1762:
5.4 Film 5.5 Journalism 5.6 Television 6 6.1 By nation, people, region or country 6.2 Genres, styles and eras 6.3 Instruments 6.4 Music festivals 6.5 Performers and composers 6.6 Recordings and compositions 7 7.1 Philosophers 7.2 Philosophical thought and movements 8 8.1 Sport and game people 8.2 Computer and video games 8.3 Games 8.4 Festivities 8.5 Sports 8.6 Sports teams 9 9.1 Divinities 9.2 Myths 9.3 Religious disputes 9.4 Religious figures and leaders 9.5 Religious movements, traditions and organizations 9.6 Religous texts 10 10.1 Continents 10.2 Countries 10.3 Geographers and explorers 10.4 Geography 10.5 Parks, conservation areas, and historical sites 10.6 Places 11 11.1 Geology and geophysics 11.2 Mineralogy 12 12.1 Archaeology 12.2 Historians, chroniclers and history books 12.3 Historical figures 12.4 Africa 12.5 Americas 12.6 Asia and
Oceania 12.7 Europe 12.8 World history 13 13.1 Atmospheric scientists 13.2 Climatology 13.3 Meteorology 13.4 Tropical cyclones 14 14.1 Biologists and medical scientists 14.2 Biology 14.3 Evolution and reproduction 14.4 Health and medicine 14.5 Organisms 15 15.1 Chemicals 15.2 Chemists 15.3 Chemistry 15.4 Materials science 16 16.1 Cryptography 16.2 Hardware and infrastructure 16.3 Programming 16.4 Software 16.5 Websites and the Internet 17 17.1 Engineering 17.2 Engineers and inventors 18 18.1 Mathematicians 18.2 Mathematics 19 19.1 Astronomers and physicists 19.2 Astronomy 19.3 Physics 19.4 Planets 20 20.1 Air transport 20.2 Bridges and tunnels 20.3 Maritime transport 20.4 Railroad transport 20.5 Road transport 21 21.1 Military decorations 22 22.1 Business 22.2 Businesspeople 22.3 Economics 23 23.1 Education 23.2 Educational institutions 24 24.1 Crime, criminals and punishment 24.2 Law 24.3 Lawyers, judges and legal academics 25 25.1 Politically significant people 25.2 Politics and government 26 26.1 Psychologists 26.2 Psychology 27 27.1 Heraldry 27.2 Royalty and nobility 28 28.1 Peoples 28.2 Social phenomena, movements and subcultures 28.3 Social scientists 29 29.1 Armies and military units 29.2 Biographies of military people 29.3 Conflicts, battles and military exercises 29.4 Legal issues and treaties 29.5 Military camps, tribunals and facilities 29.6 Military history 29.7 Weapons and military equipment 30 Related articles "
1954:
opinions). From my perspective it's yet another job to be done and another page to be moderated, and I personally can't handle any more committments. A much bigger priority for me is getting us up to 500 articles approved by July 31st, because right now (IMHO) lack of coverage is a much bigger problem than article quality. As for Kirill's point, I go regularly to WP:FA, WP:GA, WP:VA or WP:CORE and try to nominate a few more, I would encourage others to do the same. There are still many important-topic FAs that haven't even been nominated. Cheers,
31:
1220:
we "only" get 2000 or even just 1000. If the system works well, is scalable and is growing, then we have a viable way of producing static versions of
Knowledge. Regarding the more technical aspects of producing the CD, I'll have to let some others comment, those who understand such things! I'm really glad there are some people out there like you who do know how to do this! Thanks a lot,
248:
Arts}} or {{V0.5 LangLit}}, we could have ten categories of 100-300 each, much more manageable. It would be easy to know which template to put on, as one has to place the article in that same category on the page anyway. This system would also give us the chance to look at statistics by broad subject area - so we could see differences in quality, for example. What do others think?
1193:
for expert peer review of every article - indeed with help from the bot we already have several thousand articles that have been assessed by subject experts. I agree that our approach will leave a lot of holes in our coverage for V0.5, I suspect mainly in Arts, Humanities and
Business, and we will need to allow in some weaker articles for the sake of completeness (as with
1910:, but it had several problems with wikification, a few severe problems with wikimarkup (some of which I've fixed already), and several "citation needed" templates sprinkled all over it. I would have failed it on quality, and encouraged a new submission after problems were fixed, but I was "beaten to the punch" in a way. What do we do about these cases?
676:(and sub-articles) need to be under the "Social sciences and society" category, rather than "Everyday life". I suppose the everyday life category could be subsumed within the social sciences and society one but, regardless, education needs to be put on the same hierarchy (for want of a better word) as politics, law, economics etc.
1730:
it in addition to "music", thus making it merely misleading and confusing for anyone who sees the music notes and etc.), I strongly recommend keeping the listing at "Music". Practicality is more important than silly worrying about whether music "deserves" a higher-level placement than film or theatre or dance (and, incidentally,
1833:
This article is listed on the project page under the
History section. The images in the article have incorrect copyright tags, some claim the autor died over 100 years age, some use obsolete PD tags and other claim fair use with out rationale. I have left a message on the article talk page advising
1273:
Only if "politics and government" also goes under history. All wars are historical only insomuch as all politics and movements and such are; there are articles for ongoing wars, still-existing milarities, modern weapons, and universal battle stategies. "History" is terribly generic, making it largely
1219:
said that 5000 articles would probably fit on one CD using the same software as before, so I am taking that to be a target size for
Version 0.5 also - though I don't expect us to reach that. Since this really is a test of a whole new approach to working as well as the technicalities, I don't mind if
746:
Quite honestly, I can't see what the point is. Why have a separate template for the categories if the regular project banners will still need to be on the talk page? They could include the category code themselves quite easily (and could potentially allow for different rating by different projects,
735:
that overlap several projects (in this case WP:Chemicals, WP:Molecular and
Cellular Biology and possibly WP:Drugs). Although it will presumably have to be moved onto the talk page, I thought this idea was interesting and may be useful to people here, especially if we want to ask wikiprojects to use
566:
of the article if at all possible when posting the template on the article talk page? For most of our nominations this is going to mean adding {{V0.5|class=FA}} for FAs or {{V0.5|class=GA for GAs, in place of just {{V0.5}}. I think this will allow the bot to generate more useful statistics for us.
1939:
There are some I would have passed that others failed - and vice versa - this is to be expected with a single review system. I suggest we leave things as they are for now, and once nominations have closed (less than two months now!) we can discuss any anomalous choices. If an article is classed by
1729:
category, encompassing dance, theatre, television, radio, film, music, and numerous other disciplines; its current implementation seems to be both hasty and inconsistent. Until you've decided what, exactly, goes under it (it was implemented without even bothering to add theatre, or anything else, to
1455:
What do you mean? Aren't there too many? If a section's too long, it could be hard to navigate. (If we're considering reorganizing the "biographies" section, though, I could, on the other hand, see an argument made for moving all the people to non-people-specific sections, e.g., all the philosophers
1192:
are just starting to contact the WikiProjects one by one, soliciting nominations. I think that way we will dig up a lot of articles that we might otherwise miss, while also giving ownership of this project to the whole of the community (important IMHO!). In the long term this will be very valuable
1091:
First we create a
Version 0.5, where we will see our fault, the complicated parts of the projects. Then we switch to Version 1.0. In these two stages, an article will be reviewed at least 3 times. And then, we can end up with the CD. Briefly, we work like that. :) Welcome in the team, and good work.
113:
I think it depends a lot on how big V0.5 gets, which is hard to tell at the moment. If it's 1000 articles, then many will be broad in order to be comprehensive. If it's 5000 articles, we will have room for a lot of specific articles, and I hope we manage to do that. But the specific articles will
1761:
1 1.1 Architecture 1.2 Art 1.3 Artists 1.4 Museums and galleries 2 2.1 Food 2.2 Drink 3 3.1 Alphabets and transliteration 3.2 Languages 3.3 Linguistics 4 4.1 Literature 4.2 Writers and critics 5 5.1 Actors, models and celebrities 5.2 Cinema 5.3 Fictional characters
1327:
Another thing (mentioned by
Silence), I find it very hard to categorise some articles on historical political figures. To judge from nomination positions, others are confused too. Should FD Roosevelt go under History or Politics? What about William of Orange, or Justinian the Great? Is Napoleon
1112:
I see the job as too big to be done via hand selection. I am also more interested in coverage than quality - I figure the quality will just get better. So, I want automated methods, both for selecting good coverage, and (less important at the moment) version selection. I also would like to target a
770:
Every rule has an exeption and the "self-reference" one should have its own - categorization of an article is clasified as "self-reference" but almost every article uses it, several times. And just because some people don't want to break it they have to add the talk pages to the categories, now how
427:
Yes, thanks for helping out. We should be able to display on the page the statistics table (shown below) generated by the bot each morning, but I couldn't manage to do that without messing up the formatting. I added some links instead (I can manage those!). For now when we have small numbers the
348:
I was very pleased to see that we now have a logo for the project! Thanks to Essjay for getting that done! I like the artistic element - the single jigsaw piece symbolising the idea of V0.5 being just a small piece of
Knowledge, and the start of something bigger. Or maybe I got it wrong, art was
247:
When we were setting this project up, I was thinking that we would have one template for each of the ten "top level" categories of WP:V0.5, instead of one ({{V0.5}}) like we have now. The thinking was that if we got 2000 articles, it would be a huge category, but if we put templates up like {{V0.5
688:
I nominated
Education and placed it in everyday life, and I don't mind this change at all. We've discussed this before, and felt that education was difficult to place, but I think perhaps you're right - I'll move it. This point is not so minor - once we have 100 education articles we want them in
1511:
on the ten-category system, and it is (therefore) the default throughout the Knowledge 1.0 project. It is the system we use on the nominations page, and also for the categories generated by the template. On a more practical level, I also find it hard to find things in the new page. I think the
1059:
There are no on-line costs using a CD disk in the cd drive. The wiki cd is potientally useful and free for many people who have a computer but who do not have an internet connection or who have got a slow pay-as-you-go internet connection. The wiki licience permits the cd disk to be copied and
617:
I would suggest that (if people don't object) we stop the manual count at on June 1st, that will allow us to check that the bot is working OK. By then the day's lag will be a less significant proportion. Now that it's including GAs and unassessed (thanks Kirill), I suspect that the bot is more
378:
Well, we do need all three. The last one is the category within 0.5, the second one is the assessment category, and the first one is the fail-safe backup category, in case someone makes a typo and the other two are not initialized properly. It also serves as a real-time list of articles with the
123:
OK; but is the aim to be comprehensive? I'd have thought that the selection might purposefully include a fairly equal number of broad- and narrow-scope articles, if the aim is to promote WP as a high-class source of information. After all, many of the most hit-on sites are on relatively specific
1033:
Most of the people on Earth doesn't use internet. Knowledge (in my opinion) is not just an online encyclopedia, but an encyclopedia. We have to reach people, we need a version that everybody can read, and they will see, we are much better than other encyclopedias. That's why we work on it now.
1545:
organization method is vastly superior to the "half-and-half" method we had before I redid the listings. I have no strong opinion as to whether we should use "overcategories" or just leave everything at the same order of hierarchy in a simple alphabetized list, but going halfway just leads to
1953:
Regarding a disputes page, I think we should have one, though we haven't had a lot of need for it (thankfully). We will definitely need one for Version 1.0. If someone would like to create one and to monitor it, that would be great (and also to set up a page for Chuck's idea on getting two
1790:
There are over 1.2 million articles on Knowledge, so it shouldn't be too tough to find a few to pick out and turn into good/featured articles...yet I can't quite find "just the right one." Any suggestions? I'm especially looking for things with lots of published resources that have a
1940:
a WikiProject as A-Class it should usually be fine (though it was assessed as A about a year ago, I think). Being "alcohol" this article probably attracts a lot of vandalism, but that also makes it high on importance. As an organic chemist myself I'll try and fix it. But yes, it
1336:
it's harder to decide. One more radical solution is to consider double counting - e.g., put Roosevelt under BOTH History and Politics. The bot shouldn't double count them I don't think, so I don't think it's a problem, though I'm not sure if the template could handle 2 cats at
798:
Not to mention the purely practical reasons. Screen real estate on the talk pages is much cheaper, so the tags (and associated categories) can be made as complex as needed without major complaint. This definitely wouldn't be the case if they were on the article itself.
1800:
The front page states "There is also an alternative listing and statistics table updated automatically from the talk page templates by Mathbot at around 3:30am every morning.". 3:30 am what? If whoever wrote it could give a time zone it would clarify for the rest of
74:
Both schools are internationally known, both schools have some of the largest enrollments in the world, both are featured articles, both have encyclopedia like writing yet the University of Michigan article is selected for .5 and MSU is not? Want to explain that??
1925:
Consider it an inevitable part of having a test release and ignore it for the time being? Relatively minor problems shouldn't really be an issue; if we could afford to reject articles based on them, we could have just restricted the field of candidates to FAs.
1512:"imbalance" is not really much of an issue in practice because the no. of articles is not unbalanced in the same way, and as I mentioned we can probably put films and TV under Arts rather than Socsci. Do people mind if I revert the categories back?
771:
does that make sence? I, as an editor, preffer the "article" way - i have faster access to the categories and articles becasue i don't have to go through the talk pages each time, the readers wouldn't mind it either becasue its out of their way. --
349:
never my forte! Once concern I have, though, is that now we have a template that is three times the size it was before. Do you think we could get an icon that is smaller, yet still has a readable 0.5? I'm not good at such things myself. Thanks,
1278:), put it under "astronomy"; if something could go under either "war" or "history", put it under "war"; etc. Also, war is very much a social/societal activity, and has a strong relationship to politics/government (to the extent that our article on
1023:. I think that Knowledge need to be better organized. Maybe it is possible to create organizations within Knowledge with a hierarchy, appointed tasks and deadlines, so editing will be teamwork instead of a chaotic free walhalla for editors.--
987:
on WP at the time when the info form the article was taken for the "mirror". As you can see the "chemistry stub" info is not displayed on the "mirror" at all, now if the mirror does not display that template then it will probobly not display
1274:
useless for actually finding a specific article; it should therefore be avoided as much as possible, whenever there's another section it could conceivably go under: if something could go under either "physics" or "history" (like Einstein's
1206:
I hope that work on the SOS CD will continue in parallel with this, and we can share article lists as we proceed. I hope we will be releasing two CDs this autumn, one (V0.5) for adults, and for older children an expanded version of
1235:
As a result of the overly-large "social sciences and society" section, relative to the other over-sections, the current list looks poorly-organized and unbalanced. Could I, perhaps, take a shot at a stylistic restructuring?
704:
Just in case I go quiet for the rest of the week, I wanted to let people know that I will be heading out of town from Tuesday till Friday night, for a conference. In fact it will include a meetup with another WP1.0 person,
428:
article count method is probably better, but in a few days I propose we sit back and let the bot count the articles for us! This assumes that Tito (or someone else smarter than me) can find a way to add in the table neatly.
1410:
historical aspect to it, I'd recommend that whenever an article would go equally well under "history" and under another category, we should put it under the other category. Ideally, the "history" section would actually be
1313:
we list these under arts (largely because that is how the WikiProjects classify themselves), I think that's a better place. We may want to include something for journalism and the like under Socsci, but something like
863:
any larger than it currently is (and it would need to be larger if we wanted to use it to replace WikiProject banners), you'd hear loud howls of protest as soon as you put it on any article that was at all prominent.
1844:
1078:
I'm new to this project, so please forgive my ignorance. Is there a timeline for the stages of the project? Will there be an opportunity for final perusal and judgement of the candidate articles for the trial CD?
1121:
etc. I want to be able to tweak parameters, then press a button and get a new CD (from my downloaded XML dump of en and a picture collection, and possibly via a live mediawiki snapshot of that content).
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
89:
Dear fellow editors: I note that almost all of the articles cover very broad areas, and that WP's ability to produce high-quality articles on specific subjects is not highlighted in the selection.
907:
or another one doesn't matter, that adds categorization and editorial functionality (or whatever you wanna call them), and doesn't take much screen space so it doesn't bother the readers. --
768:. One simple template could add the article to the appropriate class categories of the projects and mention those (at the very bottom) projects as well, with not too much screen space taken.
948:
categorization and editorial functionality has begun to be added to the project banners; their original (and still their primary) purpose is to advertise the WikiProjects in question!
1374:
1019:
I think it is better to make a good quality of Knowledge in general. Knowledge is always online, so why is this version needed? I have discussed about it with a friend of mine
592:
ahead of the manual one now; is it really worth it trying to maintain two separate counts, or can we just say that a day's lag is acceptable and stick with the automatic one?
1507:
784:
doesn't particularily care about the rating of the article or any other intra-Knowledge information. By putting meta-data on the talk page, we do a favor to our mirrors.
1212:
563:
1485:
Having tried the new layout for this page, I think I prefer the original layout for the sections. We had about 100 kB (many hours of typing!) of discussion
199:
I see. Is there any way to view all accepted 0.5 articles in a list without click 50 'show's? Couldn't we make a subpage for that, if there isn't already?
1378:
518:, so if there's a mismatch, it could mean either that (a) the articles were recently added and haven't been counted yet or (b) the articles don't use
409:
I will just I don't want to increase the number in every saving. When I finish for today, I will count all of them. Good to see you in the team. :)
1843:
Thank you! We will be reviewing copyright when we go to press, but it's helpful to know of these problems in advance! I've added a comment to
1406:- In general, because "history" is such a broad (and therefore unhelpful) categorization, and because just about every article on Knowledge has
1346:
One thing - all V0.5 articles are currently tagged with their category (we're not using that yet, but we will as the project gets bigger). If
1765:
I don't know how that happened. But the format is confusing to me. So, if someone else knew how, it could be practical to fix that. Thanks.
368:
Surely we only need the middle one of these categories? I'm not sure how to fix that sort of thing, can someone please do that? Thanks,
649:. This will life much easier later on, as it tells us (for example) lots of statistics like how many science articles we have in V0.5.
1158:
templates (particularly {{main|History of Country}} and the like) do not make it through dumpHTML.php. Maybe I have to hack the php.
358:
I'm going to make the icon a little smaller in the template anyway. However I have another serious issue to raise. I looked at
1596:
Can you explain what you mean by "half-and-half"? Are you referring to alphabetising things? We copied most of the setup from
1907:
1623:
Also, I'd like to suggest that the "Music" section be changed to "Performing Arts", but it's not clear to me how to change it.
1208:
1944:
a test release and it will have flaws in it, and I think BozMo's script takes out unused wikilinks and CitationNeededs anyway.
542:
1373:
You may or not be aware of how we chose the ten categories - they were discussed at great length (several archives full!) at
1328:
military, political or history? If Silence could suggest some clearcut guidelines, I'd be grateful. I think something like
99:
True, although a few articles may be included, depending on their quality, and others may be pushed back to other versions.
1282:
currently has "war" as a subsection of "politics and government"); so it just goes very well under the "Society" heading. -
1873:
Now fixed. The class=B was right, but for the category you must use one of the ten "tree top" categories we voted on, see
1725:
a "performing arts" section: there's no way of knowing what it would have put under it if it did. "Performing arts" is an
1554:
the layout to be tailored to them, since they, unlike older users, won't be accustomed to however the page is laid out. -
114:
make it into both later versions and any more specialised selections that we may produce, like the proposed gazetteer.
1753:
As far as what is confusing, please see the section under "Art and Architecture", which lists all of the following:
1150:
redlink removal by un-anchoring HTML with class=new (red links) - but not Categories (that always seem to appear red)
221:
1188:
I think the approach here could be explained as relying on hand selection by the whole Knowledge community. We at
1113:
size - 128Meg, 512Meg, 600Meg, 1Gig, 4Gig. I am also interested in post-processing - stripping redlinks, including
47:
38:
17:
1309:
I was meaning to bring this up before - I'd like to see television and films moved from Socsci into Arts. In the
1049:
Most of the people that doesn't have internet, doesn't have a computer either. So, where should they put the cd?--
764:
to mention the projects that work on the article. I was told that this was a form of self-reference, so i had to
462:
137:. This is just a test release, to see how things would work out, and that's why it is a bit narrow in scope.
205:
169:
134:
1734:!, at least for film and dance); our categorization is a matter of usefulness, not objective importance. -
399:
I added an article count to the V0.5 list. Could the reviewers increase the count while adding articles?
618:
correct and is catching the fact that some of us may have forgotten to update the manual article count.
494:
I've dropped it in there more-or-less cleanly, but I'm not sure if I've chosen the best place for it.
992:
901:
857:
761:
728:
1927:
1914:
1877:
1577:
I don't mind, this format is ok but I do agree with Walkerma that it's hard to find things. Thanks
1358:
1173:
949:
897:
Uh-huh, which is exactly my point - we (all the projects) need a small simple template, whether is
865:
800:
788:
748:
680:
643:
593:
546:
529:
522:
495:
383:
317:
310:
299:
276:
261:
227:
189:
185:
We haven't figured out a way it can be done without breaking everything... it's a MediaWiki issue.
141:
103:
1578:
1460:
be consistent with what we've already done for the major religious figures, like Jesus. *shrug*) -
1262:
1381:. I'd like to keep the ten categories, but I'd love to see you reorganise things within the ten.
210:
174:
639:
I also should mention, when adding the class, please also add the category too, as described at
1600:, and we tried to match the GA listings as best we could to the ten WP:1.0 categories. Thanks,
1958:
1930:
1919:
1887:
1867:
1851:
1838:
1819:
1805:
1795:
1779:
1769:
1750:
It looks like you and I operate from different approaches. I recommend agreeing to disagree.
1738:
1702:
1678:
1656:
1643:
1627:
1604:
1583:
1581:
1558:
1516:
1464:
1438:
1423:
1394:
1315:
1301:
1286:
1267:
1265:
1255:
1240:
1224:
1182:
1101:
1085:
1064:
1061:
1053:
1043:
1027:
1002:
952:
911:
868:
828:
803:
793:
775:
751:
740:
713:
693:
682:
653:
596:
571:
549:
532:
508:
498:
488:
418:
403:
388:
372:
353:
331:
322:
304:
290:
281:
252:
232:
215:
194:
179:
146:
128:
118:
108:
93:
79:
1620:
The Art & Architecture outline now apparently includes the complete outline for the page.
1903:
1639:
1297:
1251:
1097:
1039:
414:
365:
Knowledge:Version 0.5 | FA-Class Version 0.5 articles | Uncategorized Version 0.5 articles
853:
The space the template takes up on the screen, in other words. I suspect that if you made
781:
504:
I think you counted VERY wrong - I got 39 articles. Are you sure you didn't miss anything?
1792:
286:
That sounds like an even better option! Can you make the requisite change, Tito? Thanks!
1354:
etc. needs to be changed to make it correspond. The categories are all listed nicely at
1135:
Trim the full dump to the above article list (natively performed by mwdumper --exactlist)
476:
1835:
1698:
I don't see why Music should have a higher-level category than Film, Theater or Dance.
1351:
1310:
1189:
1169:
998:
either, would it? So what's all this "wiki" noise about? Or am i missing something? --
724:
677:
1791:
short/nonexistent WP article. Please leave some suggestions on my talk page...thanks!
1546:
inconsistency and makes the list a heck of a lot harder to navigate for users who are
1261:
Nice work, but one question, should war and military go under history instead? Thanks
1955:
1884:
1864:
1848:
1826:
1816:
1776:
1766:
1699:
1674:
is both mass media and performing arts, so under the new scheme, where would it go? -
1653:
1624:
1601:
1513:
1435:
1391:
1221:
1050:
1024:
1020:
737:
732:
710:
690:
650:
568:
485:
369:
350:
328:
287:
249:
200:
164:
115:
76:
1735:
1675:
1597:
1555:
1542:
1461:
1420:
1333:
1329:
1283:
1237:
999:
908:
825:
772:
515:
1898:
What happened with the disputes page that was going to be created? Someone passed
1911:
1635:
1293:
1247:
1147:
perl script removes categories with less than four included items from HTML dump
1093:
1035:
785:
505:
410:
400:
380:
314:
296:
273:
224:
186:
138:
100:
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
1857:
1802:
1434:
Food for thought: It could be good to put all the biographies in one section.
1216:
1082:
359:
125:
90:
1883:
for a list of them and their abbreviations. Thanks for helping with reviews,
979:
The mirrors don't display that info anyway, at least "answers.com" doesn't -
1347:
1246:
I won't block your way. :) Just do as you wish, and we will see at the end.
673:
1132:
Download list of articles from category (currently using the WPCD template)
1125:
This is what I have tried, mostly with available tools, and a bit of perl.
1141:
import (full) category dump to mysql (sql dump downloaded from wikipedia)
1899:
709:. I expect to check in here each day, but my contact may be sporadic.
706:
1721:
GA's opinion doesn't matter one bit in this issue, because GA doesn't
780:
The problem comes when our mirrors reuse our content. Someone reading
1404:"If Silence could suggest some clearcut guidelines, I'd be grateful."
1198:
1194:
980:
1834:
that this issue exists, it needs to be addressed or lose GA status.
944:
Which completely misses the point ;-) It's only very recently that
824:"Screen real estate"? Please explain what you are talking about. --
1279:
760:
Why have project banners at all? What's their real purpose? I had
1863:
I passed Publishing, but I'm not sure I did the template right.
1671:
1541:
If you find it difficult to navigate the new organization, the
1812:
1695:
I could go either way with Film, but GA puts it in Mass Media.
1415:, though in practice that's probably impossible because there
1144:
Use mediawiki/maintenance/dumpHTML.php to convert this to HTML
25:
1292:
Great! Detailed list. It'll be easy to work with it. Thanks.
1550:
to the listing—and those users are the ones who will most
1350:
etc. gets moved from Socsci to Arts, then the template at
672:
Relatively minor point here, but I definitely think that
70:
University of Michigan but not Michigan State University?
1815:, also often seen in signatures on Knowledge. Thanks,
1165:
Could this be done by tweaking the CSS from dumpHTML ?
1161:
Remove all the dross at the end, like inter-wiki links.
984:
765:
747:
although it's not clear how we would deal with that).
541:
Ok, figured it out: nobody bothered to actually create
362:
after uploading the icon, and at the bottom it lists:
258:
Or just add a parameter to the existing template (e.g.
1456:
to "Philosophy". I'm not sure it's necessary, but it
436:
1390:Overall, I'd say go ahead, this revamp is needed.
1419:some pages that don't fit neatly anywhere else. -
1213:Knowledge:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Test Version
731:, which is designed to deal with articles like
163:Is there any way to make a button to show all?
727:has been experimenting with a template called
8:
588:Well, it looks like the automatic count is
1902:, which admittedly had been assessed as {{
1092:We need contributors, so ask any time. :)
545:, which contains our missing articles ;-)
433:
543:Category:Unassessed Version 0.5 articles
1505:, before we agreed (by unanimous vote)
85:Candidate articles very broad in scope
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
1634:I changed music to Performing Arts.
562:Could I ask reviewers to include the
7:
133:Yes, that is indeed the purpose for
327:Thank you Tito, that's fantastic!
1670:Performing arts" is a smart move.
1669:I'm unconvinced that "Music -: -->
1117:references on core articles, like
1108:Software for CD version (0.5, 1.0)
24:
782:Hurricane Katrina on answers.com
272:) to accomplish the same thing.
29:
1377:before we put things to a vote
1775:Tito, thanks for fixing that.
1154:Problems I have come across:-
514:It's automatically updated by
309:Instructions now available at
243:Category templates within V0.5
222:Category:Knowledge:Version 0.5
1:
1811:I added a mention that it is
437:Version 0.5 pages by quality
1332:belongs under "War" but for
1311:Work via Wikiprojects group
1977:
18:Knowledge talk:Version 0.5
1888:16:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
1868:15:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
1852:02:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1839:15:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
1820:02:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1806:01:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
1796:17:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
1780:11:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
1770:16:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
1739:03:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
1703:03:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
1679:02:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
1657:02:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
1644:18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
1628:13:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
1605:07:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
1584:04:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
1559:05:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
1517:04:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
1465:03:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
1439:02:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
1424:01:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
1395:03:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
1302:19:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
1287:20:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
1268:19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
1256:19:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
1241:17:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
1225:17:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1183:14:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
1129:Download recent XML dump.
1102:09:28, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
1086:09:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
1065:11:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
1054:10:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
1044:09:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
1028:07:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
1003:20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
953:01:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
912:01:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
869:20:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
829:20:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
804:18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
794:18:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
776:17:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
441:
1959:04:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
1931:03:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
1920:03:29, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
1318:belongs under Arts IMHO.
752:10:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
741:07:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
714:04:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
694:01:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
689:the right place! Thanks
683:11:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
654:05:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
597:05:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
572:03:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
550:15:24, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
533:15:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
509:15:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
499:06:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
489:05:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
419:19:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
404:19:40, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
389:06:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
373:09:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
354:07:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
344:V0.5 template & icon
332:00:44, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
323:00:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
305:06:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
291:15:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
282:07:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
253:06:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
233:04:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
216:04:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
195:03:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
180:03:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
147:05:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
129:05:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
124:topics. Just a thought.
119:04:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
109:03:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
94:02:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
80:15:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
1119:History of South Africa
1908:WikiProject Chemistry
1615:Organization problems
42:of past discussions.
1138:Import this to mysql
762:Template:Maintenance
729:Template:Maintenance
1231:Unbalanced sections
1215:. Regarding size,
983:on answers.com and
1829:copyright problems
1168:Any other ideas ?
1075:Hi fellow editors
1316:Casablanca (film)
1015:Why this version?
736:these templates.
483:
482:
67:
66:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
1968:
1917:
1882:
1876:
1413:completely empty
1375:core topics talk
1363:
1357:
997:
991:
906:
900:
862:
856:
791:
719:Generic template
648:
642:
527:
521:
434:
386:
320:
302:
279:
230:
208:
192:
172:
144:
106:
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
1976:
1975:
1971:
1970:
1969:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1915:
1896:
1880:
1874:
1861:
1831:
1788:
1727:extremely broad
1642:
1617:
1361:
1355:
1300:
1276:annus mirabilis
1254:
1233:
1180:
1179:
1110:
1100:
1073:
1042:
1017:
995:
989:
904:
898:
860:
854:
789:
721:
702:
670:
646:
640:
525:
519:
417:
397:
384:
366:
346:
318:
300:
277:
245:
228:
206:
190:
170:
161:
142:
104:
87:
72:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1974:
1972:
1964:
1963:
1962:
1961:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1934:
1933:
1928:Kirill Lokshin
1895:
1892:
1891:
1890:
1860:
1855:
1830:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1787:
1784:
1783:
1782:
1759:
1758:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1712:
1711:
1710:
1709:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1705:
1696:
1686:
1685:
1684:
1683:
1682:
1681:
1662:
1661:
1660:
1659:
1647:
1646:
1638:
1631:
1630:
1621:
1616:
1613:
1612:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1589:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1572:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1520:
1519:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1427:
1426:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1385:
1384:
1383:
1382:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1352:Talk:Star Wars
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1322:
1321:
1320:
1319:
1296:
1290:
1289:
1259:
1258:
1250:
1232:
1229:
1228:
1227:
1211:as planned at
1203:
1202:
1175:
1174:
1163:
1162:
1159:
1152:
1151:
1148:
1145:
1142:
1139:
1136:
1133:
1130:
1109:
1106:
1105:
1104:
1096:
1072:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1047:
1046:
1038:
1021:User: Radiant!
1016:
1013:
1012:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
1005:
970:
969:
968:
967:
966:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
960:
959:
958:
957:
956:
955:
950:Kirill Lokshin
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
882:
881:
880:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
873:
872:
871:
866:Kirill Lokshin
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
801:Kirill Lokshin
769:
755:
754:
749:Kirill Lokshin
720:
717:
701:
698:
697:
696:
669:
666:
665:
664:
663:
662:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
619:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
594:Kirill Lokshin
579:
578:
577:
576:
575:
574:
555:
554:
553:
552:
547:Kirill Lokshin
536:
535:
530:Kirill Lokshin
502:
501:
496:Kirill Lokshin
481:
480:
473:
467:
466:
459:
453:
452:
446:
445:
439:
438:
432:
431:
430:
429:
422:
421:
413:
396:
393:
392:
391:
364:
345:
342:
341:
340:
339:
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
293:
271:
244:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
236:
235:
160:
157:
156:
155:
154:
153:
152:
151:
150:
149:
86:
83:
71:
68:
65:
64:
52:
51:
34:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1973:
1960:
1957:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1943:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1932:
1929:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1918:
1913:
1909:
1905:
1901:
1894:Disputes page
1893:
1889:
1886:
1879:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1866:
1859:
1856:
1854:
1853:
1850:
1846:
1841:
1840:
1837:
1828:
1827:The Holocaust
1825:
1821:
1818:
1814:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1804:
1798:
1797:
1794:
1785:
1781:
1778:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1771:
1768:
1763:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1751:
1740:
1737:
1733:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1714:
1713:
1704:
1701:
1697:
1694:
1693:
1692:
1691:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1687:
1680:
1677:
1673:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1658:
1655:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1645:
1641:
1637:
1633:
1632:
1629:
1626:
1622:
1619:
1618:
1614:
1606:
1603:
1599:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1585:
1582:
1580:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1560:
1557:
1553:
1549:
1544:
1540:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1518:
1515:
1510:
1509:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1466:
1463:
1459:
1454:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1440:
1437:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1425:
1422:
1418:
1414:
1409:
1405:
1402:
1401:
1396:
1393:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1380:
1376:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1360:
1353:
1349:
1345:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1335:
1331:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1317:
1312:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1288:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1272:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1266:
1264:
1257:
1253:
1249:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1239:
1230:
1226:
1223:
1218:
1214:
1210:
1205:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1191:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1181:
1178:
1171:
1166:
1160:
1157:
1156:
1155:
1149:
1146:
1143:
1140:
1137:
1134:
1131:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1123:
1120:
1116:
1107:
1103:
1099:
1095:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1070:
1066:
1063:
1058:
1057:
1056:
1055:
1052:
1045:
1041:
1037:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1026:
1022:
1014:
1004:
1001:
994:
986:
982:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
973:
972:
971:
954:
951:
947:
943:
942:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
935:
934:
933:
932:
931:
930:
929:
928:
913:
910:
903:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
870:
867:
859:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
830:
827:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
805:
802:
797:
796:
795:
792:
787:
783:
779:
778:
777:
774:
767:
763:
759:
758:
757:
756:
753:
750:
745:
744:
743:
742:
739:
734:
733:glutamic acid
730:
726:
718:
716:
715:
712:
708:
699:
695:
692:
687:
686:
685:
684:
681:
679:
675:
667:
655:
652:
645:
638:
637:
636:
635:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
616:
615:
614:
613:
612:
611:
610:
609:
608:
607:
598:
595:
591:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
573:
570:
565:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
551:
548:
544:
540:
539:
538:
537:
534:
531:
524:
517:
513:
512:
511:
510:
507:
500:
497:
493:
492:
491:
490:
487:
479:
478:
474:
472:
469:
468:
465:
464:
460:
458:
455:
454:
451:
448:
447:
444:
440:
435:
426:
425:
424:
423:
420:
416:
412:
408:
407:
406:
405:
402:
395:Article Count
394:
390:
387:
382:
377:
376:
375:
374:
371:
363:
361:
356:
355:
352:
343:
333:
330:
326:
325:
324:
321:
316:
312:
311:Template:V0.5
308:
307:
306:
303:
298:
294:
292:
289:
285:
284:
283:
280:
275:
269:
268:
267:category=arts
263:
259:
257:
256:
255:
254:
251:
242:
234:
231:
226:
223:
219:
218:
217:
214:
213:
209:
204:
203:
198:
197:
196:
193:
188:
184:
183:
182:
181:
178:
177:
173:
168:
167:
158:
148:
145:
140:
136:
132:
131:
130:
127:
122:
121:
120:
117:
112:
111:
110:
107:
102:
98:
97:
96:
95:
92:
84:
82:
81:
78:
69:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
1941:
1897:
1862:
1842:
1832:
1799:
1789:
1764:
1760:
1752:
1749:
1731:
1726:
1722:
1551:
1547:
1506:
1457:
1416:
1412:
1407:
1403:
1334:Adolf Hitler
1330:World War II
1291:
1275:
1260:
1234:
1176:
1167:
1164:
1153:
1124:
1118:
1115:main article
1114:
1111:
1081:
1077:
1074:
1048:
1018:
945:
722:
703:
671:
589:
503:
484:
475:
470:
461:
456:
449:
442:
398:
367:
357:
347:
266:
265:
246:
211:
201:
175:
165:
162:
88:
73:
60:
43:
37:
1847:. Thanks,
1801:wikipedia--
1786:Suggestions
993:Maintenance
985:SKF 2082958
981:SKF 2082958
902:Maintenance
858:Maintenance
135:Version 1.0
36:This is an
1858:Publishing
1757:"Contents
1217:User:BozMo
1209:the SOS CD
564:assessment
528:properly.
379:template.
360:Talk:India
264:|class=FA|
1845:our table
1836:Gnangarra
1348:Star Wars
1071:timeline?
1060:shared.
766:remove it
723:Boris at
678:Cormaggio
674:Education
668:Education
61:Archive 1
1956:Walkerma
1885:Walkerma
1865:Maurreen
1849:Walkerma
1817:Walkerma
1777:Maurreen
1767:Maurreen
1700:Maurreen
1654:Maurreen
1652:Thanks.
1625:Maurreen
1602:Walkerma
1514:Walkerma
1436:Maurreen
1392:Walkerma
1222:Walkerma
1201:, etc.).
1051:Daanschr
1025:Daanschr
738:Walkerma
711:Walkerma
691:Walkerma
651:Walkerma
569:Walkerma
567:Thanks!
486:Walkerma
457:Assessed
370:Walkerma
351:Walkerma
329:Walkerma
288:Walkerma
250:Walkerma
220:There's
159:Show all
116:Walkerma
77:AStudent
1904:A-Class
1900:Ethanol
1736:Silence
1732:it does
1676:Silence
1579:Jaranda
1556:Silence
1462:Silence
1421:Silence
1284:Silence
1263:Jaranda
1238:Silence
1190:WP:WVWP
1062:Snowman
725:WP:Chem
707:User:Sj
516:Mathbot
443:Quality
39:archive
1906:}} by
1636:NCurse
1294:NCurse
1280:humans
1248:NCurse
1199:proton
1195:Saturn
1094:NCurse
1036:NCurse
506:Eyu100
411:NCurse
401:Eyu100
295:Done.
1803:Tmchk
1598:WP:GA
1543:WP:GA
1458:would
1337:once!
1170:Wizzy
1000:Boris
909:Boris
826:Boris
773:Boris
471:Total
450:Total
16:<
1912:Tito
1878:V0.5
1793:Paul
1723:have
1672:Film
1640:work
1552:need
1508:here
1503:here
1501:and
1499:here
1495:here
1491:here
1487:here
1408:some
1379:here
1359:V0.5
1298:work
1252:work
1098:work
1083:Tony
1040:work
786:Tito
700:Away
644:V0.5
523:V0.5
415:work
381:Tito
315:Tito
297:Tito
274:Tito
262:v0.5
225:Tito
187:Tito
139:Tito
126:Tony
101:Tito
91:Tony
1813:UTC
1548:new
1417:are
946:any
590:way
1942:is
1916:xd
1881:}}
1875:{{
1497:,
1493:,
1489:,
1362:}}
1356:{{
1197:,
996:}}
990:{{
905:}}
899:{{
861:}}
855:{{
790:xd
647:}}
641:{{
526:}}
520:{{
385:xd
319:xd
313:.
301:xd
278:xd
270:}}
260:{{
229:xd
212:ck
202:Ch
191:xd
176:ck
166:Ch
143:xd
105:xd
1364:.
1236:-
1177:☎
1172:…
477:0
463:0
207:u
171:u
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.