publishing and collaborative publishing projects, so...

For future 1.0 processes, I'll check in from time to time: I remain very interested in 1.0, but not so much .5 and .8. at this time. I am specifically interested in what can be done to encourage expert humanities & scientific reviews of all articles. I am also interested in whatever other quality review processes come online. I will remain interested in adapting categorization sets as 1.0 gest closer. Oh, in time, I'll probably do some reviews of core topics society and social science articles. See you around in GA and perhaps Scientific PR and back here in awhile, --Vir 19:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'll make sure we agree on something and push forward. The revision is fine to me. We need people working to get things good for 1.0 now, so I'm glad you're involved with that, and I'll remind you that Humanities could benefit from your expertise. I think the WP:VA is a great thing to work on and something I think we will be using for WP1.0. Thanks, Walkerma 19:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool :) I wonder if the convoluted prose in my comment and the edit of option C has had any effect in slowing down voting. Sigh, too much attention to detail. Perhaps I should've left it the way it was. Since you are OK with the edit, do you mind tossing in an indented "I'm OK with that" or whatever?

OK, I will look at Humanities sometime between now and August. I want to look at Society and Sociology and Social sciences and other very general "society" articles too -- don't know when I'll get to it. These are mind-bogglingly broad subjects to think about short articles for. I'm growing found of the idea of offering concise summaries of topics in the most general articles -- really having them be portals (even having theme be almost annotated tables of contents to whole fields) -- it would make them much easier to write. One reason: This would make it much easier to defer POV issues to the next level. It would be nice to find some best examples of types of portal articles: comparing those that have some narrative & theory summary with those with very short summaries. Any ideas? --Vir 02:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

1.0 and new FAs

Australia at the Winter Olympics, which you rated as A-class in February, has since become a featured article. Is there some process for new FAs having their status updated in the 1.0 project? Thanks, Andjam 07:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2

Martin: I spend a lot of time inputting content so I was very, very upset to have a serious edit wrecked by tawkerbot 2, accusing me of vandalism. Could you please explain to that group that I dont vandalize? Very upsetting and discouraging.Smokefoot 01:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Martin thank you for your helpful comments. Your considerable attention is helpful not just to me but many like me. I have done some editing off-line as you recommend. The Tawkerbot2 thing just froze my edit and I couldnt even cut and paste back into another application - hence my anger. I also saw how you did the refs in NaSH, and I will adopt that format. With much admiration for one who has dipped his (gloved) hand into S2Cl2,Smokefoot 02:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:WVWP

Sure, no problem. I had already seen your post, and was replying to it before I got distracted by the watchlist bug. Thanks! Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 05:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Quality levels

Hi, Martin, you might be interested in a [discussion] at GA. Maurreen 04:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia 1.0

Hi there! Thanks for your note and advice. I'm emerging from an extended wikibreak of sorts, so I apologise for not having perused the cornucopia of information regarding this long-overdue initiative yet. In any event, I do believe that an outline/tree like such (or similar), perhaps with drill-down menus/arrows (CSS?):

• [macrocategory] [A]
  • [category] [B]
    • [microcategory...] [C]

would be more effective in exhibiting the intended structure and hierarchy. Anyhow, let me know if you've questions. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes: hi there; I'll soon be ramping up again in Wp. Forgive me for not replying to your prior post. I will take a crack at an alternate core topics tree, even though I like the outline Maurreen has proposed (if, for anything, just how it appears); give me a few days.

Also, I'd be willing to assist with moving things along or leading efforts for this topic ... but I cannot guarantee a speedy turnaround. What are the timelines? Moreover, is there a succinct one-pager/primer or the like (besides the infobox on the right!) about the project, or can you provide me with related links? That would be helpful.

Moreover, I've been engaged in some discussion to initiate a 'hydrography' wikiproject (e.g., oceans and seas), but have yet to strike this. In any event, three users (including me) have expressed interest in participating. As such, both this wikiproject and expressed interest might be of benefit to the current topic. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 22:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note; the suggested course of action regarding a gazetteer makes sense, but it will probably have to be expanded somewhat to account for locales and other over-arching topics (e.g., landforms, etc.) I think we can do so through merely adding relevant 'branches' to the topic tree. Anyhow, I shall review, provide more feedback and recommendations shortly.

As well, I don't think it'll be problematic regarding maps. There are numerous Wikipedians who actively create these, including myself: upon requests (of sorts), I recently created detailed (and somewhat consistent) maps for Canada and Norway. Anyhow, please let me know if you've any questions. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)